'tis the fall season!

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54

July-August 2013 September-October 2013 November-December 2013 January-February 2014 March-April 2014 May-June 2014 July-August 2014 September-October 2014 November-December 2014 January-February 2015 March-April 2015 May-June 2015 July-August 2015 September-October 2015

14 August 2024
In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems In focus: Twitter marks the spot News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear? Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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

Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel

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

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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

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

I thought it was funny, Keithbob, and placed it on my Talk Page myself. The "epiphets" are so ludicrous and silly, I can't believe anyone would take them personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought it was placed here by someone else. Glad you find it fun. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I saw your additional revert. How about this though:

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

@JustBerry: I'm not saying that there are no grounds for speedy deletion of these articles. It's just that G10 isn't the correct tag.

"Negative in tone" would be if a recent article said, "George Smith is a crook who steals money from his clients. It's amazing that he hasn't been arrested and sent to prison. And he's an ugly dude, too." That is an attack page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I understand your point and am well-aware what an attack page is. The problem is that I don't think Twinkle's description of G10 is correct. --JustBerry (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JustBerry, the article also had a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why in the world did you move it to draft space? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: The user said themselves that it was their first edit; it is highly recommended that inexperienced users submit to WP:AfC, or at least make an article in the draftspace. Do you seriously think the article is ready for the mainspace? If so, by all means, undo my actions on that draft, but I don't agree. Also, about the ref, the ref on the bottom was updated, although the link was originally there. --JustBerry (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rely on Twinkle's abbreviation of deletion criteria to be your guide. And also, please do not tag a page for deletion so soon after it has been created because the editor might still be working on it. In one case, a minute after the article was created, you tagged. That is seen as very bitey to new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are sandboxes for then? If you insist, the article can be left in the mainspace. --JustBerry (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JustBerry, the article is a perfect example of a stub. The subject is clearly notable, the prose is clear, and it has a good source. Now we need volunteers to expand it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I suppose I see your point. I'll look out for that in the future; thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I trouted JustBerry for this AfD and he asked me to return here, just a comment that this was an utterly ridiculous tag because there was absolutely nothing negative in the very first post. Please re-read WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Absolutely no criteria for deletion of a sourced stub like this exists. Can this be stated any more clearly? Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I'm not sure what part of "I'll look out for that in the future" wasn't clear to you. --JustBerry (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part that said, "I'm sorry that I put the wrong tag on this article that claimed it was an attack piece." You could also thank me for the trout, they are quite tasty. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Education is the preferred method. I think JustBerry will be more careful in the future. I know I've been criticized for a few of my CSD tags...you make mistakes, you learn and hopefully you don't make them in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: As cheesy as it may sound, if it's not explicitly my fault, I don't usually prefer taking full blame for it. It should be understood, quite frankly, that Twinkle had a wrong description of the tag. If you say that "Twinkle shouldn't be relied upon," I would like to disagree, considering how many users use Twinkle. In any event, I understand the point here and will be more mindful of it in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I might suggest that if there is no suitable option in Twinkle, them maybe Twinkle or CSD isn't appropriate, and {{subst:PROD}} would be a better option? Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Carrite, is there a reason he can't post a request at WP:PERM/PCR? It's a request that is likely to be granted. Except for autopatrol rights, the editor who desires the rights needs to ask for them, rather than a third party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is granted without an explicit request as well. Usually when an admin notices an experienced editor constantly doing recent changes patrol. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My experience with this permission is that it is something that can be bestowed by an administrator with nobody asking (as it was in my case) or at the request of third parties who note the oversight (as in this case; i've made several such requests over the years). It's one of the little perks of your Admin toolkit that you can give these Mega Barnstars to worthy content people (while at the same time easing the workload on the overworked new page patrollers). Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Correction - it was User:Scott MacDonald. The discussion page (not really an essay) was here My memory must be getting fritzy. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Wnt. I'm glad I didn't act before hearing from you. Should you wish to gain the right, please simply post a request! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, Tim is asking about autopatrolled rights for Wnt, not WP:Pending Changes. Did I get that right? - NQ-Alt (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, autopatrolled. He should have that flag, bang bang, we're done. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yes, reviewer usually refers to the right to review pending changes. I've given Wnt autopatrol rights. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are invited to join us for a full day and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture. Thursday, October 15 Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon—to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Ryk72, it's never a good idea to move a category like you'd move an article because categories do not have redirects. Next time, you should go to WP:CFD and add it as a speedy rename/delete if it is a simple move and is unlikely to be contested. The admins working at CfD have a lot of experience with speedy renames plus, there is a bot which can change the category names on the associated pages rather than having to do so manually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Many thanks for the excellent advice; I shall definitely bear it in mind going forward. A lot of interesting information as WP:CFD. Looking over the bit on CATREDs, it looks like the redirect should remain, at least for a short while; so no cleanup looks to be required at this stage. In the words of the Bard, alls well that ends. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. I saw that you moved Phyllis Lapin-Vance earlier per WP:MAIDEN. I just wanted to let you know NBC does list the character as Lapin-Vance [1] while Pam's character is listed only as Halpert [2]. Calidum 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calidum, WP:MAIDEN was the rationale in the CSD tag that was placed on the article (which is now no longer visible in the page history) and it seemed sound to me at the time. I now note that this article has been moved from Phyllis Vance to Phyllis Lapin then to Phyllis Lapin-Vance and now back to Phyllis Vance.

The title of this article should be discussed at Talk:The Office (U.S. TV series) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Office task force to get a consensus. Or you can start a discussion at WP:RM if you think that would be a better venue. With so many moves for this article, I'm not going to move it back until there is some agreement on what this article should be titled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't seen the CSD tag. I don't really have strong feelings about the name (I can't remember the hyphenated name being used on the show) so I don't plan on moving it back. Calidum 23:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Calidum, after this move, I looked into WP:RM and found there was a similar discussion going on about Pam Halpert which has the opposite conclusion (going with her married name, not maiden name). Check that out if you have an opinion on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

DGG, my attention was drawn to this article because I was looking through the deletion log, seeing if any deleted articles had been recreated. This article had been deleted on October 7, 2015 by RHaworth (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I had some doubts about deleting a recreated article about a high school which is why I tagged it instead of deleting it myself. Thanks for informing me that articles about high schools are always considered notable and these articles are not self-promotional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they can be promotional. I have deleted some via G11 myself, if they are mainly devoted to saying how good the school is in an advertising manner. This had one sentence of so of that only, which I removed. G11 is tricky, because it has no clear boundaries, and various admins go by different standards--& even one admin will go by different standards depending of degree of exasperation with inadequate new articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a better way of saying this is that we have a very strong working consensus, established by the consistent outcome of hundreds or thousands of deletion debates, that accredited, degree awarding high schools are presumed notable by the community. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm writing about [3]. What was not correct? --Holopoman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Holopoman,

I misunderstood the CSD rationale so I have reverted my edit. I will let an administrator more experienced in page move and accompanying deletions handle this page. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thank you for your help. --Holopoman (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to understand that

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

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

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

Rich, it is a misspelling that I don't believe any reader or editor would ever make, especially looking for an article that was deleted years ago. I can't see what purpose it had as most people know that the word is articles not aticles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly one editor (me) did make that error in 2010.

However if the page were recently created, I'd agree, or at least not object to the rationale (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect). However the page sat there for four years, from 15 April 2010‎ until a couple of days ago.

We cannot assume that nothing in the entire world links to that URL.

The reason I raise this is not that this particular redirect is important, it's that the principle is very important. We should never break a URL without good reason.

This is particularly the case with WP redirects which are uber-cheap in terms of resource. In fact it costs more to delete a redirect than to keep it, in almost every way of measuring.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'll keep all of that sound advice in mind, Rich. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jllm06, in the past, I have just stumbled across empty categories every once in a while. But I found a database list and have been tagging a lot of them today. I saw your name on a bunch of them (but not as many as another prolific category creator!) so I thought I'd drop you a note. Since then, I've seen that some of the categories were emptied and blanked, and I assume the editor thought then someone else would see them and tag them for deletion. You do a lot of categorization so it is natural that some of the ones you created have been superseded and are no longer necessary.

I'm sorry if my note sounded like I was chiding you because I know how much experience you have editing, both in terms of how long you've been editing and how many edits you have made. That was not my intent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwflammang, you are free to work on an article in your sandbox, User:Rwflammang/Sandbox, until you think it is ready to put into the main Wikipedia space. These pages are considered drafts are are left alone unless there are problems like copyright infringement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the deleted article, and I will work on it in the main wikipedia space. It was certainly no worse than any other beginning stub article, and better than most. The deletion was clearly based on the mistaken assumption that Exposure (radiation) was the same thing as Radiation. In the main Wikipedia space, it will be easier for other editors of nuclear articles to find and improve than it would be in my sandbox, and it will be more easily linked to in those articles that mention exposure, such as roentgen (unit), rad (unit), and rem (unit). Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwflammang, I've put the material at User:Rwflammang/Sandbox. I recommend you submit any future articles to Articles for Creation rather than putting them directly into Wikipedia main space. At AfC, an experienced editor will review your article and it won't face immediate deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

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

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

Thanks so much, Please reply,

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

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

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

Father immaculate, Franz Schuld was also known as, Franz Kafka during his studies in Eastern Europe. His given name Schultchen, is a combination of German and Hebrew, meaning to teach God's grace. It remains the definitive Yiddish name, Schultchen, without English accent, pronounced, Schuld.

Kafka, a fictional character, was innovative in propaganda techniques for Nazi party, then known as Ashkenazi education program, as his likeness remained a mystery.

This is pure rubbish. I'm not going to restore this material. Please find another website where this inventive writing is welcomed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Cobblet, what is the category you want deleted? CSD C1 is only for empty categories, that is categories that contain no articles or pages.

You can look at CSD for criteria for templates but, you're right, TFD says "Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories", so if the CSD criteria don't fit, propose a deletion at CFD. I hope that helps.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Denisarona. I've been looking over the first edits of newly registered accounts and came across this unexpected edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

SwisterTwister, I don't understand. Do you mean that if an article has been tagged with a CSD tag, I won't send it to AfD? That's probably true as I created several AfDs for articles that were speedy deleted before the discussion even got started. So, I assumed that the speedy delete was often acted on more immediately than AfDs. Do you have an example that you are thinking of, in case I was mistaken? I'm still learning.

I'm not familiar moving articles into Wikipedia space but I will look into it. I hope I can oblige. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't pinpoint an example at this moment but it is a case of an AfD (started by anyone) and you speedy deleted it without closing the open AfD. Several users including myself patrol AfD logs to close any still open AfDs but it helps when the deleting admin can close it themselves. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. I think I've done that once or twice. I haven't closed an AfD yet so I'll figure out the right templates to use and do so in the future.

As for the hoax article, most of those listed on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia stayed up for at least one year (if not several years) so I don't know if having a hoax article up for three weeks will qualify. Hoax articles like that one get posted and deleted every day so I'm not sure if this one was particularly notable. But I saw some editing that needs to be done on that page so I'll become more familiar with the standards of including a hoax over the next few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

zzuuzz, I based that block on their username. I should have looked at their contributions. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I'm not so bothered about the autoblock and so on, but this way they get a more appropriate message. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Samtar, unlike editor adoption, clerk trainees need to contact the clerks team and request a review. It's not a one-on-one process of instruction. Just read over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration clerks seeking new volunteers and follow the guidance on sending in an email message to the list outlining your editing background and someone on the team will contact you.

I will say that we just appointed three new trainee clerks and probably won't be taking on new clerks for a few more months. But every year, there is a need for new trainees, if you are still interested in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I must have misread this, especially the section which states "Editors interested in becoming a clerk should contact a current full clerk and ask that they be considered.". Many thanks :) samtar ^(msg) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an apology! And you did contact a clerk and I instructed you to send in an email message to the clerks list. That's just how things are done now. Reviewing questionnaires sent back from applicants is done by all clerks and the arbitrators who want to participate via email so it's not a decision made by one individual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! Many thanks for your help Liz, have a nice day! samtar ^(msg) 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I haven't received it, Yamaguchi先生. I know GMail has issues with some mail formats (my emails from my Yahoo! account sent through Wikipedia's "Email this user" were never received). I'll let you know if it is delivered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaguchi先生. I've received and responded to your email message. I hope it's helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Drone photography of Versailles
• Wikimedia project milestones: Swedish Wikipedia hits 2 million
• What I Learned: Wikipedia Education Program in Argentina
• In September, we love monuments
• Reimagining the Wikimedia Foundation’s grants
• Wikipedia’s very active editor numbers have stabilized—delve into the data with us
• Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, Nicolas.le-guen,

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

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

Sam Sailor, I went to ml:കാലിക്കറ്റ്‌ റിവ്യൂ and could see that the article was deleted by Irvin calicut. But since the article has been deleted, I can not see who created that page because it is on another wikipedia and it is only available to admins there.

The account who created the page on the English Wikipedia was CalicutReview, who is blocked and Sriharitvm also changed the redirect on that page but those were their only edits. I'm not sure if this helps! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I will add it to the SPI filing, thank you, Liz. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor, what is interesting is that there are completely different accounts who edited Calicut Review and Talk:Calicut Review. I think you have more accounts to add to your list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AamPP (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) already added, but tell me if notice more. Al Ameer son very obviously is not part of the farm. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems like you and Montanabw are bringing up valid concerns on USPC2015's talk page and having a discussion which is good. If it turns into edit-warring or there is belligerence, please let me know. But a lot of what we do at Wikipedia is education and explaining to new editors the standards and practices of Wikipedia and that occurs through dialogue.

As for Acuratehorse, I posted a welcome message and advised them to be careful if they have a conflict-of-interest. I do not have checkuser access so I can't check to see if they are two accounts used by the same person. You can either file an inquiry at WP:SPI or contact a checkuser directly, offer your evidence and perhaps they will do a quick check for you. I also see the use of IP216.7.136.198 but I imagine that this is USPC2015 editing logged out.

I have put the article on my watchlist but I've found in situations like this, what helps the most is having more editors keeping tabs on an article in case the situation escalates. Right now, you're in the midst of discussion and working out differences which can be challenging. But I don't currently see behavior that is blockworthy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the watchlisting, Liz. Feel free to intervene as you see fit. I've run into these sorts before and they just don't have a clue and go off calling me an evil reptilian kitten-eater when all I'm trying to do is explain to them - on my volunteer time - that they can't just copy and paste the whole website verbatim and then demand that we do it their way... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and

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

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

Well, I'd definitely keep an eye on the article. But so far the editing doesn't reach the threshold of disruption. I hope both editors take Montanabw's advice and come to discuss the matter on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be the same person... or two people who know each other. Sigh. Once again, someone is apt to stomp off in a huff, muttering about how impossible it is to edit wikipedia, all because they Just. Won't. Listen. For the record, here is a good way to work with a COI editor and an example of one who had a great attitude: [4] Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, Sharifsadik, read the messages on your talk page, especially User talk:Sharifsadik#User:Sharifsadik/Sandbox that suggests to you that you work on articles in your sandbox. Alternatively, you can create a draft article (like Draft:Aftab Group) where you could work on the article and it will not be vulnerable to speedy deletion unless there are copyright violations or it is seen as blatant advertising. Additionally, I recommend going to Wikipedia:Your first article and following the advice there.

I have the feeling that there is some pressure on you to have this article appear in Wikipedia main space right now and that is just not going to work without the article meeting Wikipedia standards (see your Welcome message for links). You also might have a conflict of interest if you are creating these articles on someone else's behalf so you should read up on that policy as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Timtrent, I have no objections to your reversions. I'll make sure the redirects I changed are changed back. The wording of this title is very awkward as most of the lists of people killed are either about murders or specify the type of death (electrocution, war, assassination, etc.).

I looked on the talk page to see if there were any recent discussions about the title but the ones that exist were from years ago. An editor brought up the issue in 2014 but the suggestion didn't get much response so I concluded that there wasn't any strong opinion on the matter. I see that I was wrong about that. I still think it is a terrible article title but I'll leave the matter to those editors who contribute to this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title is clunky and even that the article is poor. It is, at best, a working title. I would love someone to come up with a far better title that encompasses the fact that the folk slain were Trans and that the death was not by lawful means. Are you up for making the attempt?

I think I changed the redirects. I wondered about leaving it to a bot, but decided I ought to have a go myself. Fiddle Faddle 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a discussion here and invite you to contribute. I ma by no means wedded to the current title, as you can see. Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have a very long list of articles I'm keeping an eye on but I'd like to hear people's opinions about this suggested change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I was wondering about broadening to to RFC. What are your thoughts on that? Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Lambao.truong,

Typically with speedy deletions like this, an editor tags the article for deletion and then an administrator deletes the article. I deleted the article based on a CSD G4 tag which is recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, specifically, it was determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spireon that the article should be deleted.

What I recommend to you if you want to write an article on this subject is to work on it in your sandbox (User:Lambao.truong/Sandbox). Sandboxes are for creating articles and are not subject to speedy deletion unless there are certain concerns like copyright infringements.

Also, when you believe you have established notability of the subject using reliable sources, submit it to Articles for Creation which will review the article for you. If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. I hope this helps! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's a good idea, Wbm1058. The whole Google story project has gone through so many re-titlings, redirects and page moves, it's a challenge to follow what has happened. I'm heading out right now but I will try to contact the instructor later today. Thanks for the suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back at my computer, Wbm1058. I looked over the instructor's (Jaobar) edits and they seem to be on top of the class situation. I just hope all of the talk pages messages we left the editor weren't too confusing! Often the best advice to give a new editor who is doing lots of article creation and page moves is simply, Slow down! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wbm1058 and User:Liz, thank you for looking into the situation so quickly (and so politely). My students are supposed to only be working in their sandboxes. I have addressed the majority of instances where this instruction was not followed. I've been doing this sorta thing in class since 2011, so I'm used to addressing these sorts of issues. Thanks again for your help and your patience. Sincerely --Jaobar (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor working on the Google article had several pages deleted, Jaobar, let me know if they would like to recover the content. If they are upset at the deletion, we can put it in their sandbox but, honestly, sometimes it's better to start from scratch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good to go User:Liz. I'll let you know if I hear any complaints. --Jaobar (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are Asdisis, you should log into that account and make an appeal to your block, you should not be socking. If you are not Asdisis, it would behoove you to create an account. It is incredibly difficult for regular editors to converse with an IP account because your IP might change and you don't have a stable identity. This is one reason why IPs are sometimes assumed to be blocked editors who are evading their block. Think about it when your block is over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought a report and investigation is needed for someone to be a sock. That's why I ignored empty accusations, but this is getting out of hand. I can't even appeal because an admin blocks me even from appealing. I also though that no one can be blocked as a sock if he doesn't exhibit any misconduct. Could you go trought that case on Ani and share your oppinion?212.15.178.72 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used to think that an SPI was required to block a suspected sock account but it is not. Some admins block accounts based on the Duck test...if an account looks like a sockpuppet and acts like a sockpuppet, it is probably a sockpuppet.

It is almost impossible to lift a block when you keep hopping from one IP to another. If you have a registered account, please read Wikipedia:Appealing a block for guidance. If you have a registered account and can not edit your talk page, file an unblock ticket request...see Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that is giving them right to block anyone, no questions asked. Appeal can be rejected by simply stating "DUCK" even if the person in question doesn't have any similarity. I feel that if I make an account I will be blocked again in the same manner, and I won't be able to appeal because they will just say Duck. I was under impression that a misconduct has to be present, because if it's not present than the original User under block can be unblocked anyway.It's funny. if Asdisis came and admit he was me he could be unblocked because of my good behavior, but I can't because I can't go to his account. O think the real question is, why did those users suspect I'm him. He is characterized with disruptive behavior, I bare no resemblance. Lastly, I'm the least important here. Even if I were a sock, admins are neglecting the things said in the ANI and the thing that some users are trying to prevent a RS enters the article. What do you think of the ANI and the events I described there. The ANI is not about me and regardless of me, those things had happened. Admins shouln't neglect those things and they should determine if there was misconduct of the other side. I still think that a formal request can't be closed by a tottaly random editor who had come to close the discussion not to asses the consensus but because he supported one side.212.15.177.70 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that you are maybe under the wrong impression that I participate only in this discussion where I'm marked as a sock. Here's what's actually happening. At the moment I participate in 5-6 discussions and no one is accusing me of being a sock, except one user. He followed me to few other discussions trough my contributions, one of them being Novak Djokovic. Here are my discussions [7]. You can see that no other editor participating in them had not accused me of any misconduct and called me a sock. In fact I opened 2 RfC's recently. More than 10 editors participated and they all accepted my suggestion. One RfC was formally closed in my favor. Only this one editor is accusing me of being a sock and he knows this admin HighInBc. You can see on his talk page offering the right to that user to protect any page for him (I suppose the right to block anyone goes with it). Maybe you aren't aware but I was the one who reported that admin and you also shared concerns about my ip changing in that report. I really hadn't any problems until I started discussing with Fkp on Serbs of Croatia. He there tried to block me immediately. Just check the history. I think I posted one or two posts and he immediately said I'm a sock and erased my posts. Well all that finished with a RfC that I started and a formal closure in my favor. That user followed me then to every of other 5 discussions i had. Anywhere he appears people start to accuse me of being a sock. It's amazing of how many people know Asdisis and I can't believe that is a coincidence that where he appears the accusations start to appear. It seems to me he and his friends have found a pretty clever way to block any ip or a new user that they like. I'm not the only one.

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

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

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

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

I can't begin to address all of the questions in your long comments. Regarding IP hopping and socking, there are special clerks and admins who address these cases on a daily basis who are familiar with the guidelines regarding policy. Please raise your questions (brief questions, not long paragraphs) at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations and you will get more informed responses than I can provide.

Regarding IP and editor identity, like I said, it is almost impossible to have a discussion with an IP editor whose IP number keeps changing. I don't know if I'm talking to the same person so each time your number changes, you have to explain again who you are and trust that the other editor will believe you. Also, if you had a registered account, I could "ping" you and you would get a notification that I responded to your message which doesn't happen when you are an IP.

Think of it this way...I'm Liz and when I went through an RfA, editors could go through my contributions and judge me based on my (Liz's) edits. I have a stable identity so other editors can see where I have stood on issues, positions I've taken, responses I have given to people on my talk page. When you have an account number which is constantly changing, people don't know who you are, have no idea of your past (because your contributions could be from a different editor who was assigned the IP number at a different time) and so there is less trust because editors don't have your track record to judge you on. And while it is perfectly valid to edit anonymously, there will be some editors who assume that some IP editors are socking and trying to hide their identity...even if you are innocent, there will still be those who are suspicious.

It's a choice you have to make and neither you nor I can change the culture of Wikipedia. We can like it or hate it, but it is the sum total of interactions editors have on the project, something than no individual has control over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good arguments. I will consider doing that, but not for the discussions where I'm already involved. What about the ANI? The case of improper closure still stands open. The editor closed the request because he supported one side. Then he came to ANI and close the ANI where I complain about him closing the formal request. People can't just go around and close things because they don't agree with it. It seems to me that the discussion is now being closed although I'm not the only one who participated and agreed. One established user also agreed and other who objected initially didn't agree went to make the edit himself. The fact still remains that this is the only source and no sources that oppose it. I wouldn't want to accuse someone because they are Serbian, but their objections look to me as emotional. If for instance you or any other user tried to enter that source to the article I have no doubt you would face a similar thing that happened to me, people would object with invalid arguments like "it's Croatian propaganda"... . That is way I would like to open a RfC there so sources can be discussed and not bans and accusations of "Croatian propaganda". Or at least for that closure request to be closed by some established user not involved and who doesn't support one side.212.15.179.172 (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

First, I still don't know who you are and if these messages are all from the same person. I can't even "ping" you to let you know I have replied because you haven't registered a Wikipedia account.

Second, I can barely understand all of the information you have posted on my talk page, which is lengthy. Going through all of the article talk pages and noticeboard discussions you are asking me to not only read but form an opinion on, on a subject I know nothing about, is a big demand to make of me. My time on Wikipedia is limited, I have responsibilities as an arbitration clerk and admin, and I am ill-equipped to devote the amount of attention you are asking of me. If I knew anything about the subject (Serbians in Croatia?) and was able to comprehend and navigate through the enormous tangle of motivations and tension between editors that are characteristics of many articles on Eastern European subjects, I might have been persuaded to do so. But I'm not willing to spend the dozens of hours it will take to get me up to speed to address your displeasure with the way a discussion was closed.

I recommend approaching an administrator who has edited in this general topic area and perhaps they can accommodate you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You posted in the ANI and that's why I contacted you and the other editor who posted there. I would like the ANI get resolved. Even in the worst case (that I am a sock, and I'm not) the report in the ANI is still a thing that had happened. A thing that is against Wikipedia's rules regardless of who brought it to the ANI. You are not familiar with the history of this, and I don't want to bother you, but all this sock accusations originated from one user who has an admin on his side. An user who's disruptive behavior was backed up by this admin. That user is being reported now, and it seems he is going to be banned. The history of this includes my request to implement the consensus established in the RfC into article and that admin's request to other admin to reject my request. [8]. I have a strong feeling there's some kind of place where admins can talk where this admin was telling other admins that I'm a sock. Because random admins pop up telling me I'm a sock. How can they all know something that isn't true, and even if it is true, how could they still know that? Not to bother you with history of this. I would like that the ANI report is treated in the normal way , and not to let people that had a misconduct to get away with than by personal accusations against the person who made the report. That can't be their excuse. 141.138.44.84 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, to see if the chapter is able to fiscally sponsor more ongoing projects tied to our core mission of expanding and diversifying free knowledge. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday October WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons: October 25 - AfroCROWD + DAWN @ Brooklyn Public Library November 4 - Aphra Behn Society @ Grand Summit Hotel (Summit, NJ) November 10 - Basquiat: Still Fly 55 @ MoMA

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

BTW, I'm not sure, but this one might be more convenient to you: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aphra Behn Society Editathon.--Pharos (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that Friday as part of the same conference, there is also a session on 'Feminist Interventions – Workshop on Using Wikipedia in the Classroom', if you're interested in that.--Pharos (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Pharos, and for all of the work you've done over the years to coordinate meetups, conferences and other gatherings. I wanted to go to WikiConference this month but didn't get my plans together in time. I hope you found it an inspiring conference. I know I really enjoyed last year's. Let's bring it back to NYC! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I haven't received it yet, SwisterTwister but I'll keep an eye out for it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still haven't received your mail, SwisterTwister, and I've gotten other Wikipedia mail. You might try again or use my talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's interesting, I'll start again and should be there soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You went back to one of the two subjects that I thought you were going to stay away from. There are nearly 5 million articles on Wikipedia, are there no other subjects in the known universe which you have an interest in? Sports? Academic interests? Hobbies? History? Film? Popular culture? The possibilities are almost endless.

I was trying to give you some advice but you went ahead and acted the same way before you asked for a second chance. But you weren't asking me for a second chance, you asked MarkBernstein so I'm officially out of this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT - PLEASE I am trying to do the right thing. I will not edit the ROC article anymore. Please Have a little faith Liz. I am not a troublemaker if you give me a chance to prove it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2150:7400:E0A1:1580:7DB4:730C (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Checkingfax, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I'm just seeing your message today, unfortunately. I have linked to your comment to Jim Cullen who can really set the tone for the Teahouse, because I think it's important for others to hear about editor's good and bad experiences.

Yes, before the Teahouse, there was just the Help Desk and learning to edit Wikipedia could be a chilly and difficult process (and it still isn't always easy). Wikipedia, as a project, realized that to continue, there has to be a constant influx of new editors (since, every year, editors retire), so the Teahouse was created out of a discussion on how Wikipedia could be more welcoming. For good or ill, anyone who wants to respond to questions at the Teahouse can, unless they are really doing a terrible job, and so the response you get to your inquiries can vary depending on the knowledge and experience of the editor replying to you. But there are some editors who regularly drop by the Teahouse who have been editing for many years so hopefully, you'll get the help you need.

You might also find, as you spend more time on Wikipedia, you will come across an editor or two who you could approach with questions. I also recommend looking into WikiProjects, there are hundreds on every subject under the sun so if you are interested in Film, Medicine or Baseball, there are editors who are working in these areas you can discuss things with. Just a suggestion, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (username),

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

That's great, Cullen328, I forgot this statement and we should be reminded of it regularly: I promise to: Remain in good standing on Wikipedia, welcome guests in the Q&A board, speak to others in a friendly and patient way, and generally uphold the methods of the Teahouse.

I also like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations which I don't recall seeing before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

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

Hey. I saw that you whacked an SPA vandalism account earlier. Here's another one that may be getting ripe for action, and who has been very naughty today: [9]. I hope you enjoy playing Whack-a-mole. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still getting used to being an admin and only block the most egregious examples of vandalism or disruptive editing which this account was guilty of, Dirtlawyer1. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

". . . only block the most egregious examples of vandalism or disruptive editing . . ." A philosophy with which I am in full accord. That said, sometimes you need to draw your magic administrator sword of power and smite the egregious evil-doers. Whack! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But if a page is mistakenly deleted, it is always possible to restore it, the edits are still in the page record. But if an editor who is seen as a bad element is actually just inept, they are likely to never return and contribute once the block is over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, true and true. But it's kind of hard for me to engage my suspension of disbelief and accept that someone who substitutes "fatty hot dog doo" for an article subject's name is merely "inept." Could be, but it would be a very low percentage bet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I understand that there will be editors who object, Ched. All I can say is that the issue of hatting this editor's remarks was raised on the arbitration clerks email list and I was implementing an action. Given the concerns about aspersions cast in several statements, I think there will be more redactions and hatting that will happen over the next day or two. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timely response. Regards. — Ched :  ?  14:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this thread... Liz, I undid this hatting because it is very ironic to censor somebody who is complaining about censorship and that it is best not to add fuel to the fire at this point. I did check your userpage to see if you are an arbitration clerk. I haven't been following things lately. Could you perhaps add a note if in fact you are an arbitration clerk? Had I seen that I probably wouldn't have reversed you. Sorry. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jehochman, I've been an arbitration clerk since March 27, 2015. I do have an arbitration clerk userbox on my user page but I don't have a narrative statement about being a clerk and an administrator. Clerks are asked to hat comments which go off-topic or which cast aspersions on editors. It's not considered censorship and we are often criticized for not being more proactive about it. With this case, there will be more hatting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step, I favor asking people to remove problematic content before doing so oneself. If a user understands what's wrong and agrees to remove, then they learn something and don't repeat. Just a thought... A bit of polemic isn't very problematic. If there are personal attacks, I agree that's more serious and should be dealt with more strictly. Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your current involvement in ongoing discussions (e.g. [10]), it would be preferable if you recuse and let another clerk handle these duties. Please see also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Case_request_management. Also best to indicate "clerk action" in edit summaries when doing clerking actions. NE Ent 00:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, all women who have the least bit of social awareness or can possibly considered to be a feminist should recuse themselves. I've seen this oblivious pressuring so many times on GW's page and have kept my 'mouth shut', but this is just too much. The condescending nature of your request is disgusting. Dave Dial (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a comment about inequity and societal privilege disqualifies me from sending notices about statement length and closing a phase of a case when the deadline comes. If all clerks who had an opinion about gender were to recuse themselves, there would be no clerks (and no arbitrators) left to administer this case. You do realize that "gender" is not a code word for female. Every person has a gender. At least one, that is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

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

Ched, I'm sorry that I didn't notice your comment earlier today. In the case of the hatting, this particular remark was identified as being problematic and the suggestion was made to hat it. The clerks are aware that there are statements included in the case request which cast aspersions and need to be redacted. I can not speak for the clerks team but we are on the verge of opening this case as soon as the go-ahead is given by the arbitration committee. It's my impression that when the statements are copied over from the case request to the case itself, the offending portions will be redacted.

I encourage you, in the future, to send in a message to <clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org> with your concerns so that all clerks are aware of them. While we carry out actions as independent editors, we are usually acting in response to requests from the arbitrators or the clerk team. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are emails to the clerk team acknowledged? I sent an email the the clerks list about this case earlier this week, and received only the automatic "moderation" message. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, emails to the clerks list or the arbitrators list are not always acknowledged. I can confirm to you that the message was received, circulated and most probably read by the entire team. Given the number of open cases, case requests, motions and the like, and having three new trainees and two inactive experienced clerks, we are spread a little thin right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Liz - no worries. Let me get back to you later .. I lost a very dear friend of 50 years .. and I'm having a very hard time being rational. — Ched :  ?  03:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have my sympathy, Ched. Earlier this month, I lost a friend I've known since 1979. We had fallen out of touch recently, unfortunately. It still hurts though to know he's no longer around, being his sarcastic self. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well, John, a) my RfA was divisive and I barely passed, b) I've only been a practicing admin for about 3 months and, most importantly, c) as a clerk, I can see how hard the arbitrators work and how challenging it is to come to agreement with such a large group (over a dozen) members spread out over many time zones.

It's a time-consuming, rather thankless responsibility and just becoming an arbitrator makes one a target for types who are anti-authority. So, if I ever ran, it would have to be at a time when I could devote time to it. I was looking at the history of the committee and I don't think there has been a term without one or more retiring early. People get elected and find out that it might not be the most rewarding experience. That's been my impression. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thanks for the notice, Dank, I'll check it out. We tend to rely on standard templates and this one is being handled a little differently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, understood, just a suggestion. Keep on clerkin'. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, Dank. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

@JohnCD:, from what I can see from the restored Draft:Business Casual (netlabel), it is still marked in the G13 category (see the This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13 note at the top). Any admin going through the G13 eligible category today could delete this as it now stands. You either need to make an edit to the page to reset the clock or add {{AFC postpone G13}} to ensure that it is removed from the G13 category. I don't know whether Tokyogirl was aware of this when she restored the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not aware that the db-g13 needs to be placed on a draft article, it just appears as a G13 eligible page if it hasn't been edited in 6 months without any additional tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something new is going on. I am a bit of a regular at REFUND and, before today, pages I restored have always (as far as I recall) had a db tag at the top. I have just checked back on all my restorations for the past two weeks and found one other, from today, which had that "eligible for G13" notice. A null edit serves to reset the clock, but that is something to watch out for when restoring.

When you deleted this page, did you find it in CAT:CSD? I thought the system was that the "Eligible for G13" flag did not immediately put the page in a deletion queue; either Hasteurbot or a human editor added a db-g13 tag later, after an interval to notify the author. I will find out what's going on, and warn the other REFUND regulars. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD, I regularly check Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and, I'll admit, I thought it was a bot that tagged the drafts after six months of inactivity. I didn't think that an editor went through the hundreds of submissions and drafts and put a db tag on them. But for the right answer, I'd go to the experts and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation to find out how drafts get tagged as G13s. I'd appreciate it if you let me know what the answer is! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, humans do some but Hasteurbot does a lot of them, but what it does is add a db-g13 tag, like this. I didn't think eligible pages appeared in CAT:CSD until that tag had been applied; and since it is an edit, it turns off the "untouched for six months" flag. I will check up and let you know. Do you remember where you found the Business Casual page as needing deletion? Was it in CAT:CSD? Same question for Draft:Waterstart, th other one I found today, which had also never had a db-g13 tag. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that the category fills up in waves...there will only be a half-dozen drafts in the category and then, this week, I believe there were 1400 drafts. Like I said, I just go to Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and delete the drafts that are listed there. If they look promising, I will G13 Postpone them. I often check the editing history to make sure that it's been six months since the last edit and see who the principle author is. But when I am manually deleting 40 or 50 drafts in the morning, I can't say that I check them all. I'm amazed that we've gotten it down from 1400 to 800 in the past week! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'm not familiar with that end of the process, but I don't think you're supposed to delete them straight out of that category. Hasteurbot has some process like: notify the author, wait n days, then tag with G13. I know there was a lot of discussion about it when G13 was set up, but I'm not sure where to find that. I'll dig about, and ask at WT:AFC, but not till tomorrow, it's late here. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

That editor had been trolling, been blocked twice in two days, in part for going to different user talk pages, saying that Gamaliel is female (and he isn't), including saying on Gamliel's talk page, As a female Admin who is obsessed with her own gender you shouldn't be involved in the Gamergate article. You are clearly far too biased and obviously you don't care that you are biased. I guess you are "saving the world" from evil men right? Get a life.. I was surprised that you would be helping them discover an editor's gender when they had only made problematic, and no productive, edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know (you're surprised), and that makes me sad. What better way to prevent similar mistakes in the future (saying that Gamaliel is female) than educating them? Why not AGF a bit? We're not supposed to a battleground, and it's not a zero sum game, my answering a simple question is not an endorsement of disruptive editing. Educating and treating folks with respect -- not just when they're behaving well but especially when they're not -- often pays off in the long run. Ya'll blocked an IP, I engaged (and respectfully educated) a person. NE Ent 00:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for the info, iridescent. I didn't think the Wikipedia tracking system was fine-tuned enough to actually know what the nth million article was. I'm sure that artices are numbered but plenty of articles get created that later get deleted or merged, so a raw article ID number would only say how many articles had been created, not how many currently exist in the project. But I'm sure that someone will be checking the numbers every couple of hours as we get closer to 5 million and have a general idea of the closest 100 or so articles around the time period where the threshold was crossed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If past history is anything to go by, they'll choose a bunch of articles which were created around the right time and announce one of them as the winner, and the other as "nearly". The {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} magic word isn't a great deal of use—if it updates to 5,000,000 and ten seconds after that an admin cleans out CAT:EX and deletes 200 articles, is the magic number reached the first or the second time the count reaches the right number? ‑ iridescent 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a tracking table based on daily samples (much too coarse to pinpoint an article, of course) and a micro-pool at the Math RD.—Odysseus1479 19:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, take a look at this as an example of the kind of problem these "races towards a number" cause; each of these creations now has a reasonable chance of appearing in Special:Random, and thus give new editors the idea that this is what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like. Plus, of course, all this floods Special:NewPages, making it infinitely easier for spammers and vandals to slip their efforts through undetected. ‑ iridescent 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, this kind of rote creation of mini-stubs of one sentence each drive me a little crazy. I remember last year, there was a long-time editor creating an article on every single village in Iran, many of which had a population of 20 or fewer people. And here we have published, respected academics who don't rate an article! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's alot of stubs coming through. In recent months I've done more speedy deletions as it is something I can do while on a smartphone (unlike editing) - there is a steady stream of speedies and prods but not as much as one would think. Feels like maybe 100 speedies every 24-48 hours and a dozen prods over the same period. I might be way off on that though. One reason why I started up the Stub Contest, though that ain't perfect either. BTW Liz I am very happy that you've proven me wrong WRT me opposing your RfA and well done on an uneventful path to date. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Cas Liber, I would like to have the confidence to write articles from scratch but I've seen so many deletions (I've done 1400 at this point) that when an experienced editor says, "It's not hard to whip up a few GA articles", I just think, "It's not hard for you!" It's more often that I see efforts that fail than succeed.

As for my adminship, I'm really a bookkeeper/librarian at heart and like keeping things in order, handling backlogs, trying to deescalate situations unless we are talking about an obvious troll or editor being disruptive. I don't see myself as controversial so the RfA comments were a surprise. I'll plug away, trying to get work done, uneventfully. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, to date I have 15 GAs to my credit, but I "created" none of those articles. The article content of those GAs, on the other hand, is 50 to 95% my handiwork. The subjects are all clearly notable. There is nothing that says you have to create the stub/article from which your first Good Article grows. Personally, I like finding a stubby or poorly written article about a subject in which I'm interested, and then re-writing and expanding it into a well-sourced and well-written encyclopedia article. Most gratifying thing you can do around here. Anytime you want to run an article subject by me, just want a little nudge in getting started, or even want to split the effort to improve an article to GA in which you're interested, feel free to ping me. I'm happy to help, including interesting subjects outside my usual purview. You don't have to fly solo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, Dirtlawyer1. It seems to always come back to having substantial reliable sources to base your writing upon. Right now, my personal library is boxed up and I'm leery of online sources of information on subjects that are not biographies or subjects in the news. But there are probably solid sources of information that are available that I'm not aware of.

I've seen several prolific editors state that it's easier for them to work on subjects that lie out their professional area of interest so maybe I should be looking outside my past academic discipline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I've ever contributed to law-related articles is when one of the principal writers/editors requested my input. Writing about my professional interests seems too much like work to me. I've written and presented CLE materials and taught classes within my practice areas, but Wikipedia is a hobby and a creative outlet for me, and it still remains mostly fun, not work. BTW, depending on your subject, you can find a remarkable amount of newspaper archive as well as scholarly material online, either directly or through one of the online services for which we can get free access like Newspapers.com or JSTOR. For popular sports bios, I rely almost entirely on archived newspaper articles. For university professors as subjects, I have made the trek to the local university libraries when I've exhausted online materials, and even requested some from the university historian. Research can be fun when you enjoy your subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.wikipedia.org/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)

re: [11]: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have removed a post from this section, as it contained personal information about a user. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done, Blethering Scot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about quick service.Blethering Scot 19:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Blethering Scot, just don't go changing your mind tomorrow and retiring again, okay? ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@D4iNa4 has again reverted yours and mine edits. Please see [20] and [21] . 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 - [22] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

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)[reply]

Hi Liz, earlier today I reviewed and accepted the edit that you just reverted [23]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My mistake. Thank you, Jeppiz, for doing your due diligence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You welcomed this user, you may want to note s/he's back at it: [24]. Your call Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Wikipedia’s global impact recognized with Spain’s Princess of Asturias Award ceremony
• Creating change one step at a time: Miguel Zuñiga Gonzalez
• Your October milestones include Wikidata’s 15 millionth item
• District court grants government’s motion to dismiss Wikimedia v. NSA, appeal expected
• Making Chinese Wikipedia more ethnologically diverse

I doubt this is exactly what you're looking for, but ... [25] with a note to the PDF: [26]. — Ched :  ?  00:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize that. That's a big difference! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]