MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →Wikidata weekly summary #91: new section |
No more scary monsters (talk | contribs) added new section - You've been mentioned |
||
Line 681: | Line 681: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:John F. Lewis@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikidata&oldid=6947850 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:John F. Lewis@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikidata&oldid=6947850 --> |
||
==You've been mentioned online in a case study regarding harassment on Wikipedia re: Sheldrake== |
|||
Favorably of course. [http://www.wikipediawehaveaproblem.com Wikipedia, we have a problem] |
|||
Happy New Year. Thanks for your work and service on WP. [[User:No more scary monsters|No more scary monsters]] ([[User talk:No more scary monsters|talk]]) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:24, 6 January 2014
tis the season
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 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
16 May 2024 |
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)
Responded to your helpful prompt
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Liz would you be willing to act as an informal mediator in a dispute I am having?
Hi, hope all's well with you. I thought your comments on the John Carter / Ignocrates arbcom case were all very fair and I remember you said you want to help with mediation so I thought I would ask you if you would be willing to look at a dispute I have been involved in the last couple of days. I have irritated quite a few people, my idea is that I could ask one of them to present their "case", I present mine, you could have a look and then tell me if you think I should drop it or not. I don't expect you to rule on the right or wrong of the content, or the other people to be bound by what you say, but I will commit myself to abide by what you say, not in terms of changing my opinion on the subject matter, but whether or not I should continue with the sort of edits I have been making. Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Smeat75, that's awfully flattering for you to say. It was suggested that I might be a good fit to work with dispute resolution here on Wikipedia but I have no training and perhaps you'd like to go to WP:DRN or WP:THIRD and work with an editor more experienced in resolving disputes.
- I don't mean to brush you off though so if this disagreement is occurring on an article talk page, I'd be happy to read it over and offer an impartial view. I'd just be speaking as an uninvolved editor though, not as a mediator. I don't want to claim to have more authority than I have.
- Thanks for thinking of me, let me know if I can help! Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I trust you more than some random person I don't know anything about and have no idea whether they are fair or not. Maybe the word "mediator" is not the right one, I am asking you for your advice, really. This is a content dispute that has occurred over a number of pages, I would not expect you to go to the trouble of reading them all, there is one specific issue I would appreciate your opinion on, my idea is that I ask a representative of the "other side" to present a brief summary of their view for you, I present mine, and if you tell me "you are out of line, I think you should drop this" then I will, if you say "the points you are making are valuable" then I will continue. Does that sound OK? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is it OK to use my talk page?Smeat75 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- If it's okay with the other party, I think that would be fine. Maybe you should create a dedicated subpage for it, in case the discussion goes a little long. Then you can preserve the conversation and not have it be interrupted by other talk page messages and you don't have to worry about it being archived. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there, when you have a minute can you look at the "Royalty dispute" section of my talk page [1]. It's not too long, about five paragraphs. I would be grateful for your opinion, not as to the rights or wrongs as to the content of the dispute, but whether I am acting like a jerk. Thanks a lotSmeat75 (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- If it's okay with the other party, I think that would be fine. Maybe you should create a dedicated subpage for it, in case the discussion goes a little long. Then you can preserve the conversation and not have it be interrupted by other talk page messages and you don't have to worry about it being archived. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is it OK to use my talk page?Smeat75 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done, Smeat75. I didn't have much to say about royalty, most of my comments were the way you were going about your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Liz, comments on my editing were exactly what I wanted your opinion on, I appreciate you ploughing through five paragraphs full of all that arcane jargon for me. Your comments about how I should drop the anger you could discern, edit dispassionately and not vent, try to win allies by persuasion, were particularly helpful. I don't remember how I came across these articles just a few days ago, I did not go looking for them, somehow I just happened upon an article about a great-grandson or something of the last German Emperor that used all these "Your Royal Highness" things and said he was a prince and listed all his "styles and titles" exactly as though all of that had not been abolished in 1919, which it was. I couldn't believe it and found to my horror that there are hundreds, or thousands, of such articles on WP. It just all seemed so utterly ridiculous to me, I asked for advice, one editor I trust agreed with me that the article should be altered, I tried to do it and found immediate opposition from a lot of people who will argue your head off about the Almanach de Gotha and such arcana from here till next century. I started to wonder if I should just drop it but I have found a couple of allies, so I think I am going to open an RfC on this matter and remember your sage advice. I knew you were the right person to ask, thanks again for ploughing through five paragraphs of all that esoteric gobbledegook, good luck with your own dispute and Happy Editing!Smeat75 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done, Smeat75. I didn't have much to say about royalty, most of my comments were the way you were going about your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Smeat75, I didn't mention my previous encounters with these royal titles. At WP:CfD, there are regular nominations for deletion of special national awards and honors which are frequently bestowed to royalty. While not many editors have responded to defend these category deletions, the fact that some folks organized dozens (hundreds?) of these categories, assigned them to each biography article, shows that this is the work, over time, of more than one editor.
You might visit CfD and voice your opinion when these categories are nominated but if you choose to nominate any for discussion, please do so in small doses unless the categories are closely related. It's easier for editors to debate the merits of one category that to consider deleting 20 categories all at once and editors are more likely to vote Keep when it looks like the nominator is wiping the slate clean of a whole group of categories (unless they are closely related like "X honors of 1896", "X honors of 1900", "X honors of 1904", etc.). Liz Read! Talk! 12:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
C-SPAN—help before going to FAC?
Hey there, Liz. I hope all's been well, and I hope you don't mind if I ask you for a bit of help: I am having an impossible time finding someone to look at one request I have for the C-SPAN article, so I thought I'd see if you were willing to consider it. As with Hobby Lobby, I'm asking in my capacity as a consultant, and I should stay away from direct editing. This is a different case: I've actually been getting C-SPAN ready for FAC, but first I have one final change to suggest for the Development section. Right now, one passage about its founding says:
- Lamb shared his idea with John D. Evans in 1977, who with a number of others helped to co-found the network.[7][8] Early cable-television executive Bob Rosencrans provided the initial funding of $25,000 for Lamb to initiate C-SPAN in 1979 and other cable-television executives followed suit.[4][9]
But the phrase "who with a number of others help to co-found the network" is vague, so I did some additional research, and proposed the following:
- Lamb shared his idea with several cable executives, who helped him launch the network. Among them were Bob Rosencrans who provided $25,000 of initial funding in 1979[1][2] and John D. Evans who provided the wiring and access to the headend needed for the distribution of the C-SPAN signal.[3][4]
Markup version of above text
|
---|
|
If you agree that this is clearer would you be willing to add this to the article? If you have any questions about either of these, I'd be happy to answer. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- WWB Too, have we worked together or talked before? I'm drawing a blank right now.
- I'll look over your article but I'll need to do it tomorrow when I have "fresh eyes" because I have no familiarity with the article and have never read it before. Right now, I'm in the midst of something else, it's Friday night and I'm tired. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there, Liz. Yep. we traded a few messages on my Talk page regarding Hobby Lobby last month. Thanks for being willing to look at the help request, and let me know if you have any questions. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Talent show
I see that you removed American Idol from talent shows category because you think talent shows imply non-singing acts. That is untrue. Talent shows have always involve singers. Some of the earliest talent shows were in radio like Major Bowes Amateur Hour, and because it is on radio, singers were a big part of the shows (others include comedy acts and ventriloguists). Winners of the show included Frank Sinatra. It later became The Original Amateur Hour on television and that included other non-singing variety acts but singers were still part of the shows. Hzh (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Category:Project Catwalk (Netherlands)
Category:Project Catwalk (Netherlands), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Formal logic and philosophy
Hello. Your categorization work is great but I have a minor objection. You recently categorized six Greek logicians as philosophers. However, half of the Greek logicians to whom you added Category:Greek philosophers are formal logicians who have never published anything in the field of philosophy. Formal logic is not a branch of philosophical logic; it is a subfield of mathematics. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are certainly correct, Omnipaedista. Let me refer you to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2013/Oct#philosophers galore where I was roundly instructed that some logicians are mathematicians, not philosophers.
- I was led to believe in this conversation that my mistakes had been reverted by other editors and the Category:Philosophers tag has been removed so I didn't try to retrace my steps. But clearly not every revert occurred. Thank you for correcting the record, it's much appreciated!
- I wish that there was some terminology to distinguish logicians who are in mathematics from logicians in philosophy but my comment on this question in the discussion didn't go very far. I know when I think about the field of logic, I think of philosophy, I wasn't aware that mathematical logic existed as a separate field. But now I know and I'm the richer for it. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for referring me to that discussion thread! --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Daily Mail
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Daily Mail. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days! In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00. At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge. |
Feedback on Sheldrake Arb Request?
If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at an arb request I'm working on regarding the shenanigans at Rupert Sheldrake? My email is on my talk page, if you had any feedback it would be greatly appreciated. I respect your opinion and knowledge of this topic. Thanks either way! The Cap'n (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, The Cap'n, I don't know very much about Sheldrake. I just noticed that this article kept coming up at WP:ANI so I went to Talk Page to see what was up. It seemed like those editors who were sympathetic to Sheldrake's views were getting targeted and bullied so I spoke up for them (or I tried to). That didn't work out too well so I stopped posting there back in October. So, I'm not knowledgeable about Sheldrake but I'm a little knowledgeable about the fighting over his article. I'll check out your sandbox statement in the next day or so (things are a little busy here). Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Askahrc. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm notifying everyone to whom this Arb's request applies. Please consider responding.David in DC (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #86
Please comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! |
Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6
Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~ |
Mercy is the virtue of the wise.
Thank you for this comment. It showed mercy, something which is rarely found on WP:ANI. I have asked Flo to reopen the report so that the community can weigh in, but she has refused. Mercy and power are so very rarely compatible. MilesMoney (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz:
WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3100 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox album
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Request for arbitration rejected
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 December 2013
- Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who
- Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more
- WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie
- Featured content: F*&!
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...
Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...
Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...
Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #87
Please comment on Talk:Michael D. Colacino
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael D. Colacino. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
DR steps
Hi Liz and thanks for your recent comment, however there is no actual required steps to the DR process. One can go straight to DR/N or skip it entirely and use formal mediation or any other process available on Wikipedia. AFDs may also be done six months after the last AFD. It is unlikely that much has changed and it doubtful that is the best "next move" and you may be correct that it was my frustration talking, but the article needs a lot of work and one thing that we need not debate is copyright violations and youtube videos with no apparent notable source creation. Anyone can create a video of a convention interview/question and answer forum, but it is not a reliable source if fan made. I am not exactly convinced the editor misunderstands my points. They seem too well informed of Wikipedia policy and guidelines on the one hand in working on the article and now suddenly in the discussion doesn't seem to understand a copyright violation? OK. I will assume good fait, but they are still wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- An interview is an interview. If a person interviews, say, President Obama, his remarks, concerning his remarks, can be used as a source of information about himself whether it is in the NYTimes or a YouTube video. It's not like it was a fan commentary on a subject, it was an interview with the subject in question. They can be considered to be an expert about themselves. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Re: Missing Wikipedians
Hi Liz, they're both the same person. See the link proving this that is attached to the Bobblewik entry on the missing Wikipedians page. Graham87 14:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Graham87. There was no indication on either Talk Page that they were the same person. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 December 2013
- Traffic report: Deaths of Mandela, Walker top the list
- In the media: Edward Snowden a "hero"; German Wikipedia court ruling
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments—winners announced
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Wine
- Interview: Wikipedia's first Featured Article centurion
- Featured content: Viewer discretion advised
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.22 released
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from November 2013
- Wikimedia Foundation highlights
- Data and Trends
- Financials
- Other highlights from the Wikimedia movement
Please comment on Talk:Liberty University
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I create a categories page for Category:Cody Robert Simpson for replace Category:Cody Simpson, Im not a sysop. Thanks. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #88
All the tea in China | ||
For all your help and support through what is for me a rather tedious endeavour :-) Just don't demand exclusive rights from the Chinese Communist Party. Serendipodous 19:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC) |
Answered on my talk page.. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I would consider using that category. Thank you. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Raul Julia-Levy#Son or not
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Raul Julia-Levy#Son or not. Sam Sailor Sing 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48
- Oh, man, Sam Sailor Sing! I thought this was over. Well, thanks for letting me know, Sam. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This Month in Education: December 2013
|
WP:ARE notice
There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I hate to bother you,but I removed your prod to this stub. It took me a few clicks, but I found a few sources that prove this radio show is clearly notable. Please, before you propose deletion of an article (and in no way am I trying to be pendantic), do the following:
- Make sure that there are no available sources online, per WP:BEFORE.
- Think about whether its deletion might be controversial - anything touching on minorities, especially immigration, might be controversial - and if it is, send it to WP:AfD instead.
- Inform all the major editors - especially newbies.
Thanks for your work on WP! Bearian (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, Bearian. It seemed like a neglected, unsourced article. Sometimes a PROD can nudge interested parties into developing the article further. I really didn't consider it to be a sensitive subject or even consider the article's content, I was just responding to an unsourced article that I came across. This is probably only the 5th or 6th article I've PROD'd so I don't tag many articles and do so sparingly. But I will do more due diligence in the future to notify editors who have been involved with an article.
- I should say that I was encouraged to PROD after this summer when I proposed a few articles at AfD and they got stuck in no consensus holding pattern...a more experienced editor suggested I use PROD instead. I didn't consider that it could be provocative or controversial.
- I appreciate your diplomacy, Bearian. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
BillMoyers
I have raised this editor's user name at RfC/User names.[2] TFD (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion courtesy notification
There is a discussion at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard that you may have been involved in earlier. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2013
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: Tunisia on the French Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Hopper to the top
- Discussion report: Usernames, template data and documentation, Main page, and more
- News and notes: Nine new arbitrators announced
- Featured content: Triangulum, the most boring constellation in the universe
- Technology report: Introducing the GLAMWikiToolset
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Category:Philosophy academics
I have closed the CFD discussion of Category:Philosophy academics etc as "no consensus", and suggested an RFC.
Since you were the nominator, and the discussion was open for a ridiculously long time, I thought I should notify you of the close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, BrownHairedGirl. Unfortunately, I imagine an RfC would also be non-decisive. I might propose it again in six months and see if the mood has changed.
- I've tried to become more detached about categories I propose at CfD in the five months I've been participating there (on and off). You win some, you lose some...and Wikipedia just keeps moving forward, regardless. Consensus changes, edits are made, undone and later redone. You can try to be persuasive in your proposals but much of the decision-making is completely out of any individual's control. Best to take a long-term view and not get too invested in any one decision/edit/article/category. Thanks again, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal/Requested articles
Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal/Requested articles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: C1 applies to categories. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- What a basic mistake, Malik. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #89
Merry Christmas
Holiday Cheer | ||
Victuallers talkback is wishing Liz Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same |
Season's Greetings
Best wishes for a great Christmas, and for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Infobox Photo Discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #90
The Signpost: 25 December 2013
- Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments
- Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings
- Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings
- WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos
- News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions
- Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Liz!
Need some help over at WP:TOP25. Could use your input. Serendipodous 14:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
RfC at Sharon Presley
I recently opened an RFC at Talk:Sharon Presley after a contentious AFD and disagreements about the inclusion of sources. I found your name randomly at WP:FRS and thought I would post here. Thank you in advance! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Request to contact you
Hi Liz,
I've been asked by a person who wants to contact you to act as an intermediary because I have a Wikipedia account.
My email is craig @ weiler . com. (Just remove the spaces.) thanks. Craig Weiler (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 January 2014
- Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic
- Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year
- In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer?
- Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia
- News and notes: The year in review
- Discussion report: Article incubator, dates and fractions, medical disclaimer
- WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition
- Featured content: 2013—the trends
- Technology report: Looking back on 2013
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Page moves without discussion
What the hell do you think you're doing! CassiantoTalk 11:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
What part of "discuss first" are you failing to understand? If you move the pages anymore without discussing it first, you will be reported. Now, stay away! CassiantoTalk 11:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #91
You've been mentioned online in a case study regarding harassment on Wikipedia re: Sheldrake
Favorably of course. Wikipedia, we have a problem
Happy New Year. Thanks for your work and service on WP. No more scary monsters (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Barnhart
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Original Cable Guy". college.columbia.edu. Columbia College. Archived from the original on August 29, 2008. Retrieved August 5, 2008.
- ^ Travis Paddock (April 8, 1998). "C-SPAN chief says network has 'extended the gallery'". The University Record. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan. Retrieved October 8, 2012.
- ^ Frantzich, Stephen E. (1996). The C-SPAN Revolution. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 30. ISBN 0-8061-2870-4.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)