Wikipedia

User talk:Liz/Archive 15

< User talk:Liz
Latest comment: 8 years ago by DHeyward in topic Happy Holidays, Liz
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Your comment on Gamaliel's page

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't want to comment there since I have already posted there a lot and I sensed that Gamaliel is becoming annoyed with me. If you want me to stop here please let me know and I will do so.

Regarding your comment here, that was of course addressed to Johnuniq who made a different point than me. But my whole argument from the very beginning was that it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with Corbett about the wisdom of using the word. However, to claim that Corbett used it against LB is inaccurate and deserves to be corrected. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. It's a matter of perception. If I said, "if you don't want to be a dick, Kingsindian, then don't act like one" would you feel insulted? Because you should because I'm implying that sometimes you do act like a dick. Technically, I didn't say, "You, Kingsindian, are a dick". But it's the same thing. And folks can talk talk talk and they won't agree on this one. And when you are dealing with the nuances of language and inflection, "accuracy" can depend on your position in the conversation. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course I would feel insulted by your hypothetical statement, that is not the point. The comparison is wrong. Corbett was not talking at all about LB, nor did he imply in any way that LB was acting like a d--- or c---. Corbett barely even knew LB, why on Earth would he make such a statement? There is no hint at all of any hostility between Corbett and LB before in the conversation. And if Corbett wanted to insult a random woman, he would definitely have used a different word, because c--- is not used that way in the UK, or at least not by Corbett.
To your larger point: I do not think I am splitting hairs. To see this, suppose Corbett had used "a--h---" instead of "c---". Or suppose the target was Wales (as he frequently is elsewhere and probably was in this comment). I doubt that the Atlantic would write an article saying: "people on Wikipedia call each others a--h---s", or "one man called another man a c---". The claim is notable only because people claim that LB was the target of a gendered insult.
As I stated on the Signpost comments page, lies (which is what I consider the Atlantic article's first section, based wholly on LB's account, taken uncritically) should be fought, precisely because the issue is important. Discrediting stories based on lies risks discrediting the cause itself. There are plenty of real cases of sexualized abuse, as GW demonstrated, without people making stuff up. Though, as I said, my main motivation probably comes from here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate!

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

it was a mistake

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I made a lil mistake on WP: An/I sorry. my computer had a lil mess. Eh eh eh oh oh (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Time will tell whether it was a lil mistake or not. Please improve your use of your computer. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Liz. Should Wikipedia:General sanctions be updated following the enacted Motion: Overlap of Sanctions on 30 October? Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll ask on the clerks email list. Liz Read! Talk! 14:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #182

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Your aggressiv Deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Why you not contact me before kicking my work out? What kind of personality is this? You must be gentle to people who working and fighting for an article. No respect, We are all wiki`s, so do not playing this way. It is a serious thing what I`m doing. You must check the conversationsof the past before you doing bad decisions. Wikipedia destroyed the page from Stuart Styron after 18 Months and all links are broken and can`t be fix. Wikipedia must fix the problem there is no other option. I am not alone, my lawyer and some others are watching this. Try to help , do not make things more terrible. Ulla1956 16:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

Dear Liz, thank you for your advice, but the situation is serious and I/we can`t wait longer. I must fix it in public, if you want to help, that would be very friendly and awesome. Sandbox is not an option. The chance to fix is lower I do not trust wikipedians, because they all made their decisions because of all the other wikipedians who deleted his page! There is an option for Styron and someone must help out. All links are still broken from Styron and thats not good and fair. Wikipedia must delete them completly or fix them. It is not gentle doing this way. First Styron had his wikipage more than 18 months and than someone aggressive administrator played god and destroyed everything. Now after 1 year, you can check all the terrible links on google. People are asking for this and are confused. Specially the Facebook Wiki Site is a hard bad thing and must fixed or delete. Facebook can`t do it and no other. Only arrogances wikipedia can fix. They are responsible for the disaster. Some of the admins called Stuart Styron as a criminal and liar. You all can read it, its all public! So its time to clean the situation. Now. I/we never get away from this position, be sure. You can delete and ban me. It is a serious problem and you guys from wiki have to listen and try to fix and help out.Ulla1956 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

You still not understand the situation. Try once agin to delete the page. Go on. Thats what I mean. Who are you? Starting a career here on wiki? Do you believe in vandalism? It`s not a good feeling destroying pages. You can not remove those things from net and it will follow you. So it`s time to cooperate and find a way out. Do not attack me again. I will not forgive that. Do not playing god here, you are just one of a million networker as I am too.

You still not helping out with the work. I must create a site as "living people" for Styron. Thats enough. Do not write again, he is not notable! He is more than you know. You are just know a little bit of all. 3 Admins told me that is possible to create an article "Living People", so what is what. Who is right and who is a liar?Ulla1956 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

Ulla1956, have you even read the messages I have posted to your talk page? Slow down, this article does not have to be created in a day and your need to rush the process and not build up the article in your sandbox is resulting in the article being repeatedly deleted.
This is not admins "attacking" you, this is how Wikipedia reviews articles. Biographies have to meet standards of notability or they are subject to deletion discussions. Also, Wikipedia has absolutely no control over which websites link to the Wikipedia or what happens on Facebook. We are all volunteers and have no ability to correct what is broken on other websites. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for answering. I`m not a stupid, I am very clear with my position. Did you know that "User" ChaDaniNa3echak , that guy who also tried aggressivly deleting my article was blocked?! Go and check out. Now he is suspend, I think. So, tell me, is that right having corrupt wiki worker around us? I need only to fix the problem and be fine and clean in peace, but no one give me a real chance and help me out and listen to me. I know that wiki cannot and have not the power in network, but if its so, why they are playing the angel and are hard and unshakable in their decisions? Try to help in best way the people and when its not successful that is fine. This is what I want. Now, wiki send me corrupt worker to my page to destroy it without humanity. Do not underrate me, I know the system of wiki. I think, you are a good person, so I want to ask you again for help. Would you please give me some advices to make some good steps forward? Please cooperate and later if its not successfull that will be okay. Please understand that the broken links on some pages in the whole network is broken and must be fixed. We can`t let it how it is. People are checking those deleted sites more and more and they never get disappear from the index. Now after 1 Year, it must be stopped. Please think about it. Thank you. Ulla1956 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

Hello, you did not react..I think you just waiting for the final end. You already made your desicion. How many time did i have? I must know to calculate everything. Ulla1956 09:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

I am very busy, Ulla1956, I have responsibilities and being an Wikipedia admin is a volunteer activity. I nominated the article for deletion and you can find a link in the notice at the top of the page that will take you to the AFD discussion where you can make your argument on why the article should be kept or deleted. I've also just noticed that you have continued to work on the article which is great. The goal for everyone is to have a strong, well-sourced article. As I mentioned, if you have questions about editing, you should visit the Help Desk or the Teahouse. The volunteers who work there are ready to address any questions you might have, to help you find the answers. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello once again, You nominated Stuart Styron the days before and I know you never would change your mind, but let me tell you this: Stuart Styron is a real artist, I`ve checked some articles from other people like this one: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ballin_%28DJ_Ritendra_song%29 - Who is that? He did not sold 1 mp3 download and got 800 Views on a video! Check his social media sites too...it is poor. He got some press releases, High Beam, Scholar? You can write your own press release for 29,99 Dollar or someone else, a friend can write it...you know that right? I got the best informations now. So this is what you mean notable? Most artists didn`t study their profession and doing some Dj music in clubs, so those are for wikipedia perfect? I`ve told you that I do not accept decisions aggressive decisions like all wikiworkers did in the last days inclusive that corrupt blocked guy. A broken site is not acceptable and I will not return back as a loser. Stuart Styron is not the typically artist going with the commercial, what he is doing, it comes from him. No cover or copies! He is a real composer and instrument player and producer all in all. Soundtrack composing elsewell. He is a state certified actor! He did not made just some lessons, he went for years to an acting school. He never had interest getting roles or playing on tv after the school, he had other creative thoughts. He is All Round. Listen, that`s not fair when cheap guys on wikipedia got a place and those artists like Stuart Styron not. Check the work deeeply. His creative videos with more than 200000 Views. I saw that you are hard working here on wikipedia, you deleteted many sites. I don`t know, but do not a thing because of your statistic. If you had some sympathy with Stuart Styron, you already would support and help out, but there is something what you don`t like. If you do not like me and wants to destroy him because of me or what ever, than we got a problem. Do not delete the page, please once again. If you need something more a press release or whatever, I should looking for to get what is really needed. But I do not fake things or paying people to get that. Did you see on Highbeam? You can be a memeber for some dollars and here we go, the doors are open. Or that guy had a video by VEVO did you see? Those channels you also can buy. And that guy did it. I can swear. So, please give me a sign to cooperate and survive this conflict in best form. I thank you very much. Ulla1956 05:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

no, no, no?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

re: [1]: I think we are on the same page here, (or at least visiting the same library) but I'll clarify my thoughts just in case I'm wrong. I wasn't saying that Montanabw's RfA was the beginning of these issues, just pointing to it as an encapsulated view of there being past issues. In fact, I believe that many of the things you linked to (and I do appreciate you doing that), were also linked to and/or mentioned at that RfA. Many, but not all, of those items you mention I was aware of - but I didn't want to throw too many links at Kevin all at one time. I thought the RfA was a good place to get an overview of the fact that this has been problematic for some time. If I'm missing what you're saying though - let me know. :-) — Ched :  ?  17:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ched,
First, is Kevin Bbb23? At last I know the correct gender. I know I dumped a lot of information on another admin's talk page but I think it is important to understand why RO is upset at Montanabw or else the conduct in the RfA looks insane instead of just excessive. If any editor who was unfamiliar with the history just looked at the RfA, it would seem like RO is some vindictive vandal. I think most of her anger would have dissipated back in February if she had just received an apology--"I was wrong about the accusation and I'm sorry it led to you being blocked. I'll stop accusing you of being a sock because it's clear you are not"--well, the outcome of the RfA might have different and RO might still be editing.
I think what editors who are "sock hunters" don't understand is that it's not enough for an accused editor to be found not guilty. The accusation that one is a sock is one that can stick to an editor even if they are cleared. The editor wonders why they've been targeted and where all of these accusations come from. If an account is a new editor, the accusation can be enough to cause them just to leave (that is, if they even find out about the SPI).
I know that at one point I was accused of being a sock just because I took a similar position on a subject as another editor. It was such a flimsy case, a checkuser wasn't run and it didn't leave any scars but I remembered thinking, "What did I do? Did I mess up somehow? Why does this editor have it out for me?" I realize that socking is a big problem and that SPIs only catch a fraction of the activity going on. But I admire clerks and CUers when they can see a baseless SPI request and dismiss it early because there are a few editors who use SPIs as a weapon.
I have gone off-topic here but I think sometimes admins don't appreciate that even if it was an accident, a mistake or it was quickly lifted, a block can be very discouraging and accusations of socking can also pack a punch. It's understandable that editors who have been wrongly blocked or wrongly accused might be a little bitter. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. per WP:INDENT, I was responding to user:Kevin Gorman, not Bbb23. I have no idea as to Bbb23's real name or even gender. I understand if we (you and I) have a different "Cost to benefit view of the RO account, but I'll not go into my own specific views (aside from acknowledging your "...the conduct in the RfA looks insane instead of just excessive." and "If any editor who was unfamiliar with the history just looked at the RfA, it would seem like RO is some vindictive vandal." comments).
Personally, I don't put much stock in wp:sock, for several reasons: 1) "proof" is seldom a solid science. 2) I'd rather take each account at face value. If it's doing good work - leave it alone. I do however understand that some WP:LTA accounts have caused a great deal of damage to the project. With that in mind, I don't often interfere with SPI things. Multiple editors have expressed concern with the RO account, and that they would eventually disclose anything to Arbcom would indicate there is some credence to that. Now that is not me saying there was past mis-conduct, simply that there were reasons for what others considered a concern.
I am sorry for your troubled incident, and indeed, it is further reason why I simply look to what a current account is doing. I do appreciate your sympathetic views towards others, please don't ever lose that bit of heart and understanding. If/when the RO account returns, I'd be happy to explain my "net-negative" views further; but it's not in my nature to kick at sleeping dogs. Hope that helps explain my thoughts a bit. — Ched :  ?  18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted Redirect's Talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Liz. Earlier today you speedy-deleted this.

I'm now contemplating creating it into a proper article, and wonder if you'd be good enough to restore into my userspace the Talk:Tuanzebe?

(And yes, it would have been better if I'd thought ahead & saved my own copy, to spare such inconvenience - sorry.)

Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Trafford09, I've moved the material to User:Trafford09/Tuanzebe. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Trafford09 (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Some information, fwiw

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Liz, wow, that's quite an edit notice!

My feeling is that when a person posts to someone else's page to the effect that an SPI was opened, then, whether or not the person opening the SPI is mentioned, it points indirectly at that editor. Furthermore, the remarks above regarding sockhunting, seem to show a similar belief. Just so you know, I've only filed a single SPI, just one, and no I don't spend my time sockhunting. These days I'm lucky if I make a 150 edits a month; in other words I'm mostly retired, but the work I've done in the past is mostly writing FAs. That said, I do want to respond to what I believe is a misunderstanding. I've written a timeline of events in my sandbox, here, with the hopes you'll take some time to look at the edits and understand why the block/unblock/reblock occurred. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, I had to check to see that you were the editor who filed that SPI. The discussion really focused on the ill feelings between RO and Montanabw and I didn't mean to get you pulled into the conversation. I was trying to explain the backstory of the RO/Montanabw feud. I know you as a valued contributor. And from now on, I will butt out of any discussions about the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The issues between RO and Montanabw began because of what I've documented. Montanabw went on to edit some of the articles where I questioned the sources, which is perfectly reasonable. That's important to understand, and it's important to understand that I was the person to file the SPI (not Montanabw), and that neither of the blocks had anything to do with Montanabw. It's important that this history doesn't get rewritten. It's really impossible to have this conversation without pulling me in - that's sort of the point I'm trying to make. I feel that it's time to clarify the issues even if I do come off as being cranky. Sadly, I'm not the contributor you think I am. Victoria (tk) 22:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Liz:, did you read this response by Victoria? And did you read the timeline as requested by Victoria? This type of defending a disruptive user upsets me. I sincerely wish you be more careful in the future as it damages innocent editors. 108.9.67.65 (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the timeline before but I did read Victoria's talk page message. My comments were an attempt to explain the origins of a dispute, as an attempt to explain why it unfolded as it did. But the discussion resulted in email messages and talk page messages to me from unhappy people. So, I'm stepping back from this feud.
I'd have more sympathy for you being upset and pay attention to your advice if you had logged in and left a message with your own editor account but since you didn't, you'll have to work on your own to resolve those feelings. Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I'm about to unwatch your page, but noted the message above and just wanted to confirm publicly that the discussion may have resulted in angry email, but they not from me - ie. I have not sent you email, angry or otherwise. I did create the timeline in my sandbox specifically for you to take a look (it's too long for a talk page post), but of course you don't have to. Also in case you think the IP above is me, it's not, though it's easy for anyone to say anything on the internet. If you'd like to check, I have no compunction about having you request a CU against my account. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 19:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Yes, you are correct, Victoria, I received talk page messages from you, not email messages. And I said, "unhappy", not angry. I don't think anyone was angry about my comments, some people disliked them. I didn't realize that you created the timeline specifically for this discussion, I'll look at it more closely than the cursory look I gave it before. As I said, I'm stepping back from this subject. By the way, I didn't think the IP was you, I knew you would sign your name to any comments you made. And I have no interest in contacting a CUer about anyone's accounts. Have a good day. Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have removed a post from this section, as it contained personal information about a user. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User pages

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Liz,

Could you explain to me how my contributions did not conform to policy? I included the proper templates and explanation for why those user sub pages violate Wikipedia guidelines. They are copies of existing articles (which is against guidelines) and one is a copy of a page that was deleted - which is also against guidelines. I came across them and it appears there are many of these user subpages that should be removed - which is all I tried to do. Thanks. Sunnysideout (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sunnysideout, your account is one hour old. Your only edits are to tag another editor's subpages to get them deleted. This is very suspicious behavior and leads me to believe that you are a sockpuppet of an editor since you are familiar with the deletion templates. Please log into your regular account to make such actions. An account that is an hour old does not act to get another editor's user pages deleted unless there is some hidden agenda. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for causing it - but I think that's making a lot of assumptions. I've edited frequently in the past without an account and felt I should create one when I noticed these particular issues in case the user wanted to contact me. I don't have another account to sign in to. I'm sorry if I did something wrong here, but I'm confused why the solution would be to undo helpful edits that pointed out a problem. I'll edit with this account moving forward. Should I not address those pages I flagged for the time being? There were many others with the same issue, I only did a handful. Sunnysideout (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It is odd for a new editor's first edits to target another editor's user pages for deletion. Why don't you try improving some articles? Helping to build the project rather than working on deletions? Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand my account may be new, but as I said, I am not a new user. And the pages aren't projects- they were exact copies of the pages that the user created. There is nothing to improve with these - they were created as user pages and then created as regular articles. The regular articles are the actual projects. The copies I found were duplicates that hadn't been touched in over a year. I was just trying to be helpful by removing them as it seems they were produced in error. Again, I apologize for any confusion. Sunnysideout (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Tarc

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering why he was banned and if it had any to do with this. Did forum canvass here? Valoem talk contrib 02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Indefinite_ban_of_Tarc Gamaliel (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you keep an eye on this

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I saw your welcome to the anon IP who just posted at my User Page. That said, I suggest you check contribs on these accounts, as this individual has done the following: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. While your AGF is admirable, I will ask that you keep an eye on this individual, as it is likely he is WP:NOTHERE. Just saying... Montanabw(talk) 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, Montanabw. I'm not sure why I left that welcome message, I usually do not do so for IP editors. I should have checked their previous edits and I don't know why this talk page comment to your page triggered me to welcome the user. I'll keep an eye on them in case they continue their disruption. Perhaps they will look at the information in the welcome message and take it to heart but, I'll agree, that is extreme AGF. Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You and I have different personalities and approaches to dealing with these folks, but if your AGF works on this one, I will take notice.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Direction

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Where would I find the "directions" of arbcom to move some evidence to the talk in the arbitration enforcement 2 case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda. The directions were instructions sent by the drafting arbitrator, Salvio giuliano, to the clerks email list. I'm one of three assigned arbitration clerks so I carried out the action. Callanecc moved some statements from the Evidence page to the Evidence talk page under similar instructions yesterday. All statements, whether on primary pages or talk pages, will be available for review by the arbitrators as they consider this case. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I guessed that much, and keep guessing about the distinction. Entries critical of arbcom go to talk or what ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it's the submissions without evidentiary value that go to the talk page. I realise that, since this case has no workshop, some editors have added their proposals to the evidence page, but it's not really evidence, so it has been moved. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I may have a language problem (again): the case is not about an editor but arbitration enforcement, I presented one bit of evidence regarding it not working beneficially, trying to keep things mercifully short: how is that "not really evidence"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
More precisely: what kind of evidence is "really evidence", in arbcom's eyes? - I have a limited view on arbcom, firstly because I see only few cases and not behind the scenes, secondly when I look I am also involved. - In the infoboxes case, we were requested to provide evidence against other users, - I don't do that. In my limited view, I see arbcom too often trying to fix a large general alleged problem by eliminating a few players. Infoboxes: allegedly there is a war, Andy and I need to be restricted. Look at today's TFA Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria and a civil discussion on the talk, and you will see that there is no war and perhaps never was (and if it was, it wasn't ended by restricting us). GGTF: there is a gender gap, but I can see that it doesn't hang on one person. I would like to have the current case focus on arbcom enforcement (which I would like to change to arbcom supervision), for which I supplied evidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Userpage

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Could u undelete my user page. There was links that were on my user page that may need undeleted as well. Are you ok if I ask you to do them once I have the links. Im not wanting everything undeleted, only really my user page and user page links. Thanks in advance.Blethering Scot 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, Blethering Scot. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you also undelete User:Blethering Scot/UserImage, User:Blethering Scot/Projects, User:Blethering Scot/Links, User:Blethering Scot/Awards and User:Blethering Scot/Status. These are the pages that made up my user page.Blethering Scot 19:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done . Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk about quick service.Blethering Scot 19:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Blethering Scot, just don't go changing your mind tomorrow and retiring again, okay? ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I still consider myself to be retired/semi retired. Im only making nome like edits rather than article creation, which I'm not planning on returning to for another few weeks if at all. Im still not happy, so I'm testing waters so to speak. I forgot about this one User:Blethering Scot/Welcome. Could you undelete that as well.Blethering Scot 15:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Being a pest again. Could u restore the history of User:Blethering Scot/common.js and undelete User:Blethering Scot/The Girls. Thanks, Blethering Scot 18:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Did you see the above.Blethering Scot 18:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
No, Blethering Scot, I didn't see your request until now.   Done Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Em. Thanks but think I maybe forgot to take the tag off as one of the pages has just been deleted again. Blethering Scot 19:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I restored too much, including the CSD tag. I've restored it now. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence and Gamaliel

Latest comment: 9 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion
Further discussion on appropriate content in the evidence phase should occur at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Liz Read! Talk! 15:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can understand why you might remove comments from one editor in "another editor's section" in this page (although I am unfamiliar with whatever policy defines this). However Gamaliel has made a claim on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence#Evidence presented by Gamaliel that is clearly false (as described at talk:). What is the appropriate mechanism to seek redress here?

As it is now, Gamaliel is free to throw around whatever accusations they like, in isolation of any context. That's a lovely platform from which to slander other editors. Is that really the intention here? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This talk-page comment, forum-shopping on the page of a clerk is precisely the behavior for which Gamaliel offered evidence. I should like it to be itself placed in evidence; is that appropriate? As to the specific question here, @Gamaliel:’s claim is not, in fact, "clearly false". It may be arguably false, insofar as Andy Dingley has argued that it is, but reasonable people may read the text differently and Gamaliel’s interpretation is hardly forced or outlandish. In any case, "free to throw around whatever accusations they like" is a personal attack, and "slander other editors" is:
  • demonstrably untrue, because the entire purpose of ArbCom’s evidence phase is presentation of evidence;
  • improbable on its face, as Gamaliel has simple quoted what other editors did, in fact, say;
  • incorrect, because the term Andy Dingley seemingly requires is "libel", not "slander";
  • a bright-line violation of No Legal Threats, which Andy Dingley knows perfectly well are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia
Please advise precisely what recourse third parties have in such matters, and what needs to be demonstrated in order to gain standing. Presumably, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, and WP:NLT are all virtues whose transgression harms everyone because the transgression harms the project. Have a really spectacular day! MarkBernstein (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mark, this is hardly forum shopping, it's a reply to someone who has just posted on my talk:, and who clearly doesn't want me to post in the Gamaliel section I had posted in before.
As to Gamaliel's claim, they have stated that I posted a comment [8] in response to an event [9] (GorillaWarfare) that took place some hours after my comment, which had been in reference to a different action by a different editor. Gamaliel made a similar claim about Cassianto in the same section and gave a diff that's simply erroneous. This is all quite obvious in an audit-trailed medium. I don't know why they did this, I don't believe that such self-evidently incorrect statements about other editors should be permitted in "evidence" to AE.
Slander is not libel, but libel is considered a published slander. Whether writing in a publicly accessible space that is not however intended for public consumption is "publication" is a legal question I don't wish to prejudice on Gamaliel.
As to the rest, then you know where ANI is. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There are people who feel strongly on both/all sides of this issue; I don't think we need to be dragging Liz into anything here she does not want to voluntarily be part of (evidence). Liz is tasked with keeping comments in the sections which have been declared by the arbs to be appropriate. She is simply doing what she is asked/told/supposed to be doing. Let's not "shoot the bookeeper" — Ched :  ?  17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no wish to shoot any bookkeepers, I'm merely asking where they'd like the book written, and how we ensure that demonstrably incorrect statements aren't being recorded as gospel. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Andy, I have been offline for some hours. I gather that your complaint involves the quote by you that Gamaliel includes in his evidence statement. I believe his presentation is meant to demonstrate that admins who try to enforce ArbCom sanctions and editors who bring cases against Corbett have faced negative remarks for their actions.
As Salvio giuliano, the drafting arbitrator, has asked that "any allegation (whether supported or unsupported) against non-parties" be removed, I have removed quotes in Gamaliel's statement that concern non-parties, including yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ya missed a couple -- Coffee and Keilana are not named parties. NE Ent 00:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel's evidence isn't Coffee and Keilana's administrative acts, his evidence is about the reaction to their actions. Stating the actions that the parties were responding to is necessary for context. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
To heck with Strunk & White (The Elements of Style), there are times when the passive voice is awesome. Simply refactor "Name blocked Eric" to "Eric was blocked for ..." NE Ent 00:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
A minor point, but the quote listed as a response to Keilana's block is actually a response to mine, so I suspect something went awry during the removal. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill, I'll see what went amiss. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've responded on the case page. I also formally request the removal of the legal threats on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats? Grow up! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
So you threaten slander when all I did was quote your own words, and I'm the one who needs to grow up? You did everything but mention that your daddy was a lawyer. Gamaliel (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You invented a comment that I had supposedly made about GorillaWarfare and presented that as false "evidence". I made no such comment, I certainly didn't make a comment before the referred action had even happened. We are working in a medium with visible auditing: your fabrication simply discredits your own veracity. Nor does "[I] did everything but ..." mean anything other than I had not done what you claim. To my recall I have commented on EvergreenFir's report and on KirilLokshin's block, but not on GorillaWarfare. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It's evening here, can I encourage you two to take a timeout and restart this discussion in the morning? You might see things differently and perhaps there will be some clarification from the arbitration committee overnight. The case will still be in process tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I invented nothing, your comment is right here for everyone to see. Or have I confused you with some other Andy Dingley? I listed comments about the requests made below each instance of blocking, and I believed it was very clear that I was talking about responses to admins AND responses to requests. If you thought it was unclear and you wanted me to clarify who you were speaking to, I gladly would have done so without this unseemly display on your part. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You took a comment of mine (re EvergreenFir) and placed it beneath a block by GorillaWarfare that hadn't even happened yet, the obvious implication (intentional or accidental) being that my comments were aimed at GorillaWarfare, which is quite untrue. I believe that evidence presented in such a case bears a certain responsibility for accuracy and clarity, which this presentation does not achieve. As Liz has now redacted it for other reasons, I'm happy with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Since you are satisfied, then please remove your legal threats above. Gamaliel (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that is useful and constructive, Liz? We have had a bright-line legal threat on this page in connection with an arbcom case. You have known about it for hours. You propose to let it ride for hours, because .... Why? We have, unquestionably, a personal attack. You have not redacted it. Why not? I asked you, formally, for instruction on how to proceed; I believe that is also part of your clerical duty. Yet you do not reply; why? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not asking for a block, I just want the threats removed. There's really nothing to discuss with the committee. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
A "bright-line legal threat "? Utter nonsense! An observation that Gamaliel has presented evidence in an obviously incorrect and slanderous manner, which might be excused by simple misquoting (although Gamaliel has made no comment either way to excuse or explain it) is a long way from NLT. Take it to ANI and see just how far you get. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Precisely the chilling comment complained of above, clearly intending to be read as "if you do not cease to complain and lower your profile, we and our Very Very Special allies will see that you are punished." is this collegial? Is it civil?Of course not. Civility and NLT are for little people. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
One is ever comforted by the knowledge that strong mechanisms licensing the practice of law exist, and that those reading the comments above as legal threats are assuredly not licensed to practise in any jurisdiction. Suggesting that something is slanderous is a far cry from a threat of legal action; so much so that it is explicitly mentioned in WP:NLT. One might ask that editors read policy before referencing it, but an explicit request that they comprehend the same would also seem to be required - and for some, a bridge too far. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It contains two aspects, one listing more examples of editors (as I did, as Drmies did) criticising EvergreenFir for an AE report without merit. Yet is not EvergreenFir (per your redaction of Gamaliel's evidence) out of scope for this case?
The second aspect is a criticism of EC as "Anyone who tries to deal with EC is subject to harassment". Yet this cites (undated) a comment from 2014. This comment is also of no relevance here.
This case is not about EC's attitude to editors in general. It is specifically about gender-related issues. There is no basis for a case on anything broader than that (or possibly Al Capone's tax returns...). This is relevant because several editors, myself included, have commented in this first case that EC is an "equal opportunity insulter". These editors consider EC's behaviour as generally reprehensible, but outside the scope of the gender-related restrictions that are used to justify this whole case. If this case is based on gender attitudes, I for one do not support it (or the various blocks and desysopping). If it is based on his attitude generally, we [sic] might support that, but there is no WP-bureaucratic basis for any such case. This is an enforcement of a gender-based restriction and it can't be stretched beyond that to a broader scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Andy, EvergreenFir removed the names of non-parties from her statement upon request by a clerk. I've sent a message to the clerks email list to see if this edit is sufficient or if the quotes need to be redacted. As to the scope of the case or the merits of the evidence presented, that judgment is made by the arbitrators. Liz Read! Talk! 14:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

88.144.241.175

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Dear Liz. Since I see you online would you take a look at 88.144.241.175 an IP jumper ranter about the same POV c.f. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada and put your foot down if you feel fit. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I just be involved in this discuss, please, and can we just discuss what is going on here?
I think Sam's just being played here by one of the Brahma Kumaris adherents here and it's really all just about them maintaining control over any topic articles relating to their religion on the Wikpedia.
I think their playing the system and Sam's kneejerking and over reacting. I cannot get him to speak to me in order to discuss this rationally.
Thanks. --88.144.241.175 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I think I also have to take offence at all the derogatory insults being thrown around here and ask for them to stop.
I have no control over which IP address I am allocated. I am perfectly happy to make a user account as long as I am then not going to accused of cheating in some way, and I really don't think my comments are "rants". I think I am actually being very reasonable and accurate in my observations. --88.144.241.175 (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Sam Sailor, since there is already an SPI involved here and you have discussed the situation with Bbb23, I'd prefer to let the CUers do their job since it seems to be a long-standing problem that I'm not well-informed on. As for you, 88.144.241.175, I hope you can see at this point that you are being seen as a sock (using multiple accounts) which is prohibited on Wikipedia except in limited circumstances. If you have a previously created account on Wikipedia, you should log in and use your original account. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
We need to move on from that view and look a little deeper.
I think "deliberately portrayed as, in an effort to discredit and obstruct from contributing" is how I would put it.
Liz, who do I have to speak to, in order to explain to them what is going on here? Someone not involved, willing to look a little deeper, and not someone that is just kneejerking?
I appreciate this and other editors probably thing they are doing the right thing, but they are being played by a New Religious Movement that has invested years of efforts into controlling Wikipedia pages about them, coordinating internationally to do so.

It's not what the Wikipedia should be about. Thanks. --79.64.211.120 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

IPs blocked for socking. As Liz has alluded to, you'll need to get your original account unblocked before editing here. --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Collateral damage from rangeblock

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Liz,

I'm writing on your talk page because you took part in the discussion about the extension of a range IP block, there're less than 2 hours left for the new block to start and yesterday I added some information making a summary at the end of the section: may you please join back the discussion and give your final opinion about the matter?

Thank you in advance! Centocinquantuno (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Centocinquantuno, I've made a comment at WP:AN. Liz Read! Talk! 15:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominating template sandboxes for deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

That's kinda weird. I like weird, though, so good luck. Begoon talk 14:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Begoon,
I found the blank template pages listed on Wikipedia:Database reports, in one of the database reports and since they hadn't been edited recently, I CSD tagged them. An admin can review them and see if the tags are appropriate but they seem to fit the category of unused test pages. Maybe if it's a sandbox page, it should be moved into user space? I haven't seen a template user sandbox page before. Liz Read! Talk! 14:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, a database report. You're the admin, do what you feel is correct. Just don't split my sides too much. Cheers. Begoon talk 14:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz, I was tired and grumpy yesterday.

/sandbox and /testcases are standard template subpages - see Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases

The reason Template:GL Map reply/testcases and Template:GL Map reply/sandbox got on your database report was that they had been blanked (my error), rather than having the standard code left on them. I've fixed that, so if you look at them now you can see how they appear and are used. Because template changes affect many pages, editors are supposed to use the special /sandbox and /testcases to test changes before altering the main template.

Again, sorry I was grumpy. Begoon talk 10:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Begoon. I prefer you coming to post on my talk page than the alternatives. I appreciate your explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 12:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I was genuinely worried I might have upset you. That would be awful, because I like you. I'm utterly nonplussed by "the alternatives" though? Call me dense. Begoon talk 14:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I figure if I can get through my RfA and the Crat Chat talk page discussions that followed it, it would take much more hostile and pointy comments to get me upset. I've been called some pretty awful things. But I hope to eventually demonstrate that people's fears and dire predictions were unfounded.
By the alternatives, I mean, when some editors are frustrated with an editor or admin, they go to the talk page of the admin they are friendliest with to complain or go straight to ANI. Those actions can draw in a lot of other editors who watch these pages and are eager to add their opinions to the mix. But you came directly to me and asked, "what's up with this?" That's about the perfect response, I think.
I did want to emphasize that there was nothing personal about the CSDs. I believe I was going through Wikipedia:Database reports/Blank single-author pages to see if there were some old pages that had been created that never ended up being used. And I found one of my own, Wikipedia:Top25Report/Draft that I created and never made use of! So, that one was tagged and deleted. Ultimately, I think all editors want pages in all of the spaces to be used or will be used in the future so if you have a use for those templates, I'm glad you removed the tags. I would have restored them upon request if they had been deleted but I'm glad you received a notification. Liz Read! Talk! 14:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a lot of words. I was just trying to apologise. Still, if a hug with you is out of the question, I have cats. Ciao. Begoon talk 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

'As of' template

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Given that you are clearly a very experienced editor, I'm intrigued to know why you took the time to remove an instance of template:as of from Simpson and Ashland. In principle having categories of dated statements that are, say more than 5 years old, seems a good way to track these down and encourage editors to update them. [In the best of all possible worlds, of course!] Is the template about to be deprecated? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, John Maynard Friedman, I'm working on database reports, particularly ones involving categories. Using this template, in this article, created Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from October 2016. If you look at the parent category, Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements, you'll see that most of the categories are from past years/months leading up to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from January 2016. It seemed anomalous to create maintenance categories a year in advance. If you look at Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month you'll see that most of the maintenance categories for December 2015 haven't been created yet.
So, it had nothing to do with this template, just the use of it for an event a year in the future. Of course, if you feel strongly about my change you are free to revert it. No harm, no foul. It's just that a maintenance category for October 2016 stood out like a sore thumb. But I'm not perfect! Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
But surely every new piece of dated text will contain an 'as of [this] month' - e.g., right now there is an article in which someone is adding 'as of November 2015' - I can see why you thought it odd but give it a few months and it won't be. (For that particular article, it is neither here nor there whatever we have but I think the principle is important, that 'as of now' is a reasonable thing to write and have). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This better?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 

Maybe this is better for this time of day, and we'll all save the shirtless one for when the night comes. As luck would have it, when I played that video a shirtless guy featured in an ad for some company--Putin looked better. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I assume you meant physically looked better, right? Putin is certainly not the image I would've taken for an article on shirtlessness. By the way, I don't know if you noticed but Neelix is deleting some of his old redirects, circa 2009. Nice to see him taking some actions in the clean-up. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's good news. I noticed he hadn't edited but I haven't checked the log today. And yes, I meant physically. The guy in the video reminds me of this character--don't know if that link shows up for you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For your comments on my talk page, middle of last month, regarding tagging. I respect your work and approach greatly, and always regard your comments. In this case, however, note, the I almost inevitably spend 3-5 hours on an article, filling and improving references, initiating reference work by Bull Rangifer (sp?), working on plagiarism and structure issues, etc., before I place tags. As a part of that work, inline tags are placed, and section tags as necessary, and only after all of that, as the available work time wanes, do I place article tags. As for philosophy of placing tags, it is reader-centric and truth-centric and WP policy-centric, and (clearly) not editor-feeling-centric, I acknowledge. My allegiance is to our readers, and certainly not to people who fill articles with WP:OR and plagiarism, and then fight (for themselves, or for others) to have the material left to appear as high quality. Readers deserve to know the quality of the material they are reading, and as many of our devotees are middle school and high school students in America, and I am told by their teachers that they do not yet have skills to delineate trustworthy vs. suspicious material, I will remain committed to making this distinction clear. For further comments regarding this, see User_talk:KateWishing#Thank_you.

As for the matter of my IP versus registered editing, I am scrupulous to never allow for the even the perception of sockpuppeting, and often include "Le Prof" in the signatures of the IP work. As long as persons here can follow and harass without any recourse, I will continue with this strategy—and have been told by no less than our distant, occasionally illustrious co-founder that IP editing is perfectly acceptable practice, and a practice which we should defend (which I do, through its use). As you know, and can see, I care little for affirmation (of my person, or my practices). But, if the editing I do is incorrect with regard to the preponderance of scholarly persecutive in an area, please, feel free to revert. If it is simply unsightly, but accurate—perhaps it needs to remain so until the issues are resolved. I will certainly fight any reversion done, of work taking many hours, where the motivation is to make substantively dubious content look better, just for appearance's sake. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Criticism of religion sidebar

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@D4iNa4 has again reverted yours and mine edits. Please see [10] and [11] . He is vandalizing other Wikipedia pages also , where there is even a little criticism of Hindusim. He was a Sockpuppet earlier but now he has been unblocked again. Please look into above page. With regards, Terabar (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Redirects created from page moves

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These are exempt from CSD R3. Mid-Buckeye Conference (OHSAA) and other "OHSAA" redirects were article titles for several years, and deletion has left red links in other articles. Peter James (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Peter James. I'll restore them. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am having an issue with an editor reverting my edits on numerous articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Liz. You probably don't remember me, but we have talked before a few times when I had an issue with another editor and you were very helpful, nice and fair, about it. So I would like you to please help me with another issue I am having with another editor. Editor User:Bozalegenda has been reverting numerous edits I make to numerous articles, and does so for reasons that are either invalid, or unjustified, or simply untrue. This editor has been doing this for some time here, and I am getting frustrated by it. I have tried to talk to them about this issue several times, and I get absolutely nowhere. Every time the situation ends up the same though. I spend a lot of time making good and needed edits to articles, by fixing mistakes on them, updating info on them, adding pertinent and needed info to them, correcting and updating wiki links in them, etc., and then Bozalegenda just reverts them, and usually it happens by the very next time I logged into the site - that they have been reverted. I try to talk to Bozalegenda about it, and the same thing happens every time. They just respond with something that makes no sense or is not true, and then keep the reverts.

If I do go back and revert the edits, Bozalegenda reverts them back again, or manually changes them back, I believe in order to avoid doing too many reverts in 24 hours. Every time it ends up the same, and my edits (often all of them) get lost because I don't want to engage in any edit warring. But Bozalegenda then has the article in the exact state and manner it was before. It's like I am spending time here contributing to the site and working to help improve it for no reason at all, because anything done in certain articles just gets reverted. This has happened now in numerous articles here. I did just a quick look through this editor's edit history here - [12] and I see that this is something this editor regularly engages in doing, does it on many articles here, and does the same thing to many other editors here also.
I also have looked at Bozalegenda's talk page here - User talk:Bozalegenda and I have seen that this same editor has been warned more than once before my mods of the site to stop engaging in edit warring. The only reason this editor has not been edit warring officially with me numerous times already, is because I have always backed off and let all of my edits be lost, and allowed them to keep reverting my edits without reporting it. However, this is getting really frustrating, and it's not right that I spend time making needed and proper edits, often that are updating articles, fixing factual errors in them, and correcting wrong wiki links in them, only to basically immediately have the edits reverted again and again. So Liz, can you please talk to this editor for me, and ask them to please stop doing this, please stop reverting edits I make so often, and in so many articles, and can I get help in being able to get my edits back in these articles where Bozalegenda keeps reverting? Because it is obvious that if I go back and put the edits back myself, that Bozalegenda is just going to revert them again. Liz, I don't want to engage in edit warring, so complaining about this type of thing to an admin is the only thing I know to do about this. Thank you Liz, ahead of time, for any help you can give me.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Bluesangrel, I see that Bozalegenda has reverted a few of your edits but they edit a lot of pages and aren't fixated on you. I've left a message on their talk page asking that, hopefully, they will start communicating with you. I did notice that they left a message on your talk page, encouraging you to use the preview function (Hit Show Preview before Save page) and you can correct your mistakes so that you aren't making lots of small edits. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Liz, thank you, to give you a little more info, Bozalegenda has reverted all my edits to numerous articles. The responses they have given on my talk page or their talk page, are not in my mind, reasonable explanations. Like saying for example, they reverted whole edits because I made too many edits - (Aleksey Shved article) to an article, and they have the article on their watch list, and since they can't be bothered to check the edits I make, they just revert automatically. Or another time (Sammy Mejia article), they claimed they had to revert all my edits because I simply made too many mistakes, and so the whole article simply had to be reverted, rather than just change an edit or two. Even though the article initially contained many errors in it, it had factual errors in it (which I had to correct more than once, due to reverts), obvious grammar errors in it, and wiki links that needed to be updated and fixed. So I did all of that, only to get the article reverted, and the reason given when I asked about it was that supposedly, I had made many errors in the article, so it needed to be reverted. The revert put the corrections I made out of the article, and the errors back in it.
Another revert was done to an article (Bo McCalebb article), after I corrected wiki links in the article. The reason given for the revert had nothing to do with the edits I made. The claim was that I listed a national basketball league a basketball player played in, and not a country they played in, so the article needed to be reverted. First, that is not a valid reason to revert, and second, I put the country the player played in also, and it was still reverted back again after that. I also updated wiki links on the article, by fixing wiki links that linked to the wrong wiki article. It was reverted, and the reason given for the revert was that you can't put a national league that a basketball player played in outside of the USA (referencing the NBA) in an article. The same thing as that happened at the article page of Patrick Young.
And saying an article was reverted because you can't make 19 edits to an article, and that can't be allowed, and so that justifies reverting? That is referring to the Aleksey Shved article, and why it was reverted, as to the explanations that were given on both my talk page and on the article's edit history - Alexey Shved: Revision history
Another article (Daniel Hackett), was reverted more than once, with the reason being given again about not being allowed to list what national basketball league a player played in, and that only the country they played in should be listed. After the reverts, again, corrected wiki links that needed to be updated and I had made, were reverted back again. So I fixed the wiki link, linking it to the proper article, and the article got reverted again after that. Other edits got changed in that article, like removing awards, and changing "champion" to winner", and I believe that these reverts happen, only over very trivial things like that, and nothing at all to do with errors or mistakes, since I am the one actually fixing mistakes.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Bluesangrel, if there is edit-warring going on, file a complaint against Bozalegenda at WP:ANEW. There is not misconduct here that would warrant a complaint to WP:ANI.
There is a lot more dialogue that has to occur. Wikipedia encourages editors to work out their differences, and to try more than once. I recommend you check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests and see if there is a mediator who can try to work with you two to come to some sort of compromise. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I would not use the ANI process again. I was very soured by that mechanism and how it works, after I used it the first time (when we first talked). Is the ANEW system the same as that? Because if it, i have no interest in getting into it.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
At the article D.J. Strawberry, Bozalegenda is also reverting edits over things like sentence structure and paragraph structure, as well as the league played in and not country issue. I tried to explain that a paragraph is not consisted of one sentence, but the article was reverted to at one section of the article, each paragraph is one sentence long. The same with this justification being you cannot say a player played in a league other than the NBA in the article. The same issue again coming up at this Patric Young article. I am losing count on how much this is going on now. I don't understand this. This kind of stuff just makes me want to stop contributing here altogether.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I've given you links to where you can go file a complaint or get a mediator to resolve a dispute. If you want some sort of emotional support, maybe the folks at the Teahouse can help. But unless this behavior escalates, I think we are done here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I appreciate your help. Thank you. But I have never used dispute resolution before. So I am just hesitant. That's all. I did not mean to take up your time. Sorry.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about filing

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, thanks for the advice. I'm afraid that despite over ten years on Wikipedia and a PhD, filling in the WP:ARCA request is beyond me, embarassing but true. What is meant by "Case" at the very start? If I put in WP:ARBPIA, it completely messes up the format. Jeppiz (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, the actual case name is "Palestine-Israel_articles" so that is what you would put. I don't believe the system would recognize an acronym/abbreviation. Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 
 

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is   Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science.   Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to   Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #183

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
 
Highlights of 3 years of Wikidata by Madgalena Wiegner

Bipasha Basu

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Liz, earlier today I reviewed and accepted the edit that you just reverted [13]. I'm not quite sure about the reason for the revert, the article makes it clear this person has worked both as an actress and as a model. Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at this editor's edits which were composed of adding "model" or "beauty queen" to all of these biographies, most of which were not applicable. If you feel I made a mistake, feel free to revert. It just began to look like every woman in the entertainment world is being called a model because they are photographed. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. In this case, though, it was accurate. I did a quick search and found several fashion shows and commercials, apparently she started out as a model before becoming an actress, so I'll reinsert it in this one article. Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. Thank you, Jeppiz, for doing your due diligence. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why aren't you a candidate? Seriously? I've stopped by to give you a little push to just do it!!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 01:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That's flattering but I'm pretty busy as a new admin and an arbitration clerk. Being a clerk, I'm aware of how much time the arbitrators put into the committee and the amount of compromise that is required. I think I would need more experience than I have to be effective. Maybe at later date, it would be something to consider. But thanks for thinking about me. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to block?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You welcomed this user, you may want to note s/he's back at it: [14]. Your call Montanabw(talk) 02:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I welcome a lot of editors. I hope the links that are provided to them in the welcome message can guide them to correct editing practices. It's not an endorsement of all of their edits. Liz Read! Talk! 10:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

French Overseas Departments cats

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed that you tagged all WP:FOD assessment categories for deletion. Was there some kind of mistake? I only made them last night and have subsequently tagged almost a thousand articles for the WikiProject, so the WP 1.0 bot should be updating them soon. I'm still in the midst of building up the WikiProject and I estimate it should be all up to date tomorrow. Is it OK if I remove the deletion tags? Regards JAGUAR  13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's standard practice to tag empty categories. They are placed in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion where they stay for four days before they are deleted. If even one article/page is placed in the category during this interim period, the CSD C1 tag is removed. If you anticipate articles being placed in these categories or you assign any articles to these categories, feel free to remove the tag. This is the only CSD tag that I'm aware of that has a grace period to make sure that the tag has been appropriately applied. It's not unusual for empty categories to be "rescued" and populated once they have been tagged.
That's amazing that you have already tagged that many articles! I hope you can find some other interested editors for your WikiProject. Liz Read! Talk! 13:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! The bot usually updates article assessments every 2-3 days, but I'm thinking I might have missed something out during programming. I'll have to double check everything now, and if worse comes to worse I'll add articles manually to prevent deletion. I already have one editor who signed up for the WikiProject, and hopefully there should be more to come once I've finished tagging the appropriate articles. The powers of AWB! JAGUAR  13:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if by some fluke, an overeager admin deletes the categories, they are easy to restore. But if the bot does its job, we shouldn't have to do that at all. Liz Read! Talk! 13:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from October 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in October 2015.
 
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

UTRS

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I doubt this is exactly what you're looking for, but ... [15] with a note to the PDF: [16]. — Ched :  ?  00:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched. 1) I understand the privacy concerns that surround checkusers, functionaries, oversighters and arbitrators' business but I don't see why a list of UTRS admins should be secret and 2) I would think that 5 admins addressing block requests is far from enough. It probably delays the response time. I would think given that everyone has different work schedules, there would need to be at least 10. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think there are over 100 available to address them. The "5" refers to those who have access/are admins. to the tool server. — Ched :  ?  00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize that. That's a big difference! Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I've only worked on a couple, and there are only 3 "new" ones in the que right now - so not too backlogged. — Ched :  ?  00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that no one is collecting these figures, but it would be interesting to know the % of unblock requests that are accepted or rejected. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Marsh Awards deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, you deleted page Marsh Awards which was up for speedy deletion but i didn't see alert in time - can't recall it so can you send me the article content so i can review it? --Mervyn (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mervyn. I've restored the article and moved it to draft-space so you can find it at Draft:Marsh Awards. It is still vulnerable to deletion as long as the content continues to be so promotional. It might require an entire rewrite to have a neutral, more encyclopedic tone. Once you feel it is ready for the Wikipedia main space, think of submitting it for review at Articles for Creation to get feedback from an experienced editor. Liz Read! Talk! 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Unfortunately the usable version of the article ( https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Marsh_Awards&oldid=688225577 ) had been overwritten with a copyvio. I think it better if the article is reconstructed to become a subsection of Marsh Christian Trust so I have improved it a little on that basis. Can you make this version < https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Marsh_Awards&oldid=690464982 > live then move it to Marsh Christian Trust over the redirect. Thanks, --Mervyn (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Mervyn, I think I got it right. It's good you removed the copyrighted material. It could use some additional sources if you can spend some time looking for them...that would help ensure it doesn't get nominated for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 15:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthonyhcole&diff=next&oldid=690452506
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I wanted to look at an earlier version of your page, before you removed all of the contents but I hit the revert link instead. I immediately undid my action. I'm not usually so clumsy. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I just noticed I've deleted the links to my talk page archives. Shall restore. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Tristar Worldwide

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you Liz Read! Talk! for your valuable contribution. The article you (correctly) requested to be speedy deleted has been contested already. Please see the talk page. Thank you again for all your help. MarkYabloko 13:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that it had been previously deleted and then recreated. But it looks like it is being currently developed. Liz Read! Talk! 13:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You may wish to be aware of this Montanabw(talk) 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. I didn't expect that discussion to result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 12:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Surprised the block didn't happen sooner, did you see the diffs. Maybe an indef was too long, but 72 hours or so would have been appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 09:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Revival (Selena Gomez album)

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't expire until November 20, 2015 so I think it's a little early to renew them. Liz Read! Talk! 12:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
How about now? --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BN

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted your comment; you can stick it back in, of course but I'm asking you not to. Not because you're wrong but because sometimes it's just give frustrated people space. Ched will come back when he's ready, and if it's still important to ya'll, you can discuss then. NE Ent 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was a well reasoned comment and that it had a good chance of being taken in the friendly spirit it was given. HighInBC 23:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not about the comment, I agree it's well reasoned, it's about whether the recipient is in the proper state to accept it as intended. NE Ent 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for reading it in the spirit it was intended, NE Ent. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been in touch with parties on different sides of this conflict and I still have hope for a resolution everyone can live with. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Conflict? Between RO and Godot13? NE Ent 01:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No, previous conflict. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Phaedrus

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Liz, I'd appreciate your help in resolving an editor conflict at Phaedrus. I reverted the latest edit by new editor Fountains of Paris twice. He insists that he is correcting inconsistent wording and put the edit back a third time. He sent me a note and I replied both at my and his talk pages.

The problems I see are that 1) from his comments and his reference to a complete collection of Plato's dialogues, it is clear that he has not looked at either the dialogue Phaedrus nor the secondary literature; 2) the Wikipedia article is a good one and the heading and the text were correct as they stood before being mangled; 3) he is rewriting a technical Platonic doctrine of definition by wholes and parts, in this case madness and its kinds, similar to Aristotle's genus and species. His new heading is analogous to 'Animals and cats'; 4) to over-ride my revert he needs either editor support or a legitimate reference.

Thanks for whatever you're willing to do! BlueMist (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMist,
It doesn't seem like there is currently any disruption occurring at this article. I encourage you to move the discussion to Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) where other interested editors can see the discussion and weigh in. That is the simplest way to come to some agreement is to have more editors who care participate in the conversation so it's not just X vs Z. Also, there has been no discussion on this talk page since 2008 so it is really an underutilized talk page and you'd think there would be some discussion about this important dialogue.
You can also consider soliciting some feedback by bringing the dispute to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy where I'm sure you can find some interested parties break the stalemate. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz. I'll follow up on your suggestion. Unfortunately, the lack of participation by knowledgeable editors in the philosophy area is a chronic problem. Even at WikiProject Philosophy. The pages are gradually eroded by many and various sources of vandalism which cannot be stopped due to lack of patrol and lack of protection. Without administrator cooperation, there is not much anyone can do. BlueMist (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it looks like Fountains-of-Paris is a new user who has moved on to work on other articles. Sometimes editors can dig in their heels in an editing dispute and other times they lose interest and move on to edit something else. I'll keep an eye on the situation. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you and Snowded, Phaedrus looks good this morning! BlueMist (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Current section on Themes does not agree with earlier section in Phaedrus article on Divine Madness still inconsistent

Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable." The two sections are still mutually self-contradicting in the article on Phaedrus.

This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in by a previous editor in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you both (Snowed and BlueMist) may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article:

Madness and divine inspiration

In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do",[Note 1] Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all.

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference plato64 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
That is the Themes section which is inconsistent with the section which you both (Snowed and BlueMist) seem to keep reverting. The section title used by some previous editor is explicit and contradicting you edit.Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris, I'm not editing this article. BlueMist came to my talk page to inquire about whether there was disruption going on with this article. Please take your argument (above) to Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) where other editors who are interested in philosophy can weigh its merits and discuss future developments of this article with you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, I put the answer on WikiProjects Philosophy if you could check my wording. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #184

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

JSTOR cleanup drive

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!



Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This project has certain issues. We can sort it out. --Polkstaardaard (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sunday Nov 22: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Two options for this Sunday: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon
 
 

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for one of two edit-a-thons this Sunday, just bring your laptop and an interest in participating!

No special knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia knowledge is required, and there will be Wikipedia training workshops for new folks.

Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon @ Center for Jewish History

  • 15 West 16th Street, New York, NY
  • 11:00 am - 4:00 pm, Sun Nov 22

Join at the Center for Jewish History (drop-in any time!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to the American Soviet Jewry movement.

Women In Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences

  • 7 World Trade Center - 40th Floor
  • 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm, Sun Nov 22

Join at the NY Academy of Sciences, during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to the lives and works of women scientists. Note that seating is limited for the Women in Science event, as well as signing up on-wiki, please RSVP by email.

Bonus event:

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Wrong message?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You left me a note addressed to John Carter. Would the content have been the same if you'd addressed it to me? Remember that I don't hugely care about the case, so unless the message directly affects me, it doesn't matter. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Color me embarrassed! There is a template to use for parties that are affect by the Proposed Decision but you have to adapt it for parties who are not affected so I cut and pasted it. I'll go back and hope that the editors have not seen it. Typically, only editors who might be affected by the Proposed Decision are notified but I like to contact every involved party in the case and since you filed the case, you got a notice. Thanks for alerting me on the mix-up, Nyttend. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and the clarification! Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

scripts

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

you mentioned a script that shows an editor's most recent contribs. Do you have a link please? — Ched :  ?  17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ched. At this point, I have installed so many different scripts (see User:Liz/monobook.js and User:Liz/common.js) that it is hard to tell. You can find a list of some Wikipedia scripts at Wikipedia:User scripts or Category:Wikipedia scripts but I've also just copied scripts from other editors' .js pages to see what they did.
Taking a guess though, I believe the script involved is User:PleaseStand/User info. Scripts can really assist you, like having options for WP:UAA or WP:RFPP listed to the left on your sidebar. I hope this helps. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Your questions have been answered multiple times. It's time to move on (see WP:IDHT and WP:DROPTHESTICK). This case is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 13:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello. I recently posted some concerns at ANI, but was blocked from editing shortly after and therefore unable to fully participate. The ANI has since been closed, but none of my concerns were addressed. I have since questioned the blocking admin about the block itself, but since you closed the ANI, I'll to ask you to address the concerns for me. One concern was that another editor was repeatedly removing/deleting my comments from an article talk page. My understanding is that is not allowed, is it? Another concern is that once that editor reached 3RR, he had his self-admitted friend come along and 'hide' the same comments under an NPA hat. Is that allowed? Lastly, I had specifically requested that these editors refrain from posting on my talk page, yet they did just that, repeatedly, including repetitive and questionably inappropriate templates. Again, my understanding is this is also not allowed. I ask that you please review these issues and advise me how policy applies to each (as I would have expected at ANI). Thank you. - theWOLFchild 21:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

All three editors who participated in the edit warring were blocked for 48 hours. The ANI complaint focused on Talk:Skyfall and these blocks seem to resolve the disruption on the page. If there has been any misconduct since the blocks ended, then this can be addressed on ANI.
You can bring a complaint about those talk page posts from several days ago but I doubt any administrator would take action on posts that occurred BEFORE the 2 day block, only edits since this block ended. I don't think you would receive a positive response or that you would get what you seem to be looking for (additional blocks on other editors). Regarding what kind of behavior is discouraged, I'd read WP:DE, WP:TPG and WP:UP#OWN for guidance. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
That does not at all address my concerns. Had I not been blocked when you to closed my ANI, or attempted to, then I would have contested it. You seem to think the "specific disruption" to the Skyfall page was due to edit warring, and therefore the blocks resolved that. But my ANI addressed the fact that one editors comments were being summarily removed by another. So I'll ask you, again, is this allowed? Further, there were repeated unwelcomed posts made to a user talk page. Again, is this allowed? My understanding is that both cases the answer is 'no'. Since you are the closing admin, I would like an answer from you. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If you read the links I provided, specifically the talk page guidelines at WP:TPO, it covers instances when removing another editor's comments on an article talk page are permitted as in cases of trolling, vandalism, if the comments reveal personal details of an editor's life, if they violate WP:BLP, are a copyright violations, etc. There is a convenient section that explains all of this. You can remove another editor's comments from your own talk page and ask them not to post there, per WP:NOBAN.
That is my answer but I believe you knew the policies already. The complaint was closed three days ago and is now archived so it will not be reopened. If there have been subsequent violations of talk page guidelines, feel free to file a new complaint at WP:ANI. I promise to allow another admin to close it when they consider the situation to be resolved. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
A promise that does me, nor the project any good. The actions of you and two other admins have essentially led to the burying of multiple policy violations by a pair of arrogant and unrepentant editors, who even know are continually bitching, moaning and crying so much about their blocks that it is evident that didn't learn a thing and are bound to repeat these violations. Admins are supposed to protect the project, not those who disrupt it. And when admins such as yourself, MSGJ and Berean Hunter screw up so prolifically, one might expect you would make an effort to makes amends. It's obvious you have no inclination to do so, as neither does MSGJ who has thus far failed to respond to me queries on his talk page. And BH, well, I never expect much from him anyway. Suffice to say, I am disappointed in your failure to act here. As such, only more disruption can be expected. - theWOLFchild 18:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you expect here. To reopen a closed ANI case and levy blocks because an editor posted on your talk page after you told them not to? A block at this time would not be preventative but punitive. You received a 48 hour block for edit-warring that you seem to take no responsibility for. In fact, you say that everyone else is at fault and you are just a victim here. These is not an attitude that enables collaborative editing.
I am disappointed that despite ample answers from MSGJ and myself, going into detail about our decision-making and making suggestions on what steps you might take if a similar situation occurs in the future, you reject every statement we offer you. There is admin accountability and we have both lived up to it by explaining our actions. Right now, it seems like you have an axe to grind and are unable to let this go. This is not an assumption of bad faith on my part, the evidence of this is in your own words on my and MSGJ's talk pages. This issue is over unless there is further disruption on this article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Show me exactly where I said "everyone is at fault but me", or withdraw that comment. Then show me exactly where MSGJ has "gone into detail explaining his actions", (and you as well for that matter). Did you see me contest block? No. I just want it explained... why is that sooo difficult? ANY blocking admin should be able to immediately rattle off a diff or series of diffs to explain a block, yet this one refuses. And for your part... I posted an ANI with questions. YOU closed that ANI without answering any of those questions. Show me, exactly, where I asked that anyone be blocked "now" as a result of that ANI, or withdraw that comment. I just want to know how wiki-policy applies to the questions and attached diffs in the ANI I posted. You closed it, therefore you are the admin taking responsibility for it. At least, you should be. But you aren't. Neither is MSGJ. And yet you have the nerve to preach responsibility to me. The bad faith here is on the part of 2 admins who refuse to explain their actions. I don't have an ax to grind, I have legitimate questions and I would like them answered. You don't have to "re-open the ANI"... just go look at the questions I posted, and answer them. Is that so difficult? And please, no more personal attacks, that is unbecoming of an admin. - theWOLFchild 10:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A reminder...

Per Admin Accountability; Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

So, can we please just get on with this and get it over with? - theWOLFchild 11:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I will "move on". This will be my last post here on this subject. You can ignore WP:ADMIN all you like, but you do it at your own peril. This "case is closed" only because it suits you. This was a failure on your part. Any more failures, and it's possible you will no longer be an admin. This project needs their moderators to be responsible and accountable. Please remember that moving forward. - theWOLFchild 15:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks!

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I quickly noticed you finally deleted Kimberly Estrada which had been waiting two days and you now also deleted Simon Steur, both of which I had found with Special:RandomInCategory (voraciously patrolled for articles) and had put aside for reviewing, and I quickly found they were best speedied than AfD. Thanks again!   SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SwisterTwister, but I'm surprised. Usually when I check the CSD categories, they are empty. There are some very active admins who regularly empty CSD categories. I've taken to looking at Database categories to find pages that need to be tagged...I think it's good practice to have at least two editors look over a speedy deletion, one to tag and one to evaluate the tag and remove the tag or delete the page.
I've never come across Special:RandomInCategory, I'll have to check it out. I've been meaning to return to the AfD area because I heard there was a backlog of discussions that need to be closed. I need to pitch in where I can. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I enjoy using that category to especially search for old articles that were tagged long ago (fabricated jokes, potentially non-notable, articles needing sources, etc.) using "BLP articles lacking sources", " Articles lacking sources from February 2009", "Articles needing cleanup from February 2009", "Orphaned articles from February 2009", etc.). It's a very helpful tool. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Danube Fund

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Liz,

It seems that you have deleted the page about Danube Fund. I believe it was premature to delete it so quickly, as the content of the article was notable by the Wikipedia standards and perhaps needed stylistic re-formulation or provision of additional references. The fund management is made of highly notable individuals (Bert Walker, Governor Pataki, etc.), also the fund itself is one of the largest in Eastern Europe by the size of assets. Please suggest your improvements and what could be done to return the page! Verbal.noun (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Best, Verbal.noun

Hello, Verbal.noun,
I have restored the article and moved into Draft space, you can find it at Draft:Danube Fund. If you move it back into Wikipedia main space without improvements, it is likely to be deleted again. The size of its assets are not what counts here, it needs to meet notability standards, meaning Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. What matters is what reliable sources--like mainstream newspapers, journals, magazines or books--have written about the Danube Fund. You do have a citation from Bloomberg/Businessweek but it is just a listing of the company, not an article about the fund. If the company is as important as you believe it to be, it shouldn't be a problem to find some in-depth coverage of fund.
At least, while it is Draft stage, it is unlikely to be deleted as long as it isn't too promotional and doesn't contain any copyright violations. You have time to work on improving it. When you believe it to be finished, I encourage you to submit to Articles for Creation where an experienced editor will review the article and either move it into main space or provide some guidance on what needs to happen next. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

______________

Hello Liz,
Thank you for your suggestions. I will look further for additional citations and edit the article in the Drafts section. Once it's in a better shape, I will consult with somebody.
Wish you a nice day!
Best,
Verbal.noun (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #185

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #114

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

ArbCom Elections

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Ealdgyth/2015 Arb Guide consolidation chart...the voting guide to end all voting guides? Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah! I got my message! I've been waiting for it since yesterday. I'm on the list, damn it! Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanctioned specialisation

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

..is documented in an international standard - see https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:17115:ed-1:v1:en ..and the Wikipedia version was an attempt to describe it more readably. It's a useful concept and I don't think it deserves to be deleted from Wikipedia (unfortunately I missed the "marked for deletion" stage).

(I'm not sure whether this ISO standard was referenced in the deleted article - is it possible to see what it looked like?)

Andthu (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you provided a link to the article so I could see what you are talking about. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your WP:AN comment

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"...you find yourself repeating yourself". I gotta kick out that line, as you repeated the word yourself. :) GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, it felt awkward writing that sentence but I didn't know how to word it any differently, GoodDay. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Try you find (that) you're repeating yourself, unless you were really lost in the first place... 'That' is optional. Peridon (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
"...one tends to find oneself repetitiously saying the same thing, over and over again, and repeating yourself is a tiresome effort, especially when it has all been said before, more than once, ya know?"  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hañagua

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I created an article back in July known as Hañagua which was speedily deleted shortly after its creation (you can see the notice here). I would like to retrieve its content simply for reference and archival. MB298 (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

MB298, this was all of the content on the deleted article:
That is all that there is. Let me know if you have any other questions. Liz Read! Talk! 10:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. That is all I needed. MB298 (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ooops Department

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Canberra Secondary School - sorry, but you can't A7 a school. It says so on the template... You probably clicked the wrong line. Incidentally, there's a bit of a debate (to put it mildly) concerning A7 on the CSD talk page. This message won't self-destruct, but feel free to destruct it yourself. Peridon (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The hustings debate for the Arbitration Committee election

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

If a wannabee Congressman was standing for election in New Jersey you would be mighty peeved if you attended an election rally and the stewards would not let you question the candidate although he was answering other voters' questions. Please explain why you consider raising a concern on an Arbitration Committee page during the vote is "vandalism". 92.26.6.41 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you supply a diff where this incident occurred? I'm not sure what you are talking about, 92.26.6.41. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
[17]. 92.26.6.41 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thanks for the diff. Well, when an admin semi-protects a page, they have only 7 different reasons to choose from and vandalism was the closest match as you were edit-warring in your comments. I'm not sure why you are complaining to L235 who, like me, is an arbitration clerk, not an arbitrator. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
IP blocked as sock of User:Vote (X) for Change. Doug Weller (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Liz says that 92.26.6.41 was edit warring in his/her comments. That IP has only two edits, both to this page, and neither was a revert. The point about L235 being a clerk can be met by addressing the enquiry to an arbitrator. There are three arbitrators standing, but the questions pages for two of them are protected. Can you please unprotect, Liz? 86.149.13.69 (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd just realized I'd transposed the birth order and was on my way to fix it when I saw, happily, that someone already had. Thanks for fixing my goof-up! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Tenebrae. I had to enter my edit twice because we were editing at the same time. I guess this is what happens when a figure is in the news. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Relief India Trust

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Liz I am siddharth kumarr, I am new user of wikipedia, I wanted to give contribution on a page but it was deleted yesterday. The name of the page is Relief India Trust. I have some links which we can add and clarify the existence of the NGO. Could you please help me out to restore the page, I have already done a lots of studies to edit the page but now because of the deletion I am unable to do that. So if you find these points relevant than please restore the page so that I can start giving contribution to page. 1.1.Government Registered NGO [1] 2. School Chalo abhiyan [2] 3. Blood Donation Camp [3] 4. Rehabilition Issues [4] 

Siddharth Kumarr (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Siddharth Kumarr, I've restored the article at Draft:Relief India Trust. Please do not move the article back into main space until it has been improved or it will be subject to deletion again. Liz Read! Talk! 11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ {{cite gov |url=http://ngo.india.gov.in/view_ngo_details.php?ngo_id=RIT2010&ngo_black=0&t_state=0&t_dist_new3=0&sector_key=0&ngo_name=&uniqueid=81349}
  2. ^ "Relief India Trust organises 'school chalo abhiyan'". TOI. 2015-04-20.
  3. ^ "Relief India Trust NGO: Fighting Thalassemia through human touch". DNA. 2014-06-18.
  4. ^ "Relief India Trust: Addressing the rehabilitation issues". IBN. 2014-05-20.

Embassy of Ethiopia, Ottawa

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Why did you restore? Other embassy articles in the Ottawa embassy Template have also been deleted. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Other embassies in Ottawa have not been deleted, see Template:Diplomatic missions in Canada. For example, there are Embassy of Angola, Ottawa, Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa and Embassy of Egypt, Ottawa to name a few. Once I saw other embassies in Ottawa existed, I restored Embassy of Ethiopia, Ottawa. Liz Read! Talk! 11:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
others have been deleted and removed from the template. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
If that was true, all of the links in the previous paragraph would be red and not blue. Liz Read! Talk! 10:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And some embassies are deleted, being part of a template does not give automatic notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

look at the template history, I have removed many embassy articles that have been deleted. Your rationale for restoration does not make sense. LibStar (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a response. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Barnstar of Diligence
Clerking for ArbCom is quite a thankless job, and you are the best of the best of the clerk corps. Thank you for all of your tireless work; I've grown to trust your judgement very much in the last nine months (nine months?!) that you've been a clerk. You handle difficult situations with grace, and often handle things that no one else is available for. The least I could do was present you this barnstar, which I feel very honored to bestow.

Also, congratulations (&condolences) on your election as an administrator, and thank you for the work you've done as one! I feel like I'm a gushing parent here, but goodness, has it already been x months? (Thanks also for having the guts to run; standards in the recent RfAs have grown significantly, and I personally, at least, would be extremely reluctant to run.)

Thanks again for all the work you do! Very respectfully (and not "for the Arbitration Committee", as I find myself signing more and more of my edits – though it'd be quite nice to see some kind of formal recognition), L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, L235, this is quite unexpected. Thank you! You're a great colleague and I'm glad you can find time to clerk in your busy, busy day. Again, my thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Speedy deletion nomination of Relief India Trust

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on Relief India Trust requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:FearlessSpeakerOfTruth

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Liz. I realize that you were acting in good faith when you recently welcomed User:FearlessSpeakerOfTruth, but based on that account's one edit to date it's my opinion that it's very likely a sockpuppet of now blocked user Kingshowman. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You could be right, it's a very suspicious username. Personally, I think it's more important to welcome troubled editors rather than ones who have a clue. I hope they will check out some of the links, get a feel for what's proper editing on Wikipedia. You should not take posting a welcome message with policy links as approval of a new editor's conduct. I'm not aware of Kingshowman or his socks so I will let you report this instance if you are more familiar with it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for speedy del Category:Oregon University System

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for tagging Category:Oregon University System for speedy deletion. There is also a navbox, Template:Oregon University System, which should also be speedy deleted. I suppose after editing for nearly 2 years I should know what code to add to delete it, and I actually found instructions last week, but now I can't find the page again. Would you mind? Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Grand'mere Eugene, I have nominated it for deletion. You can weigh in at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 2#Template:Oregon University System. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User block

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello!

With this user did you mean the block to be indefinite? Or for 72 hours? 5 albert square (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, when I selected the username hard block, the allotted time was 24 hours so I lengthened it to 72 hours to give him time to change his name. Should it have been indefinite, 5 albert square? Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I was generally just confused because on the talk page you've said that the block is indefinite. Wasn't sure which one you meant 😃 5 albert square (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit at List of Fictional Birds

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I undid the edits made at that page because the editor in question is a block-evading vandal with a constantly morphing IP who constantly posts, at very very very best, highly suspect edits of extremely questionable quality, and more often, barely readable original research edits. That is, when the vandal isn't spamming pages with inappropriate, nonexistent, and or inappropriate and nonexistent categories.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was not familiar with the editor and it looked like a valid edit to me. Liz Read! Talk! 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I concede that some of the vandal's edits probably are valid, but, having dealt with it for 5+ years, trying to sort through which of its edits are valid, and which are garbage edits is akin to trying to make sense of Mount Saint Helens with a kitchen colander. Because of that, and because it appears to be incapable of communicating with other editors, and is constantly evading numerous blocks, I've adopted a policy of reverting everything it does. It often uses IPs starting with 139., and haunts the "List of fictional (animals)" pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Notifications

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Dear Liz. I saw this comment of yours the other week: ... specifically, where to find the right templates to put on user talk pages and article talk pages. I still rely on Twinkle and I'm sure there are more nuanced notices and warnings available somewhere that do a better job communicating with editors ... — Preceding text originally posted on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard (diff) by Liz (talk⋅contribs) 23:15, 21 November 2015‎ (UTC). Could User:Sam Sailor/Boilerplates/Singleleveltemplates and the other pages in the /Boilerplates level be of any use to you? Sam Sailor Talk! 09:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam, it's very convenient to have a link to a list such as yours. I appreciate you letting me know about it. Liz Read! Talk! 10:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Liz, Just wanted to say thanks for the cabal comment; it added some (much needed) perspective. Also, w.r.t this, I have an inkling that it may be either a HTD or lulz slate. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a HTD slate but then the KIA thread linked to in that discussion supported some of the same candidates. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with empty maintenance categories

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I undid your edit to Category:Football team templates which use images. This is a maintenance category which is typically empty. I'll grant you that the statement in the category's text saying so may have been obscure, so after I removed the speedy-deletion template I added {{empty category}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, davidwr. I've come across a number of categories that are empty and eligible for CSD C1 deletion but probably should be tagged {{empty category}}. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Liz...just wanted to say thank you for the polite and evenhanded nature of your comments and actions on the ISCS Inc. page. It was quite a shock to get a notification of imminent deletion 5 minutes after I posted it (not by you), and your subsequent actions were both helpful and appreciated. At least now I will have time to see about making it more Wiki-worth, without worrying that it's going to disappear on me.

Thanks again. Sincerely, Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimH1846 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, good luck with the article, TimH1846. To give you a sense of what Wikipedia deals with, there are about 800 new articles submitted every day to Wikipedia and the New Page Patrollers check each one of them over.
The standards are very strict for companies, organizations and artists because many of them see a Wikipedia article as just another vehicle to promote themselves when we are trying to build an encyclopedia. As many articles get created, probably half of them are deleted the first day because the content is determined to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. It's much better to build up an article in user space over time than publish it directly into Wikipedia space where it will be subject to deletion review. Also, Wikipedia:Your first article can be very helpful to new editors. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page Kenji(musicband)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

Today i started a wikipage about my band and sadly it got deleted. I hope that you can tell me why, the band would really like to have a wikipage. Thanks in advance,

Patrick Kasl Patrickkasl (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Patrickkasl, there was hardly any information in the article and it is far from meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The band has to have been covered by reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, reputable websites), in depth, to be considered notable. This isn't Facebook or a venue for publicity but an encyclopedia. But I have restored the articles at Draft:Kenji (musicband) so you can continue to improve it.
You should look at Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance. When you feel the article has met Wikipedia standards for notability, I encourage you to submit it to Articles for Creation so it can be reviewed by an experienced editor. This is a longer process but if you resubmit another article on your band that is similar to this one, it will also be deleted. Wikipedia receives over 800 new articles every day and many of them are promptly deleted as they don't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Promotional article

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Liz! I was wondering if you could look into this article as the author has removed the speedy deletions and seems to be the author/artists of the album that he/she has created. Much obliged if you can! Adog104 Talk to me 01:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Adog104, that article was tagged for speedy deletion and has been deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding and helping. Adog104 Talk to me 01:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Punchirikku Parasparam

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article Punchirikku Parasparam was deleted within 24 hours without giving time for anyone for contesting the deletion. The WP:A7 and WP:G11 are meaningless as the article was about a short film (allowed in Wiki) in Malayalam language which has enough notability, it was produced by popular stand-up comedian of Kerala Ramesh Pisharody and the "superstars" of Malayalam cinema Mohanlal and Mammootty was part of it. It's not a short film done by some college students in a mobile phone camera. This gives enough importance to the subject. The content was sufficiently sourced with reliable sources about the theme, development, technical details and release of the film.) --Inside the Valley (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the article is being discussed at Requests for undeletion and that Tokyogirl79 will be undeleting it soon and it will be considered at an Articles for deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 11:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
No response yet. Still waiting. I am thinking about submitting a request in WP:DRV. --Inside the Valley (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess you missed it, Inside the Valley, but this article was moved to your user space: User:Inside the Valley/Punchirikku Parasparam. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You are right. Thanks --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dec 9: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC; Dec 12: Art & Law editathon + Dec 13: Black Film editathon

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wednesday December 9, 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) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Bonus events, RSVP now for our upcoming editathons:

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

Education

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I saw you posted about some mainspace student editing issues on Flyer's talk page. May I invite you to participate in an RFC on potential improvements to Wiki Edu, please? Fiddle Faddle 00:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 San Bernardino shooting

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Lots of IPs who don't use editsums or participate in talk, enough of them making bad edits to make it very hard to avoid 3RR. Your call, obviously, and my condolences to the good IPs, but I'd sure like to see semi for another 3 or 4 days until this cools a little. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That article will be highly controversial and delicate for an extended period. I gave it 3 months. I should add if folks really feel like unprotecting it sooner I don't mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good call to me. Liz Read! Talk! 10:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

...possible other problem

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

There is another by a user producing large articles about wrestlers in the new pages which was puzzling. The articles are being pushed out minute by minute by a single user named Wrestlinglove (talk · contribs); and as I went to check if they were possibly copyright, the text from some articles appear on google searches referring to deleted pages with different names, but same context. I came to you again since those pages were deleted by you mostly by G4 and G5. Also do I need to still tag these articles for speedies? Adog104 Talk to me 19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a sockpuppeteer that was just blocked who worked on wrestling articles. I'll try to remember who it was. It would help if you tagged any inappropriate articles, Adog104. Thanks for your work. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you too! Adog104 Talk to me 20:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I remembered it was Martimc123, Adog104, and his socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123/Archive). I'm not sure how fast the CUers will act or if they will accept this new investigation. He's editing the same sort of articles and most of the previous articles he created have been deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
So should I take the remaining 18 un-reviewed articles and tag by the user Martimc123s as G5 (if I should I'll get right on it)? I've been checking other articles and see if they had an AFD but I think the other user got them. Adog104 Talk to me 20:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't have confirmation that it is a blocked editor and I'm cautious right now about applying the Duck test. At this point, review the articles on their merits. If the SPI comes back in the affirmative, we can always delete the articles later. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Alrighty then, thank you again for your help. Adog104 Talk to me 20:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Adog104, Wrestlinglove has been confirmed as a sockpuppet so you can tag their articles for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  All previous 19 un-reviewed articles by Wrestlinglove (talk · contribs) has been tagged for G5. Adog104 Talk to me 21:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @Adog104:, I've blocked the account. They were only active for four hours but they generated a lot of content. This editor has had a lot of socks so if you see similar articles being created, let me or another administrator know. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Adog104 Talk to me 22:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Yesterday

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

TF { Contribs } 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Titusfox. Liz Read! Talk! 14:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrestling articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Will do. Thanks. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 15:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE 2015 Election

Latest comment: 8 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

I finally cast my vote, 4 hours before the polls close! But looking at others who waited until today to vote, I could see I was in good company, lots of familiar names. In reading over a lot of candidate pages, I found that my votes didn't vary a lot from when the polls opened except by a small margin (from Support=>Neutral or from Neutral=>Oppose). No major fluctuations.
Since the voting numbers this year are unprecedented, I think it's anybody's guess who will reach the Top 9 with Support over 50% or if even 9 candidates will reach 50%. But my interest actually has been in the voting guides and once the poll closes, I'll pose a very casual analysis to see if the editors providing guidelines are in sync with those who vote...or, looking at it in a different way, whether the guides might have influenced editors who voted. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So, now that the polls have closed, I thought I'd posted my totally unscientific examination of election guides to see if, collectively, they were a good predictor of the election results. Some caveats:

  1. I looked over 25 different election guides and I didn't use guides that didn't use a Support/Neutral/Oppose format because I didn't want to interpret another editors' remarks and label them.
  2. I didn't make discrimination between election guides I agreed with and those I thought were biased or less reliable. Every one was fair game.
  3. I lumped Strong Support/Strong Oppose in with regular Support/Oppose. I'm not sure how much weight readers place in stronger feelings.
  4. Not every election guide evaluated every candidate. There was more than a few that skipped some candidates or said they would indicate their opinion later and they didn't. I just didn't include these non-votes. The ranking was depended on level of Support over total Opinions expressed so I don't think this factor disadvantaged any candidates.
  5. I included TimTrent because although he withdrew, his name still appears on the ballot and because he remained in a lot of election guides.
  6. I think it is notable that very few of the election guides were updated during the two week election. That is, few editors reexamined their positions or questioned the decisions they made in mid-November.

So, here you go, I've decided to rank the candidates based on their collective election guide approval, without any numbers attached because I think it is their relative ranking which is interesting not their absolute level of approval from the small pool of editors who choose to put together election guides.

  1. Opabinia regalis
  2. Cas liber and Kelapstick (tie)
  3. Drmies
  4. Callanecc
  5. Tim Trent
  6. NE Ent
  7. Kudpung
  8. Keilana
  9. Gorilla Warfare
  10. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
  11. Wildthing61476
  12. Gamaliel
  13. Kirill Lokshin
  14. Thryduulf
  15. LFarone
  16. Rich Farmbrough
  17. Hawkeye7 and Kevin Gorman (tie)
  18. Mahensingha and MarkBernstein (tie)

We'll see if the collective opinions of the guidewriters are echoed by the electorate. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There are other reasons for folks' rationales - always lots of background history that is not readily apparent, unless you know what you're looking for. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz, for doing this analysis. I voted for everybody at the top of he list, except Kudpung, and I gave Rich F a moral support vote though he won't win. It seems like the consensus of guide writers is pretty good. Jehochman Talk 02:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Jehochman, I should add that every candidate had at least two candidate guides which recommended them. I think the big surprises were the near unanimous support for Opabinia regalis, who came back to Wikipedia after a long absence and Wildthing61476, who did better than I expected based on his answers in the Q&A. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Candidate Guide Views

  1. Worm That Turned - 3,762
  2. Ealdgyth - 2,860
  3. Bishzilla - 2,281
  4. Peter Damian - 2,242
  5. Reaper Eternal - 2,175
  6. Lady Catherine de Burgh - 1,946
  7. Elonka - 1,946
  8. Tryptofish - 1,943
  9. Collect - 1,755
  10. Smallbones - 1,739
  11. H.J. Mitchell -1,730
  12. Carrite - 1,656
  13. RegentsPark - 1,337
  14. AGK - 1,193
  15. Yngvadottir - 1,015
  16. MONGO - 946
  17. Begoon - 895
  18. Boing! said Zebedee - 851
  19. Gerda Arendt - 838
  20. Pldx1 - 810
  21. Silk Tork - 776
  22. Ched - 766
  23. Sjakkalle - 674
  24. The owner of all - 575
  25. SB Johnny - 506
  26. Carcharoth - 495
  27. Fuzheado (Andrew Lih) - 431
  28. M.Z. McBride - 279

This information was compiled last night by Carrite and posted at Wikipediocracy. I think the number of views each guide received was primarily influenced by how early they were posted (right after nominations closed or last week?), if there was a delay in adding the guide to the ACE template and the reputation of the writer to those editors who consult guides before voting. These totals should not be interpreted as unique views as I know I looked at each guide several times over the period of voting and I'm sure I was not alone. Thanks to Carrite for allowing me to republish this information here. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What...no poll compilation from Nate Silver? Juan Riley (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
LOL! No, I don't think we could afford his consulting fee. There is more data on the WP:ACE talk pages where editors have broken the vote down by length of time a person has been an editor and by their number of edits which is more data crunching than I care to do. Of course, I think the fact that we had nearly 3,000 votes (rather than 500) throws all prediction out the window. We can't base this year's results based on past elections as the turnout was over 4 times as large. Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Gee...could we not have teased Nate to be pro bono interested? Of course I am just kidding. Thanks for taking my comment as I meant it. And for your posts. Juan Riley (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that table, Yngvadottir. But there are so many guides (over 25) and nearly as many candidates that I found the table hard to read. So, I simply read each guide and tabulated my list by hand and calculator. Sometimes visuals help...other times a list is more succinct. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. A minor point about ranking in the event of a tie: subsequent candidates have the ranking increased by one. For example, your initial ranking has Cas Liber & Kelapstick tied at second place. The next person, Drmies, should be at rank 4 because there are three people before him. (I realise that you used the default # numbering.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the final results were:

  1. Casliber (78.46%)
  2. Opabinia regalis (74.24%)
  3. Keilana (73.31%)
  4. Drmies (70.28%)
  5. Callanecc (68.11%)
  6. Kelapstick (66.37%)
  7. GorillaWarfare (65.86%)
  8. Kirill Lokshin (65.29%)
  9. Gamaliel (61.99%)

So, given the collective wisdom of the candidate guides, the prognosticators got 6 out or 9 candidates right. Gamaliel and Kirill Lokshin definitely received middling support and the voters preferred them more than the guide writers. The biggest surprise for me was that I was positive that this was the year when a non-admin would win an arbitration committee seat but it appears that, to many voters, it is still very important to them that arbitrators have administrative experience. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's common in elections and referendums for actual votes cast to shift back towards the status quo. One could interpret this as actual voters gravitating to admin over non-admin candidates possibly. Also, the number of guides are small enough that interpersonal issues make an impact on ranks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I looked at over 25 candidate guides, Cas Liber, which seemed like a lot to me! I looked and Sandy's analysis from several years ago about candidate guides and I think she had four listed.
You know, what, someone pointed out to me that for the first time, there will be three female arbitrators. I hadn't even noticed that until it was brought up to me. Still only 20% of the committee but more equitable than just having one arbitrator. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure who pointed that out to you, but they're either wrongly informed or yanking your chain. I can't be bothered to look (although it would just be a case of going through Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History and counting), but as someone who was on Arbcom with Shell, Elen and Risker I can say with certainty that this has certainly happened before. (Kelly Martin, Mindspillage and Theresa Knott is another group of contemporaneous female arbs who immediately spring to mind.) ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I defer to you, Iridescent, you know more about Wikipedia's history than I do. I was incorrect (along with my source). It now looks like it might have been more unusual to only have one/no woman on the committee which is the opposite of what I said. Thank you for the correction.
I also miscounted as there are actually four female arbitrators now, Delta Quad, Opabinia, GW and Keilana. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think four may be a first (although I'm not 100% certain of the gender of everyone). Because of the long tenures of Theresa Knott and Risker, an all-male arbcom has been something of a rarity. ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe there's been at least one female arbitrator continuously since at least October 2005. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That's correct; Theresa came in in January 2005 and since then at lease one of Theresa, FloNight, Risker or GW has been on the committee at all times. (I don't know enough about the original "Jimbo's drinking buddies" arbcom of 2004 to say whether any of them were female.) ‑ Iridescent 21:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I like looking at Wikipedia's history although it is not documented well before 2005. But given the latest movements on administrator and bureaucrat inactivity levels, I was looking at longtime admins and crats and I came across one individual who was both but never went through an RfA or an RfB, at least not one that is filed in the regular places. I knew the first admins were mailing list volunteers but I thought bureaucrats came much later and by then there was a process for approving the appointments.
Personally, I think it is remarkable that any editor, admin or bureaucrat have been active for 10+ years when there are so many distractions that come into one's life...job changes, relationship changes, moves, kids, health issues, other hobbies, new friends, etc. To keep up with any activity for a decade (or close to a decade) when there are so many other parts of life competing for ones attention is kind of amazing! Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I take it you mean Brion Vibber? He was gifted the 'crat bit back in Wild West days, but never uses it. Hardly any of the 'crats are actually active any more, beyond the minimum necessary to keep their bits. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:AN

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Liz, your name is being floated around over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Punitive block, can you help shed some light on the issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, it is helpful to get your input as you appear to have been involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, Knowledgekid87, I was told that my comments on AN weren't helpful so I'm staying out of the discussion. I just feel badly for the misunderstanding about my remark to Eric. I could have said the same thing more clearly and I hope that my clumsy wording wasn't the origin of this dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 15:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I feel they were helpful, you made one comment but that alone was enough to give your input on the matter. Hopefully it answered some questions people had. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

View counts

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Totally fine, go for it. Thanks for asking. Those were the counts immediately after the close of the elections. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Carrite! Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Education Newsletter: December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

I received this message on my talk page

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

User talk:Narutolovehinata5#You're right, but. Given that you were the administrator that deleted the article in question, could you explain to the editor the situation and why the article couldn't stay on Wikipedia? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I reviewed the article and it was clearly a work of fiction or, at least, a personal story. It was not encyclopedic material which I stated to the editor on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh-oh. It looks like the user is not happy with what you did, and is now leaving personal attacks on my user talk page. Now what? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I've left a message on their talk page. If you wish to remove their comments from your talk page, that would be perfectly understandable. Liz Read! Talk! 11:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The user left me a new message at User talk:Narutolovehinata5#P.S. Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE sadly. WP:NPA and WP:OWN in the same message. I've tried to assume good faith but I'm sad to say, despite our best efforts to explain the situation, it has become clear that the user appears to not be here to contribute. And by the way, it appears that the editor's article was written as part of a school assignment given to him by his teacher. Is there a way to explain to him and his teacher that the contributions were not in accordance with our policies and guidelines? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I did explain to him how his content was unsuitable for Wikipedia but I placed it on one of his user pages. I will check his account later today but if he continues to bother you, I'd ask him to stay off your talk page. All you did was tag the page and he has received explanations on why this occurred. Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #187

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

YGM

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
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.
--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Recusal

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Entirely between you and your conscience of course, but I am curious as to the reason if you feel like sharing.  pablo 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's no problem for me to talk about. WTT, who brought the case, was the primary nominator on my RfA and has supported me. Meanwhile, I've exchanged email messages with Kevin recently during this election period. So, I could be considered to have a conflict-of-interest for either party and two opposing COIs don't balance each other out. I believe I could be impartial in my clerking duties but today I checked in with the other clerks, who have no connection to the involved parties, and since they are ready to take over the case when it opens, it's wise to hand over the case to them. The philosophy among clerks is that it is better to be cautious than to have editors raise questions during a case. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense.  pablo 22:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocking

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hi there, I just want to clarify some things.

Firstly the edits I did to Great Western Railway (Train Operating Company) where not vandalism as ((user:Davey2010)) seems to keep going on about, it was changing one piece of incorrect information to make it concise with the rest of the information. But for some reason Davey2010 kept reverting it, saying it was link to a different section of the article, of which I never touched during the period he is on about.

I accept my bad behavior on Davey2010's profile but suggest for future reference that his behavior be watched too as I believe that I am the third user to suffer at the hands of his constant bullying, reverting of factual information, and using his moderator status to get his own way.

Thank you for listening.thanksbutnothanks 00:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

Devonexpressbus, I didn't block you because of that article but because you were moving around user and user talk pages which was very disruptive. You were acting out and I hope in the future you will find a better way to work through your disagreements with other editors. Try Dispute resolution if you have a ongoing dispute over content. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Liz is it possibly to block a moderator from commenting or having any contact with you, as I have tried a "WP:DF" with User: Davey2010 and it appears he just doesn't like me nor wants try to get on with me. If not please could I have my account renamed to stop this bullying.thanksbutnothanks 14:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

Devonexpressbus, if you want Davey2010 to stop posting messages on your talk page (except for required notices), you can ask him to not post there.
If you are seeking an interaction ban (Iban), you can ask at WP:ANI but understand that these bans are rarely given because they usually don't solve the problem because the editors tend to monitor each other, looking for violations which actually increases interaction.
If you want to change your username and the name is available, go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and request a name change. Alternatively, you could stop using your current account (completely) and create a new account but if you go to edit the same articles as you did before, the same problems may arise. Liz Read! Talk! 15:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please undelete Mark Horstemeyer

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I had objected to the deletion of this article; the article included an unmistakeable assertion of notability, and I had reduced it to a satisfactory stub without significant (if any) promotional content. If someone had added promotional content back after I was finished, that wouldn't justify deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done. The tag was placed on the article before your edit was made to it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

CSD U5

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Liz, could you please CSD U5 User:Tobi Awofeso, my speedy tag was removed. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done although there was a CSD tag on the page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
....and it's been recreated... I have a feeling this will carry on :) JMHamo (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Could you edit the page 2010 in film in this way; see this:

Highest-grossing films of 2010[1]
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1. Toy Story 3 Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $1,063,171,911
2. Alice in Wonderland Walt Disney Pictures $1,025,467,110
3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 Warner Bros. $960,283,305
4. Inception Warner Bros. / Legendary $825,532,764
5. Shrek Forever After Paramount / DreamWorks $752,600,867
6. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse Summit Entertainment $698,491,347
7. Iron Man 2 Paramount / Marvel Studios $623,933,331
8. Tangled Walt Disney Pictures $591,794,936
9. Despicable Me Universal / Illumination $543,113,985
10. How to Train Your Dragon Paramount / DreamWorks $494,878,759

References

  1. ^ "2010 Worldwide Grosses". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved February 13, 2012.

Did you understand what I am saying; I am asking to edit this page according to this way. I would ask you to edit pages 2011 in film and 2012 in film in this way.I cann not edit these three pages because these are semi-protected, but you can. User talk:2.86.255.196

BUreacrats

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Liz. You comment here gives me pause. It demonstrates (to me at least) that yu may not be paying attention at past and present discussions. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to respond to a sweeping statement like that. I was just quoting your words and those of Biblioworm. I can understand if you believe I took the words out of context but this is how I interpreted your statement (that an admin must be boring to pass an RfB).
After this summer, I don't expect you will like or approve of all of my statements or my conduct. I still respect you and the work you have done but I'm okay with your disapproval or the fact that I might occasionally "give you pause."
If you have a specific question you wanted a response to, let me know but right now I just see a judgment of me, not a query. So, I will get back to the editing business. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Liz, the latest crat chat was the one that resulted in giving you yourself admin tools. I don't know if Kudpung was thinking specifically of that, combined with your praise of crat chats as " pretty damn important and sharp as a tack", but I for my part thought the combination a little unfortunate. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, well now the misgivings seem obvious. Since I've been reading some old, contentious RfAs from years ago (everyone has to have a hobby), I wasn't thinking of the crat chat on my own RfA but ones from years ago I've looked over. The last one I was looking at was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2/Bureaucrat chat from 2007, earlier this week.
If this is what gave you pause, Kudpung, I apologize if I sounded self-serving. I'm going to go strike that remark since you have already responded to me there. Thanks for the "clue", Bish, I really thought Kudpung was referring to something else I said. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It seems as if I have some explaining to do. We all agree that our 'crats are pretty sagacious people, but my allusion was more to this. My comment above was more of an observation than a criticism. We all want - and need - more 'crats and admins, and we may have to start looking for new crats among people who are not quite so effacé. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please check your email

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks Josu4u (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Josu4u, I've restored the article and moved it to user space in case you wanted to work on it...you can find it at User:Josu4u/Harikrishnan. I'll look into that other issue you mentioned and see if there is anything funny going on. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Highlander, etc.

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

[18] I'm rather flattered to have been taken for you. We do very different things here, but I have a great deal of respect for you, from what I've seen. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, right now, I don't aspire to write Featured Articles, I just try to be useful where I can be. I know that you have contributed to some great articles and I hope one day to do the same. I've had a writing block for a while now that has led me to focus on gnomish work but I admire those who do create and build wonderful articles. But I think that there are many jobs to do at Wikipedia and there is a role for everyone who wants to contribute. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, you do excellent work, from what I've seen. I'm no stranger to writing blocks, which is why I'm mostly a copy editor at this stage. I've read your comments here and elsewhere, and while we focus on different subjects, I like the way you think. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, Liz. My block started with my dissertation and I sometimes feel crazy to still be surrounded by all of these hundreds of books. I keep telling myself that one day I'll put them to use on Wikipedia. I can't bear to sell them off, they were such a big part of my life once. But books should be used and not just sit on a shelf! Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I know the feeling. Writing a dissertation or even a Masters thesis....it can suck everything right out of you, in my experience. I'd never give up the books, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "Annie Award for Best Animated Feature — Independent"

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm contacting you about the deletion of the Annie Award for Best Animated Feature — Independent-page I created. The reason for the deletion seem to be that it duplicated an already existing Wikipedia article, which is not the case. If that would be true, why does every other category of the Annie Awards have their own pages? Shouldn't all of them be deleted as well? Please provide me with a better explanation then the one I've gotten so far. ReDead (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into this today, ReDead. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
ReDead, you were correct about that there are articles for other categories of the Annie Awards so I have restored this article. Let me know if you have any questions. Liz Read! Talk! 15:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of cats

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, why did you do this? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Because a) I didn't think redirects were necessarily assigned categories and b) the only article in Category:Ella Edmondson albums was this redirect. That was my thinking. If I was incorrect, please let me know (which I guess you are doing right now). Liz Read! Talk! 14:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't the only page in Category:2009 albums though. Redirects are often categorised, principally when the article which they lead to would not be sensibly placed in those categories. That is to say, the article Ella Edmondson is not about an album but a singer, so it doesn't belong in either Category:Ella Edmondson albums nor in Category:2009 albums. It's covered at WP:INCOMPATIBLE. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate you catching this, Redrose64. Thank you for informing me about my mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 15:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #188

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Hello!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey! I came across your page and wanted to say hi!!

Also, im from Jersey too. turnpike exit 8. So let me ask you? What exit? cheers to editing!Winterysteppe (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious how you came across my user page! Have we crossed paths before? To answer your question, I've never lived near the NJ Turnpike but I guess the closest exit would be 14. Although it is not very active, you might check out Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey...there are quite a few editors who write about New Jersey. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my defense

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for coming to my defense regarding the hostile editor operating under the dual accounts, ABriefPassing/ALongStay. I had wanted to celebrate the DYY event for the garage rock article, but instead had to deal with this unfortunate situation. I hope that there is a way we can keep this dual-account editor under permanent block so he cannot cause more trouble. Thank you once again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It was no problem at all, Garagepunk66. It was easy to see that his actions against you were a complete surprise. I'm glad you felt comfortable approaching a few admins for help. In case he reappears, just remember that he has no ability to get your articles deleted and he should not be telling you what you need to do to measure up to his personal standards. That bravado, when coming from a brand new user, is usually the sign of a troll. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to thank you again and again for your kindness. It is comforting to know that there are good people like you to protect those who are trying to do honest work in a friendly and welcoming environment. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Garagepunk66, I should let you know that the blocked editor has filed an unblock request and pinged me to look at it. I declined to review his request and recommended that a different admin consider whether or not he should be unblocked. In case he is unblocked, if he doesn't abide by his claims of wanting to turn over a new leaf, you know there are people you can come to. Hopefully, he will find another part of Wikipedia to work in. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Festivals in Europe by name

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_15#Category:Festivals_by_name Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Although I didn't create this category, I have done some work with the festival categories. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of of your CSD for one of the children. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hosahalli Ramaswamy

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I didn't tag this for A7 because there's a credible claim for notability (although I looked into some, and I think that should go to AfD if maintained because some of those claims don't pan out: for example, he is not "the editor" of the Journal of Food Engineering). Instead, I had tagged it for G11, so a credible claim of notability is not a valid reason to reject CSD... Just being pedantic here... :-) Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it didn't seem like spam/advertising to me. But take it to AfD where it can be more carefully considered. Liz Read! Talk! 16:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment order

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I have taken up a discussion with Cebr1979 about their way of interspersing talk page comments on his talk page, and since you were involved and I mentioned you there, I thought you may be interested in having a look or a say. LjL (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ya... and when she has her "look or say," she'll see she's already been pinged to the conversation twice. In fact, she has already seen the conversation because... wait for it... wait for it... she's already been pinged to the conversation twice. This message (which you pinged me to) here on her talk page is useless, redundant, and a complete of waste of everyone's time.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I already made my opinion known when I placed the comments in the correct order, LjL. Seeing the antagonistic way Cebr1979 treats other editors, I have no desire to post on their talk page. Reading over their recent contributions, I doubt that they care at all about what other editors think of their conduct. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
No. The {{ping}} template serves to ping, while merely mentioning a username doesn't do that unless one has a special option enabled in the preferences (check under "Notifications"). You should calm down. Your tone in basically calling me / us little children who "want to have their post on top" was honestly annoying, as well. LjL (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Er, LjL, it is you that is wrong - notifying somebody does not require use of any templates: there are none in this post, and yet it will have notified you. The essential ingredients are a link (however constructed) to a user page, and a new signature. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, my mistake then (although I still see no need for the tone). But then why do we have {{ping}}? LjL (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
LjL, I think Redrose64 was referring to [[User:LjL|LjL]] as a link to a user page. This can alert you to a message on a talk page along with using {{ping}}. The effect of either is the same but the look is different as you can see by LjL vs. @LjL:. Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Using {{ping|LjL}} is exactly the same as using {{reply to|LjL}} and is functionally identical to <span class="template-ping">@[[:User:LjL|LjL]]:</span>. That <span class="template-ping"></span> does nothing special, so this leaves @[[:User:LjL|LjL]]:. Of that, the @ sign and third colon are merely decoration, and the first colon is superfluous, which leaves [[User:LjL|LjL]] - which is a normal, everyday piped link, and exactly what I used in my post of 08:28, 16 December 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest!

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
  Edit Quest!
Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with RPGs, titusfox, but I appreciate the invitation and will look into this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Luckily it's not too much like an RPG and more like reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. But it's still fun! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 16:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, I've set you up on the page under a comment along with User:tokyogirl79. All you have to do now is choose a class and start (or Keep) fighting vandalism. Remember, all reverts must be shown as diffs on the page or they won't count as damage! ;) TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I still haven't even looked at this! I can't commit to "playing" when I don't know what this is. I'm going to be traveling over the next few days but eventually I'll get to looking it over. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Still Not Looked at it? Also I think the protection on your talk page is broken because it says it expires on the 16th or is it indefinite? TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 12:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Titusfox: It's not broken. The prot log entry says "Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 12:20, 16 December 2015" so the edit-protection is indefinite, and there is no move protection, because that expired at 12:20, 16 December 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
OK! :P TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Liz,

We are writing to let you know about the 3rd annual Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, taking place over the weekend of March 4-6, 2016. Last year, over 1500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. Active editors like you were key catalysts for actualizing edit-a-thons; we though perhaps you would like to participate in the 2016 event? The central New York event takes place at the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building at The Museum of Modern Art on Saturday, March 5, 2016. If you would like to learn more, you can reach us at: info@art.plusfeminism.org. We look forward to hearing from you!

All best wishes,

@Siankevans, Failedprojects, and Theredproject:

Thanks for the invitation, @Siankevans, Failedprojects, and Theredproject:. I appreciate you giving substantial advance notice as sometimes I only hear about these events the day before or even after they have occurred. I'll see if I can participate as we get closer to the event. Liz Read! Talk! 16:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful to hear. Happy holidays!
@Siankevans, Failedprojects, and Theredproject:

Falk Preussner Page Deleted

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I noticed that the page I created "Falk Preussner" was deleted on November 21st after being live for 4 months. Would you be so kind as to explain why this happened? Please provide suggestions as to how to proceed with making this page live. Thank you. Kriziadlp (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Kriziadlp, Falk Preussner has been moved to Draft space twice and deleted four times. The latest deletion was on the grounds of CSD A7 which is Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. If you wish the article to be moved, once again, to Draft space, let me know. But given the fact it's been deleted so often, the article would have to be substantially improved...a future deletion will likely get the page "salted" which means that no editor would be able to create an article on this subject (at all). Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. Thank you for the prompt response. If you would be so kind as to move the article to Draft Space for us to revisit first thing tomorrow, that would be much appreciated. How long do I have to substantially improve the article before it is marked for deletion? I would hate for the article to be salted. Kriziadlp (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Kriziadlp, I should have checked. Draft:Falk Preussner already exists but is due to be deleted because of copyright issues. I would take a look at the draft right away and remove any content that has been taken from elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. I went ahead and made significant edits to the article. Is there a way for you to advise me on the status of revision? Kriziadlp (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this report shows you areas of concern which look as if these sections have been copied from Presseneur's website. As for getting the article into shape to move the article from Draft space to Main space, I'd submit it to the Articles for Creation team where an experienced editor will review it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your advice at the teahouse about reverting a non-admin closure. The discussion I was referring to is here. I found it very offensive so I posted my concern to ANI. It was closed in 29 minutes. I think the fact that no one on the board has re-opened it speaks volumes, so I may just leave it. But if I wanted to, is all I have to do is just revert the closers edit? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Magnolia677, here is my take on it. I would not have closed the complaint so soon...I would have waited to see more responses from editors. But Beyond My Ken is an editor who is very experienced on ANI and I think he offered you some advice you should consider. The remark was a comment made on a user talk page to a specific person (who wasn't you) that was followed by a smiley face. I believe Kudpung was being sarcastic, not descriptive. And I don't think you could argue that it was uncivil or a personal attack because it was a criticism of a noticeboard, not an individual.
I also don't think it qualifies as WP:ADMINABUSE which is reserved for more serious abuses of authority and tools against editors. You went to discuss the matter at his talk page, which was the correct response, and I can see that you were unsatisfied by his response to you. In this case, I would not revert BMK because I respect his judgment. If it had been a different editor, like an editor who was relatively new and inexperienced or showed an overeagerness to close complaints, I would revert with no reservations.
My advice would be to leave it alone. You have voiced your discontent, both at ANI and on Kudpung's talk page. You have made your opinion known. But even if the complaint had been left open three or four days, there would have been no action taken against Kudpung for a remark like this. So, I'm guessing that BMK saw that action would not be taken and closed the complaint early because cases on ANI can sometimes spiral out of control. It could have resulted in an editor suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG for you. Although I don't think you would face a sanction for making the complaint, it is always a possibility if editors believe it is frivolous. There is always a danger when one takes a complaint to ANI because the editor posting the case will find their own behavior examined. It might not be fair, but I've seen it happen. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for invite.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I very thank you for invite, to you're forum.

I have one question: How to make such a design as to you so different? You can give the link? Thank you :) Lukaslt13 (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Puodelis kavos jums!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thank you for invite ! Lukaslt13 (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi more time ! I wanted suggest you're in their activities. That is to say If I bad edit article, that you change, or I? What do you think, well, here's my opinion? Merely Wikipedia welfare.-- Lukaslt13 —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit for the ArbCom Report

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Liz. Are you available to do a copyedit on the upcoming report before its out? GamerPro64 01:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

San Bernardino reverts

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Liz. Do I recall correctly that you and DHeyward are on opposite sides of GamerGate or GenderGap or some other subject area? If so, I think it's bad form that your only substantive content-related edits to the San Bernardino article (aside from reverting some vandalism) are to revert DHeyward, with no real explanation and no talk page discussion, on an article you know has a 1RR limit. Looks like games playing, even if it isn't. Do I need to drop one of those WP:GS/ISIL notices here, or are you already aware of it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary "Better version, more neutral" seems like an explanation to me. It might be game playing but another explanation would be that Liz thought it improved the article. HighInBC 21:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I edited that article before DH did and protected it from vandalism. Once I saw there were plenty of editors working on it, I backed off. I thought the 2 of his 44 edits, happening two weeks apart, were inferior to the content he removed. I was not the only editor who reverted one of DH's edits. No, I did not participate in the talk pages of this article (or its 4 archived talk pages) because I don't have the desire to go step-by-step through this heated dispute. My revert was about the removal of one source with another which I didn't think was superior and I didn't think this was controversial. Since my edit has somehow gotten me involved in a WP:ANEW complaint, I am now aware of WP:GS/ISIL although I'd argue that this article shouldn't be covered by an ISIL GS but that is a matter that seems to be decided.
If you are suggesting an IBan, may I ask that it be mutual as DH has reverted my edits as well. But we mainly don't run into each other much any more as I don't do much editing in areas of American politics, shootings and terrorism which seem to be his areas of interest.Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree that it's kind of dumb to apply the ISIL GS to this article, but as you say, that appears to be water under the bridge. If everyone else has to follow it, you should too. I'm not suggesting an I-Ban. But at least recognize that when the only two content-related edits you've made to a very busy article over more than a week are 2 reverts of the same person, someone you've previously been in conflict with in a different topic area, and you didn't touch any other edits by any other editor, it is obvious that you're doing this to continue a conflict. About 50% of the editors on that page are probably doing the same thing - this is a fundamental defect of our operating model - but I would have expected better from you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
First, I stand by my reversions, I thought the previous versions were better. Secondly, this was an editing decision, not an admin one. Third, I didn't know you had any expectations about me! You've never posted to my talk page before this, you didn't express an opinion about my adminship and our prior interaction before this was a question I had about Soixante Nerf back in March 2014 which didn't go so well. I'm used to slights on Wikipedia, like people discussing me or referring to me without naming me (much less pinging me), so the fact that you had anything other than run-of-the-mill expectations of me is a surprise. I hope you will speak up for me the next time I get reverted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Liz, you didn't really address my main point. If you want to argue about the phrase "expected better", we can, I guess (though I doubt it would be productive or enlightening). Or we can talk about why you brought up your being an admin (I didn't mention it). Or why you think I owe it to you to defend you from being reverted. But first, could you at least address my main point? Quoting: "the only two content-related edits you've made to a very busy article over more than a week are 2 reverts of the same person, someone you've previously been in conflict with in a different topic area, and you didn't touch any other edits by any other editor." Do you understand my concern? If you don't want to discuss it further, then ignore me and I'll drop it. But if you want me to address your concerns, then please answer mine first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You don't owe me anything Floquenbeam. I have reverted edits where I thought the previous version was better and I'VE been reverted when I thought it was "games playing" behavior. I don't know what I can say beyond I can see your concern but in tens of thousands of edits, I have no doubt reverted editors I have not been in disputes with as well as editors I have been in disputes with as I imagine you have and all other editors have. I know that DHeyward has reverted me repeatedly and I never raised any voice of complaint. I've been reverted by people who dislike me and I didn't take it personally. I was editing the San Bernardino article before he was so it was on my Watchlist. Since you are concerned, I will take it off my Watchlist. These were 2 edits out of 57,000+ edits I've made which have mostly gone unchallenged. If this doesn't answer your concern, I'm not sure what else I can say to you that you would find a satisfying response. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I only saw HighInBC's comment after I posted my own. And he basically sums up my thinking at the time. You are welcome to look at the edits and see whether DH's version or the earlier version that was replaced was a more accurate, neutral version of that paragraph. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Holiday Cheer

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Seasons Greetings

Christmas! Christmas, everywhere,
on every talk page, I do dispair
Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told,
but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD!
So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern
Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.

Have a great Holiday Season. Buster Seven Talk 18:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This card designed by User:Samtar.
Thanks for the holiday greeting Buster7! It's appreciated. Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #189

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #186

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

Merry Christmas, Liz

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dirtlawyer1. Your good wishes are appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A favour?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am being dragged screaming and yelling into the murky world of wiki-deletions-discussion, LOL. Anyway, I wonder if I can ask you what is the proper process for deleting empty categories, since I know you do this. Is there a category specific venue, or are the nominated categories simply being listed at CSD (where?)? Are notifications recommended? See old exchange with user:risker as some background. I would appreciate a response on my own talk page. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:2016 television seasons

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was tempted to do this back in July when the category was created - for some reason these cats are always created long before they're required - but with only 8 days left in the year and around 2 weeks before the cat starts being populated, it's a bit late to request deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend, it was on a database list of empty categories. I checked and it was empty so I tagged it. All those TV-focused editors need to do is to assign one article to this category and then it will no longer be empty and would not be eligible for CSD C1. We don't create empty categories for future events, we create categories to serve a current need for organization. I understand what you are saying but I tag the categories.
Often when I'm creating new categories, I find that there was a previous existing category that was deleted because it was empty. Now that it does have some pages or subcategories, I can easily restored it. So, two points: First, editors want a category to exist, they should fill it and two, if an category is deleted for being empty and there is a future need, it is easy to restore it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jim Carter#ArbCom clerk

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Jim Carter#ArbCom clerk. Thanks. CatcherStorm talk 11:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time...

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water,

and it won't catch fire.
Wishing you a joyous holiday season...
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Atsme📞📧 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Pure pun-ishment. [19]

Thank you, Atsme, I hope you had a great holiday! Happy New Year to you! Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC 2016
 
 

You are invited to join us at New York University for Wikipedia Day NYC 2016, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of Wikipedia 15, the project's global 15th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions.

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

10:00am - 7:00 pm at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts, 721 Broadway (between Waverly and Washington Place)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 78.26! And because I haven't said so yet, congratulations! Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I ask that I be considered to apply to be an Arbitration Committee clerk. CatcherStorm talk 01:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

CatcherStorm, please either send an email message with your request to our email list <clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org> or post a message at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. I should say that new trainee clerks are recruited usually twice a year and we currently have 5 trainee clerks. We probably won't be taking on more clerks until later into 2016 but it never hurts to let the clerks team know of your interest. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Liz

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. --DHeyward (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DHeyward. I hope you are having a pleasant holiday. I actually remember seeing this duet when I was younger when it aired on TV, not knowing how it was surreal as it was because I wasn't familiar with David Bowie. Still a classic video clip, thanking you for sharing it. Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
And now a sad ending but a classic for the ages. [20]. I didn't know he had cancer. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wasim Akhtar (Singer)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your temporary salt of this article has expired and the article is back and up for speedy a fifth time. Meters (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm surprised I didn't indefinitely salt this article and only protected it for two weeks. It appears that SuperMarioMan deleted the article for the fifth time and indefinitely blocked recreation. I'm sorry I wasn't around to deal with this when the problem arose but I was spending time with my family. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

J Hutton Pulitzer

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks. See my comments at Talk:Oak Island and an old WO thread.[21]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this on another editor's talk page, Doug Weller? I don't know of a connection I have to Oak Island or that WO thread. It was interesting to look at the history of that article and see that an IP editor originally removed the fraudulent claim but was reverted by an established editor who put it back in! Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You deleted Jovan Hutton Pulitzer. Tricky one as I expect it will be recreatead and he's litigious as well as very good at publicity, eg[22] - he gets a lot of social media. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for filling me in, Doug. I didn't get the connection. Have a good new year. Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You too. Doug Weller talk 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)

Montanabw! That's a unique Christmas message! I'm on the West Coast now and am appreciating the wide open spaces (although this is not exactly the country!). I hope you had a great holiday with friends and family. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greets!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congrats on the twins, Liz! ↓ an', an', an' GAB's a copycat from Ballarat, 'cos I had dibs on this template. (Umma, I told a big fib!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, Iryna Harpy! I don't think a person can get too many good wishes! I hope you are having a restful holiday. Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

GABHello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wishing you a peaceful, happy Christmas and good luck in 2016,

GABHello! 01:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, GAB, I hope you are having a pleasant holiday! Liz Read! Talk! 18:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Masood Ahmad

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Liz. I am a bit puzzled why you deleted Masood Ahmad as the AfD has only been open for three hours. If there was an applicable CSD criteria, could you please note that? Thanks, Altamel (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Altamel, it was tagged CSD G7 and I was just working through the G7 category which is what happens when you are clearing up CSD categories. I didn't notice that there was an open AfD or I wouldn't have deleted it, I prefer AfDs to run their course and I have removed speedy tags from articles that were in the midst of an AfD or RfD, etc. I don't know how to "note" that it was tagged CSD G7 without restoring the article and deleting it a fourth time which I think is unnecessary. I didn't see any content in the article that led me to believe it would be a viable article in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, in the deletion log you actually did add a link to the AfD, so I had assumed that you did see it. I'm not an admin but I've heard that sometimes automated scripts are used to fill in the deletion log entries, perhaps that is why the log mentions the AfD even though you never saw it? I'll add a note to the AfD closure stating you deleted it under G7, since nothing in the deletion log indicates this currently. Altamel (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessarily a script: in the deletion notice there will have been some links, and one of those will both delete the page and fill in the reason. Speedy deletion boxes usually have some small italic text like this:
Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion.
That "before deletion" link is the one that I always use when speedy deleting, and this particular one would have set the deletion log entry to "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #190

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata weekly summary #186

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

Could you perhaps delete this category I made?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Liz, hope you had a Merry Christmas :-) I was wondering, could you please delete this category I made some time ago? I'm in a big re-categorization progress and I simply realized its undoable adding that category to everyone of mixed Iranian and Greek descent as otherwise I'd have to add it to half of all biographical articles regarding the entire antiquity. Heh. So yeah I'll just simply separately category them in the future which is easier. However, this cat still needs to be deleted, and I really don't have the time nor the mood to go through that whole afd process, so I wondered whether you could just quickly delete it for me?

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done although I realized afterwards that I should have handled this as a CFD speedy deletion request instead of an ordinary user-request deletion. I'm out of CFD practice. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rev-del request

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Liz, can you rev-del this: [23]? It's an unsourced comment about a BLP's sexuality. Thanks. 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done — Ched :  ?  21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ched. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this Ched. I'm staying at a place with a crappy wifi network and I'm only online now because I took over the family's home computer! It'll be nice when I'm back home with my always-on wifi connection. I guess I took it for granted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Liz!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
 
Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.
.
Thank you very much, Poepkop! Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Liz!

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
 
 
Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thank you, Rubbish computer! Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy UTC-New-Year!!! Wbm1058 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And you as well, Wbm1058! I hope that 2016 brings you health and happiness! Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, cheers. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 22:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_15&oldid=1252118770"