MarkBernstein (talk | contribs) →Warning: second time today I've said "forsooth" |
|||
Line 821: | Line 821: | ||
:Hi, Liz! Our very neutral friend above likes to start sections labelled "Warning". I've even had a Final Warning! This is doubtless a very great asset to the project, and I'm sure it will work wonders. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
:Hi, Liz! Our very neutral friend above likes to start sections labelled "Warning". I've even had a Final Warning! This is doubtless a very great asset to the project, and I'm sure it will work wonders. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::A final warning which you violated. I am working on the AE now. Came across this going through your edit history. Thanks for teaching me how to make diff's Liz! [[User:Handpolk|Handpolk]] ([[User talk:Handpolk|talk]]) 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:47, 13 June 2015
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 |
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)
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Welcome!
Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- 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)
- 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)
Please look at my apologies here. I will never do it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Floquenbeam#Sorry_for_everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Admin?
I feel like you should run for being an admin if you aren't already, you do a good job here on wiki handling editors while keeping calm =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's very flattering to say, Knowledgekid87, I appreciate your kind words. However, most of my editing has been gnomish work or work in categories, not content creation. I'm more of an organizer. It's difficult if not impossible to pass an RfA without some substantial contribution to articles and I don't see that activity in the immediate future. It could happen though, you never know! Again, my thanks and have a good weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh okay and thanks you too! =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey did you go to Rutgers? 166.170.35.45 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. I've gone to several of their campuses for meetings/conferences but I was never a student there nor did I ever teach there. Are you from Rutgers? Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There were a couple missed dates
usually because the publication of the Signpost clashed with the release of Andrew's data. Serendipodous 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- But, Serendipodous, can you confirm that you didn't publish Traffic Reports regularly until June 2013? I'm just trying to make sure the Signpost archives are complete and I haven't missed any pages. Since very few of the Signpost articles were categorized (none except those featuring different WikiProjects), the only way to know that articles exist are the contents list of each issue or to search for an article by guessing its possible title. There is no judgment here, I just want to make sure I'm not missing any Traffic reports in the first half of 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 12:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- There was a sneak preview on 29 April, and then it became a weekly feature in June. Serendipodous 13:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Serendipodous, that is exactly what I needed to know! Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- There was a sneak preview on 29 April, and then it became a weekly feature in June. Serendipodous 13:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #156
Wikimedia Highlights from March 2015
- Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against NSA to challenge upstream mass surveillance
- Womens History Month
- Growing free knowledge through open data
- Raspberry Pi in Masekelo: Bringing Wikipedia to a school without electricity
- Wikimedia Foundation adopts Open Access Policy to support free knowledge
- Welcome new members of Wikimedia Foundation
WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
- Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
- LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 11
Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
- New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
- Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you did this? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't feel like the image enhanced the article. I was being bold. Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for defending me on my ANI reporting of a particular individual. At least I'm not the only one who thought it was not acceptable. — Calvin999 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, User:Calvin999, the comments were incivil and rude but, unfortunately, brusque behavior is very common online although people are generally more polite on Wikipedia than they are in article comments sections or in the message board world. Part of the bruqueness comes from the fact that these interactions are not face-to-face and also it is due to differing levels of experience editing on the project. Editors who have been here 8 or 10 years have seen it all and are often quite direct and do not believe in pleasantries. If you are interested in more collaborative editing, I recommend finding a WikiProject on a subject that interests you. You are more likely to find like minded people if you have a common interest, there are hundreds of WikiProjects, and it can be very fulfilling to work together on bringing up the quality of an article about something you find interesting. You've been here a while so you might be familiar with them but I just thought I'd mention them because I know they've really helped people find their niche to work in on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have been on here myself for over 5 years and made a lot of contributions. I just thought the the way I was spoken to was out of order and not necessary at all. — Calvin999 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 May 2015
- News and notes: "Inspire" grant-making campaign concludes, grantees announced
- Featured content: The amorous android and the horsebreeder; WikiCup round two concludes
- Special report: FDC candidates respond to key issues
- Traffic report: The grim ship reality
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Malta
Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
WikiConference USA 2015
Hi Liz, for the latest update, see m:Talk:WikiConference USA#Columbus Day Weekend possibility. We should have more to share soon!--Pharos (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, Pharos! I know it is a lot of work to put these events together but I enjoyed the 2014 event so much, I was hoping that it would be an annual event, or, at least, biannual. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 16:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #157
Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! 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) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Word counts
Hi, Liz. Using that word-count tool you shared,[1] I get that Karanacs' word count (not counting the statement that was copied over from the RFAR) is 999, and that my word count (not counting my RFAR statement) is 1948. Roger told me yesterday that I can have 2000 words.[2]
Can we get straight on this? If we're counting the RFAR statements that were moved over, I think both Karanacs (720+999=1719) and I (698+1948=2596) are over our word-count limit. Otherwise, I think we're OK. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Lightbreather, I followed the clerks' procedures on evidence length that says to user a word counter and "simply copy and paste the entire statement, excluding the final signature, into the text box there." I checked with the arbitrators on the clerks-l list and they said this was correct.
- I didn't include the archived case request statement. I used http://wordcounter.net to determine word count but I'll try again with http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml which is the tool listed for the clerks procedures. I didn't see where Roger said you could have 2,000 but I'll check the evidence talk page. There seems to be a bit of a cushion in this case about strict evidence length limits but they are goals to aim for. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Lightbreather, I had copied the text using the Edit feature and this gives a different word count from copying and pasting from the regular page. I've adjusted yours accordingly and I'll ask @L235: to double-check my totals. Sorry for the mix-up. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Everything currently checks out. You're both good to go :). By the way, Liz, in the future, when quoting the clerks' procedure or any other policy, or indeed any comment, I find it useful to use the {{tq}} template. It makes it clearly stand out as a quote but not intrusively, and it's always clear where the quote starts and ends. For example,
{{tq|test}}
yieldstest
. Hope that helped. Thanks! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Everything currently checks out. You're both good to go :). By the way, Liz, in the future, when quoting the clerks' procedure or any other policy, or indeed any comment, I find it useful to use the {{tq}} template. It makes it clearly stand out as a quote but not intrusively, and it's always clear where the quote starts and ends. For example,
- Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi LIZ! Thank you for your comment on the AfD. I have a question. The mention of Andreas' comments about 9/11 are very fondly remembered by a very large smalltalk community. Would you vote to keep if that was left in or should that go too? I'm happy to remove the other eulegies. I was trying to show that Andreas was notable to very important people, as indeed he was. He was, for many years, in a group of 4 outstanding developers that did incredible work. Work that continues today and will, in my opinion, make major changes to how we program systems in the future. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Itsmeront (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Itsmeront, if you look at profiles of other academics or computer programmers, they don't have sentimental tributes included in them. I'm not saying Raab wasn't a wonderful person and an inspiring teacher, it's just that this content doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic entry. What I'm trying to say is that your chances of winning over a "Keep" decision is increased if you remove it. If you really find this difficult, you can try to include the text as a footnote or textual note but not in the main body of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
A question regarding some policies.
Ello Liz, been a while, sorry for barging in with a question but you are one of the one that I have good faith in with a question.
As I have been canvassing before as stated and the "forum" policy goes against the talk page where things can be brought up. As such I wonder if it's allowed to use forum lines/threads to bring up a perspective from tertiary sources which are not articles to inject some view that may help articles. and since I got canvas warning due to the action, what options do I have to bring up discussions from outside sources of people that do have an interest in article but are not enabled to write in the talk pages? Such as forums/Threads of where the article is being critized/opiniated?
Thanks for an answer (If there is one.)TheRealVordox (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Canvassing is frowned on, TheRealVordox, and I'm not sure what you mean by "forum lines". Are you talking about noticeboards or talk pages? Wikipedia doesn't have forums, like a message board has. Can you be specific about what you are trying to argue for/against and what sources you want to use to present your case? Liz Read! Talk! 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Basically and bluntly, certain threads in any tertiary forums/blogposts/etc that speak about articles (Even if they have a bias in the thread or article but gives a perspective worth looking in) and these threads critize articles of interest. Is there an option of bringing these in just for simple discussion in talk pages without any hindrances? (Sadly, it's related to GamerGate article for the moment, such as William Usher's Blogs about WikiArticle or KiA or other forums/Blog Articles that seem to have some credentials.) I'm asking you about this since what I've seen have a better grasp of the rules about Wiki (Five Pillars especially) and experience to back it up, and I've yet not seen any way of inputting critique from external common people that speak outside of wiki. TheRealVordox (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi
I am user User:AHLM13, who has been just blocked. I saw that you left a comment on my userpage. I wrote something on my talk page, and you can read. I did not attack Admin Anna Frodesiak, it is a sockpuppet of zordanlighter who pretend to be me. I asked to a checkuser if he can prove this. Thanks --Ahlm85 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what the checkuser says, Ahlm85, so I don't believe you. But you don't have to convince me, you need to convince an administrator and creating more sock accounts to talk about your block doesn't help your case. Go through the proper channels to get unblocked. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from April 2015
- New features on Wikipedia iOS app help readers access, explore, and share knowledge
- Wiki Learning holds massive edit-a-thon at Tec de Monterrey in Mexico City
- The first Wikipedia TV spots and awareness campaign in Cameroon (VIDEO)
- Celebrity photographer Allan Warren shares the big shots on Wikipedia
- Introducing the new Wikipedia store
- A Wikimedian asks European Parliament members for copyright reform
- Join Wiki Loves Earth 2015: help capture our natural heritage
Word count
Would switching from a format of diffs like
- DIFF
- DIFF
- DIFF
to DIFF DIFF DIFF affect my word count? Also, can I just put one signature at the bottom of my evidence to save on words? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I would remove all signatures except the final signature. We use an online word counter and just copy all text except your final signature. You can check the word count yourself at http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml. Liz Read! Talk! 11:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you! Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Would you please re-count it when you have a chance? I think I'm basically done. I don't know what the markup language is, so I don't know if I'm just over or just under. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Of course. Markup language is just the wiki language (like user talk, <small>, Special:Contributions/Liz, etc.) that is part of the formatting or links but not part of the content. Liz Read! Talk! 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Faceless Enemy, I have the word count at 439 but you were pretty close to 500 words any way. While it varies from case to case, the arbitrators were advising not to give any notices unless the word count approached 600 words or more. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Of course. Markup language is just the wiki language (like user talk, <small>, Special:Contributions/Liz, etc.) that is part of the formatting or links but not part of the content. Liz Read! Talk! 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 May 2015
- Foundation elections: Board candidates share their views with the Signpost
- Traffic report: Round Two
- In the media: Grant Shapps story continues
- Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Since you are fair minded
Have a look here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Please guide us on acceptable use of personal webpages for BLP information and User talk:Leprof 7272#Discussion regarding the proper response to an editor deleting unsourced material in a BLP article. In the first case, the issue is a BLP article being populated with personal, self-published information from the title subject's personal webpage. (I was reverted when I removed them, and subbed in [citation needed].) The second case regards an ANI I was an observer at, not party to, where the individual was blocked for objecting to a reversion, where the reversion reintroduced deleted, unsourced text into the BLP article. This, you might recall, is the opposite of the ANI over the editing at Nazanin Afshin-Jam article, where I was taken to task for leaving the text in, except with [citation needed] added (i.e., fighting to not have the text deleted). First case is more important (active issue). Second is simply an example of ANI's pointing 180 degrees opposite, each time blocking a user... Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Judging by this conversation on your talk page, several other editors have already been pinged in order to weigh in on your situation. Liz Read! Talk! 09:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #158
Ping
Since you reported a problem with AIV's instructions recently, I'd particularly like your opinion about my new idea at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#We need better directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking me for my opinion, WhatamIdoing. I offered my first impression but I think you really need to hear from other people, especially those who are relatively new to filing vandalism complaints, to find out what would have been useful to them. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 May 2015
- From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election
- Traffic report: Inner Core
- News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Wikipedia volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes
- Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls
- In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize
- WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating Molecular Biology
- Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Quick note...
Nicely done. St★lwart111 04:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I usually only close AN/I cases once an action has been taken by an admin, Stalwart111. But the discussion had deteriorated and the main parties seemed to have departed. But Liz Read! Talk! 13:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
A quick question
Hi Liz, Many thanks for your input at WP:AE here. I had a quick question - by "RfC" did you mean "Request for Closure", as in my previous comment, or did you mean the more usual usage "Request for Comment"? Happy either way, just wanted to be sure. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Co-author for Signpost Op-Ed?
On another note, in line with my post on Gamaliel's Talk page, would you be interested in co-authoring an Op-Ed for the Signpost? On WP:DUCK->WP:SOCK blocks; sort of a "pros & cons" of them (with reference to Editor Retention & Disruptive Editing?). I thought we might be able to provide well-reasoned contrasting opinions. Assuming that the editors think it's a worthwhile topic, of course. Please let me know if you'd be interested, and if you have any questions. Regards, - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking, Ryk72, but I'm sure of what my position is or if it would be in opposition to yours. To be honest, I dislike the WP:DUCK rationale for blocking because it just relies on admins' instinct and judgement, not proof of any wrong-doing. And every DUCK block that I've ever seen is indefinite and I've seen them given out after less than a half dozen edits. Either admins have a more acute and finely attuned sense of recognizing sock accounts than I imagine or it is a harsh block that doesn't allow any challenges, most often because it is applied to new accounts and if they aren't socks, they sure haven't a clue on how they are to go about getting unblocked. So, I guess that is my position. It's a powerful tool and if misused, it can have really bad consequences. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Liz, Many thanks for the quick response. Our thoughts very much align, and while it would be possible for one of us to "play the Devil's Advocate", on reflection, that might seem disingenuous. The "purpose" of the proposed Op-Ed is to have Admins, and the wider community, consider exactly the issues that you have mentioned. Having been "on the receiving end" of such a block, I can say it is very frustrating to not have a viable way out of the situation. If I put some high-level thoughts (a draft of sorts) together, I might ask if you could review & improve. No implication of a requirement, of course - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Continuation of Talk:The Steps of the Sun
I've been editing here since 2007 and standards haven't changed too much, except for BLPs. Notability and minimum sourcing were always key concepts. In fact, I used to do NPP in past years and I think article creators have a somewhat easier time of it now, with exhortations to patrol from the back of the queue and trouts to editors who tag even remotely feasible articles too quickly. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN, what I saw was a stalemate between three parties, going back and forth, each exclaiming that the other editor wasn't listening to them. I was trying to offer a third option that could accommodate both the productivity of the article creator as well as the critique that this particular article wasn't up to Wikipedia standards of quality. It looked like a battleground between two sides, one of whom was going to "win" while the other lost (and probably quit editing), and I was offering a way to, hopefully, improve the quality without the article creator feeling insulted, which he clearly feels.
- And, personally, given some of the abysmal articles I've seen that were created around 2005-2008, standards have been raised substantially or perhaps it is the new pages patrol that has gotten especially vigilant in quickly deleting articles they see as substandard. I'm sure you have seen at the Teahouse that the most common complaint (by far) is from new editors who have created an article and find it deleted before they can turn it into a stronger article. A few of them stay and try to create a better version but I think most of them just leave and don't return to editing because they find it a waste of their time and a dispiriting experience to have their work summarily deleted. And, no, they know nothing about deletion review, they just know that their work is gone.
- I reread your comment about NPP and find your perception that things are easier now to be very interesting and not what I would have expected. It's not the type of work I like to do so you probably have a better feel for it than I. I'm glad that those editors who tend to rank themselves by how many articles they can get deleted are getting some trouts these days. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #159
500/30 Restriction
Hi Liz, regarding this. I think that restriction is only for the GG article and it's talk page, not the whole topic area. — Strongjam (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll check in with Zad and revert myself and issue an apology if I made a mistaken. Liz Read! Talk! 10:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Contact-us links
Hey there. I noticed you comment at Talk:Ronn Torossian#Ronn Torossian commentary, and just wanted to check if you are aware that email address does not go to the WMF - it gets through to the volunteer response team, who are likely just to direct him back to the talk page/DRN or similar venues. Just for future reference really! Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
the raw data is delayed
See here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Server_rejecting_large_edit_via_browser_and_API
No one seems interested in responding, so if you know anyone who might be able to fix the problem, please let them know. Serendipodous 21:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I knew there had to be a reason. I wish I knew someone in WMF technical area to ask about it, Serendipodous, but I don't. I'll chime in on that thread to keep it active. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Possible alternative
Perhaps a subpage? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cullen328, I just went ahead, made the question less specific, and asked it on the Teahouse talk page. I was trying to get your take on a situation but I think it's a question worth larger consideration. But damn that Wikipedia email system! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 May 2015
- News and notes: WMF releases quarterly reports, annual plans
- Discussion report: A relic from the past that needs to be updated
- Featured content: When music was confined to a ribbon of rust
- Recent research: Drug articles accurate and largely complete; women "slightly overrepresented"; talking like an admin
- Traffic report: Summer, summer, summertime
- Technology report: MediaWiki blows up printers
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Different diff, definitely
I'm sure everyone knew what you meant anyway, but in your notifications about AC's decline of the A1candidate/CAM clarification request you seem to have cited the wrong diff -- something to do with the Rick Ross / Scientology request. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I used the last diff before the CAM clarification was removed from the page, the last version of the page where the request was on the page. But I probably should have used the next diff where the section was deleted so I'll change that. Thanks for the notice. Liz Read! Talk! 09:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Abide
Simpler, yes. But less "fun", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- How about the question about the spirit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I missed the question, Gerda. What was it? Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- It was on the Callanec talk, you mentioned the spirit of the restriction. If there is any, it is a mystery to me. - My point of view: I am restricted myself and never found the spirit of that restriction. I have seen a "fair cop" report that a friend transgressed his restriction by formatting a infobox which had been malformatted by a newbie (which kept three noticeboards busy for weeks), - now Eric saying that he is not free to speak, - I didn't notice the slightest personal attack, - all this left me at a loss of insight, - help wanted. - I said on Jimbo's page (when Lightbreather announced retirement because of Eric) that I am still around because of Eric. - I confess that in my early days here I once wiki-linked "Bullocks" by another user - who approved ;) - in a mood of desperation. Now, I often just shake my head in disbelief, - beyond the state pictured here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Gerda, Eric has a few editing restrictions (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for the list). I don't believe any of them were just pulled out of the air and randomly applied to him. They were imposed because there was disruption. Regarding these two edits that brought on the block, here is the pertinent section:
- It was on the Callanec talk, you mentioned the spirit of the restriction. If there is any, it is a mystery to me. - My point of view: I am restricted myself and never found the spirit of that restriction. I have seen a "fair cop" report that a friend transgressed his restriction by formatting a infobox which had been malformatted by a newbie (which kept three noticeboards busy for weeks), - now Eric saying that he is not free to speak, - I didn't notice the slightest personal attack, - all this left me at a loss of insight, - help wanted. - I said on Jimbo's page (when Lightbreather announced retirement because of Eric) that I am still around because of Eric. - I confess that in my early days here I once wiki-linked "Bullocks" by another user - who approved ;) - in a mood of desperation. Now, I often just shake my head in disbelief, - beyond the state pictured here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I missed the question, Gerda. What was it? Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Indefinitely prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
- This doesn't seem like an insurmountable restriction. Just don't talk about the GGTF! How hard is it to not talk about something that you are prevented from participating in? If I got a editing restriction and, say, couldn't edit articles about American politics, I would take them off my watchlist and stay away, rather than test the limits of my restriction and whether any edits would be noticed. Eric is a prolific editor and has a lot of different interests...how difficult is it to stay away from this subject?
- I can appreciate that you are in admiration of Eric, from what I see, he has a lot of friends and supporters. What I don't understand though is how they can't see how this was all avoidable if Eric had respected the editing restrictions. Eric is free to contest whether or not they are valid restrictions or whether it is appropriate now to lift them. But they exist, he knew that they existed and he posted any way, twice. And that's about as much as I want to talk about this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, accepted, but no spirit found, in AE in general I mean, - a place I avoid when I can, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
For believing in what you feel is right. Hope you have a good weekend.
Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't win a lot of popularity contests! You have a good weekend, too. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #160
Message??
13 minutes ago I was notified you left a message for me, but I can't find it?/
- I just thanked you for one of your edits, that's all...a way of saying, "Hi!". Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Back at you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I love that "thank" function. It's very simple, and conveys a simple message that can't really be misinterpreted. I particularly like being able to directly thank editors for something they did, particularly if said editor and I clash in our ideas. A good edit is a good edit, no matter who makes it. My 2p. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 22:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Back at you! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate posts at
WP:ANI#Hardblocking IPs. Not sure how that happened! Doug Weller (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
This Month in Education: May 2015
- Tunisia: Rachidia music school celebrates 80 years of love and art by editing Wikipedia
- Mexico: Five new classes begin experimenting with Wikipedia
- Arab World: Arab World Education Program at WikiArabia 2015
- China: Chinese students commemorate deceased philanthropist Run Run Shaw
- Argentina: Editathon for young students to edit articles about their school
- Mexico: Maria enjoys editing Wikipedia as her community service
- Global: Registration for Wikimania Education Pre-Conference in Mexico City is now open!
- Sweden: Wikimedia conference 2015: better understanding for Wikipedia in Education
- Media: Articles of interest in other publications: School editathons, medical research, Jimmy wales and new Wiki
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Caitlin Jenner
Nope :-) Sorry. Maybe next week? Serendipodous 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously, Serendipodous? Is your "week" period already over? Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Mail call
Dropped you a line. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Two similar threads in ANI which you closed
Hi Liz - I thought I would briefly explain why there were two very similar threads posted by me on ANI. The first thread was closed prematurely in my opinion. The second part of my question asking for directions to policy was not answered. I tried to get the closing editor to re-open the thread by talking to them on their Talk page. They declined. I thought about getting another admin to reopen, but I felt this would attract too much drama for a relatively simple question. So, I posted a second thread but restricted the question to the second part of the original question, i.e. direction to policy. I felt this was the most efficient and dramaless way of dealing with what was still an unanswered question. The matter is settled now and thanks for your attention to this. By the way, I love Kittehmaster! ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation, DrChrissy. I'm sorry if I came across as snarky. And, while adorable, the Kittehmaster hasn't been doing his job well as my talk page has been vandalized a few times over the past week. I don't think he is intimidating enough. ;-)
- Have a good weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- You too!DrChrissy (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Awardagement
For this edit you are awarded the Wikipedia Beaux-Eaux Cup with Imaginary Peruvian Oak Leaves. Display it with pride and/or confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm so surprised, I wasn't expecting this, Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I will cherish it. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 11:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
United Synagogue
Appreciate your calm, reasoned input on the topic of my posts on United Synagogue. I would appreciate your guidance further in adding content to this page which needs additional information but which repeat offender continually remove for no valid reason, that I can see. Internetwikier (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Internetwikier, unless you work in some small niche area of Wikipedia that gets few readers and even fewer editors, you will have to adapt to working with others. Collaborative editing is how Wikipedia operates and you can write a stunning article, polish it up and then future editors can remove some of its amazing content or, conversely, work to improve it!
- This doesn't mean that you abandon the content you want to add, just realize that a) you have to treat other editors with respect instead of dismissing their objections, b) you need to have solid reliable sources to back up your statements (and many ones if the information is controversial) and c) if an editor reverts your addition of content, you need to go to the article talk page and make your case for its inclusion. You are seeking to persuade other editors of the value of your addition or edit change and you shouldn't demand that others do what you want or get out of your way. Your argument begins with assuming good faith, that is, while other editors might disagree with you, they also are trying to do what they think is best and they are not part of some cabal. Also, realize that even if you are adding controversial material, it can be written from a neutral point of view and to achieve this neutrality, it might benefit from other editors' input or having them copy edit the section to remove any bias (and we all have our biases!).
- Finally, if the dispute still isn't resolved, go to dispute resolution or WP:3O and get a third party to mediate the dispute. Do not edit war or try to get an editor you find obstinate blocked. Realize that on Wikipedia, there is no deadline and we take the long view that, over time, articles will improve. Your edit might not win support today but come back another day with better sources and you might find other editors agreeing with you.
- This isn't the fast and easy where you always get your way but it's how Wikipedia operates. It requires that you collaborate, not battle, other editors. Also realize that there probably isn't a single editor here, even the most experienced and productive, who haven't had their edits reverted, had their content rewritten and gotten warning messages placed on their talk page. No one is immune.
- And if you find yourself getting angry, check out Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and see wide variety of lame disputes on Wikipedia, where battles have raged over a single comma. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 12:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank You - Columbia University Sex Assault - Mattress Performance (Carry The Weight)
Hi Liz, Thank you very much for letting me know status of my input onto that page, and what I need to do to get it back on the page. I will provide the full citation within the next few days so that hopefully that information can be restored. Have a great weekend (and stay as helpful and enjoyable to work with on these edits as you have been, it makes getting it done or understanding why it won't be so much more pleasant an experience; and none of us needs anything but that ;-) 4.35.92.19 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cosmic Emperor 13:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
For coining Liz's Law of Longevity
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
To wit: "Longevity on Wikipedia is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck." At AN/I, 6/6/15. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 03 June 2015
- News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out
- Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia
- Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings
- Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier
- Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013
- Traffic report: A rather ordinary week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #161
FYI
Hello Liz. I wanted to let you know that the ping system does not work for IPs. I had noticed you using it on ANI today so, if you have been using it in the past, this might be a reason that you haven't gotten a reply. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, MarnetteD, I realize it doesn't work, I just like to use people's names when I respond to them and I guess I'm so used to linking them via [[User: ]] format that I instinctively put a username or IP number in the brackets. But thanks for the word, and I hope you are well this fine summer weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well that makes sense. Of course there is nothing wrong with using that link, especially if you are used to doing so. BTW Kittehmaster may be the cutest "watcher of vandals" that I have ever seen :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it makes sense, it's just a reflexive habit. I'm so old-school, I haven't even gotten used to {{ping| }} or {{user| }} ! I used to copy people's entire signature until I was told that some editors don't like that one little bit.
- Regarding Kittehmaster, my talk page recently received protection because of vandalism so I think he is just too cute to scare away vandals. But I wish I could remember whose edit notice I borrowed that from so I could give them an acknowledgment. But I created it in April 2014 and I can't remember! I look forward to the day I'm editing some editor's talk page and I see that kitten and I can thank them for creating that edit notice! Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That image is currently used on several hundred pages, but the only other identifying itself as an edit notice—which indeed looks the same in all other respects, and has been there for four years—is User talk:La Pianista/Editnotice. So I figure it was very likely to have been the immediate source.—Odysseus1479 21:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, ask and you shall receive! Thanks for figuring this out, Odysseus! The strange thing is that I went to User talk:La Pianista and searched the edit history and I have never made an edit to that page so I don't know how I would have ever have seen the edit notice. The only other explanation I can come up with is that I did a Wikipedia search of pages in the form of "User talk:Username/Editnotice" and it popped up in the search results. But now I know who I can give credit to and I appreciate your legwork! Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- There remains the possibility that it was another page that has since been deleted or had the image replaced. It may have been based on an earlier template belonging to an admin (the last edit being removal of the mention of deleting articles), but none of my searches for text snippets turned up anything.—Odysseus1479 21:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, ask and you shall receive! Thanks for figuring this out, Odysseus! The strange thing is that I went to User talk:La Pianista and searched the edit history and I have never made an edit to that page so I don't know how I would have ever have seen the edit notice. The only other explanation I can come up with is that I did a Wikipedia search of pages in the form of "User talk:Username/Editnotice" and it popped up in the search results. But now I know who I can give credit to and I appreciate your legwork! Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That image is currently used on several hundred pages, but the only other identifying itself as an edit notice—which indeed looks the same in all other respects, and has been there for four years—is User talk:La Pianista/Editnotice. So I figure it was very likely to have been the immediate source.—Odysseus1479 21:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well that makes sense. Of course there is nothing wrong with using that link, especially if you are used to doing so. BTW Kittehmaster may be the cutest "watcher of vandals" that I have ever seen :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
My Article
Hi Liz. Thanks for being welcoming! I do not know if you saw, but I answered your question on the Proposed Decision page re Contribsx . Apologies if I did it wrong - I am by no means a prolific wiki editor! Yes I am writing an article and multiple UK national publications have expressed interest. I thought that DGG's comment was potentially at risk of being misinterpreted. Risker has now also suggested an alternative wording. Vordrak (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, Vordrak, yes when I saw you had 12 edits, I knew you were a new editor. I'll check out your answer on the talk page. FYI, the clerks, me included, don't take to off-tangent conversations on arbitration talk pages so you might find it easier to ask questions via email to get your details straight. Wikipedia arbitration is its own little world and you'll probably have a number of questions on procedures. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
BLPTALK on Irom Sharmila talk page
Hi Liz! I'm just wondering why you re-added the BLP violations on the Sharmila talk page? There are some fairly serious allegations there. I wasn't sure if I should have removed the comments completely or just the sentences with the violations, but as the comments had very little to do with the article I thought it was okay to remove them completely. Also I was hoping someone reading the ANI thread would help out. -- haminoon (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Haminoon, I didn't see your explanation I just saw the wholesale removal of talk page comments on an article that is part of a dispute on WP:ANI.
- The talk page conversation was from 2013 to September 2014, not about the recent dispute, so I archived the content. If you think there are BLP violations that are worth removing, please go to Talk:Irom Chanu Sharmila/Archive 1 and remove the content. I apologize for not recognizing you as the editor who posted the complaint at ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Do you think just the offending sentences should be removed or the entire comment(s)? -- haminoon (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would just remove the portion of the comments you judge to be BLP violations and note that the comments have been redacted. I'm disappointed that you haven't had a better response to your complaint on ANI, hopefully, in the next day or two, you'll get some feedback from some admins. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Do you think just the offending sentences should be removed or the entire comment(s)? -- haminoon (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ME
Re this, I notice that you use ME a lot in editsums. What does that MEan? I know you're not the type to think everything is about you! :) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ha. I've been wondering what it means, and thought I'd eventually figure it out, but perhaps being direct is the answer. ;) ? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, it means minor edit. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations. In my preferences, I have it checked that I have to put in some text in the edit summary with each edit so I'm repeating the little checkbox for minor edits. So, no, it's not all about me. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 11:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I could have looked up abbreviations, but I conclude that this way is much nicer. Thx. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, it is nicer. I hope you have a great day! Liz Read! Talk! 11:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I could have looked up abbreviations, but I conclude that this way is much nicer. Thx. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, it means minor edit. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations. In my preferences, I have it checked that I have to put in some text in the edit summary with each edit so I'm repeating the little checkbox for minor edits. So, no, it's not all about me. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 11:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity...
you said in one of your earlier post that you had become dependent on [WP:TOP25]] and WP:5000. Why have you become dependent on them? What are you using them for? Just wondered. Serendipodous 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, maybe that was overstating the situation, Serendipodous. I just meant that I read your lists every week and I look forward to seeing what articles made the charts, primarily the Top 10 and Top 25 lists but I check out the WP:5000 occasionally, too. I always seem to find something I didn't expect or some article I hadn't heard of before. Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Reconsideration Request
@Liz: Hi. I saw your edit on Chase Me's talk page. I have not responded there, but if you look you will see a long standing user has replied (albeit neglecting to ping you) saying they thought my comments quite reasonable. I do understand that you want to protect a long standing editor from poor treatment at a difficult time and that despite criticisms he is a long serving volunteer for this project. I note your comments about the frequency with which Chase Me edits his page.
Having said that, my comment was not "grave-dancing". Whilst Chase Me has inevitably had a difficult time, his actions as found by the Arbitration Committee have caused real suffering to others - including some real life acquaintances of mine. The fact that his talk page does not reflect his current status is a source of distress.
I am sure you did not mean it but your comment about "grave-dancing" appears to unfairly ascribe bad faith and as there is by no means a community consensus I would ask you to please reconsider. Vordrak (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to protect anyone, Vordrak. I have never interacted with Chase me in any capacity, never even said hello to the guy. I would have said the exact same thing if I saw similar activity on your talk page.
- It is called grave-dancing when an editor goes to another editor's talk page who is blocked or has received some disciplinary action and, basically, taunts them. That looks like what you were doing because a) you made demands upon him, b) you set a ridiculous cutoff time of 24 hours when action you demanded had to be taken and c) you can easily see by looking at his contributions that he is not an active editor and so, would never see your message in the time you demanded.
- So, your comments looked pointy which means that they were a matter of displaying your displeasure at Chase me's actions than actual concern that he delete some userboxes. If you think that means I'm assuming bad faith, that's your call, I've just seen these kind of postings occur after an editor is sanctioned on ANI or ArbCom. Again, I'd post the same statement to anyone who came to your talk page and acted likewise.
- Besides, GZWDer, deleted those userboxes yesterday so the point is moot. I should have checked the user page before commenting in the first place and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Liz: My comment about your protecting Chase Me is not a criticism - it is a good thing to want to do, for any user. With regard to the boxes I noticed they are gone but there is still comment in prose above about his being an administrator, functionary etcetera. In any event I take your point about short notice and will give it a reasonable space of time before progressing. Vordrak (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
- Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
- Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
- Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
- Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from May 2015
- Meet the Inspire grantees working to increase gender diversity on Wikimedia
- A dark side of comedy: John Oliver asks TV viewers to vandalize Wikipedia articles on U.S. politicians
- Fundraising made in Germany: lessons learned by Wikimedia Deutschland
- Editing the Uzbek Wikipedia: Kamarniso Vrandečić
- First ever WikiArabia conference gathers Wikipedians in Tunisia to connect and share experiences
- Wikimania and the differences between online and offline cultures
Warning
You repeatedly accuse me of untrue things that directly conflict things that I have said. I don't mean something like accusing me of being non-neutral, that's your opinion and it's understandable. I'm talking about mundane details. Like you saying I don't edit other articles when i've explained to you and shown you that that it isn't true. Then when I correct you, no response or apology. It is very clear given the number of times you have done that and that you continue doing it, that you are most likely acting in bad faith. If you continue to do that, I will report you and we can let an administrator decide whether you are being disruptive. As I believe you are. Likely to divert attention from the issue or merely to troll me. So I ask you to voluntarily stop doing this. Handpolk (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Liz! Our very neutral friend above likes to start sections labelled "Warning". I've even had a Final Warning! This is doubtless a very great asset to the project, and I'm sure it will work wonders. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)