This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Thanks for informing me about this. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hiyo. This is barely worth mentioning, but (afaik) there is no consensus on whether talkpage headers or article headers should have a gap underneath them. It's good to be consistent within each page, but otherwise it's best not to add or remove the gaps (as you did here). Some people prefer them for visual clarity when scanning the wikitext. Also, if we click the "New section" button, (as I've done for this message) then the software will automatically produce a header with a blankline underneath it. That's all, and again, no big deal. :) – Quiddity ( talk) 21:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Sweet Treat Award | |
For your continuing contributions at WP:BLPN, Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Don't call names, you dissembling fly-bitten clack-dish!
You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you goatish unchin-snouted puttock.
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)
The Original Barnstar | |
I don't know which one to give you, but thanks for trying to help L'Odm :) ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
Wow, Charmlet, two "rewards" back-to-back! Thank you for noticing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz
When you create categories, please can you check that they have a proper set of parent categories?
I just reviewed some recent categories which you created, and found that they all lacked at least one parent:
WP:CAT#Category_tree_organization explains some of this.
Hope this helps. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS ( talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Newjerseyliz. Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I notice you seem to have an interest in the fate of blocked or banned users. I watch a lot of pages relating to these processes as I am a fairly active admin, and I'm sure you have noticed that I participate in many discussions of these areas myself.
I have been active on WP for about six years now, have been an administrator for just over four years and an oversighter for about three years. I'm telling you this not to brag or pull rank, but to indicate that I have seen a lot of what Wikipedia has to offer. People who work on developing content in areas not rife with controversy get the best of it, and (contrary to what many believe) us janitors and behind-the-scenes folks get the worst. I've dealt with many trolls and vandals in my time, from school kids who insert obscenities into articles all the way up to folks with their own entry at WP:LTA, and I,can tell you this with a high degree of confidence: LODM is not a new user at all. This is someone who has edited here before, probably under multiple past identities and who created this account knowing all along it would end up like this. They claim they are fighting censorship but they are really just trying to upset people. In other words, trolling.
Why, you may ask, would someone do that? I can't say I really know. Most people have a hard time understating such behavior, and as we are directed to assume good faith they assume such a person is just misunderstood or bad at communicating, or something like that. In many cases they are right, but not in this case. This is a user who, from practically their first edit and with virtually every edit they have made since, is deliberately trying to cause problems, not solve them. I imagine a research psychiatrist could write several books on these people if they cared to. What is it that makes them want to come to a website that exists to share free knowledge with the world and try to turn it into a circus? If we understood that we might have more effective ways of dealing with it than blocking, but we don't and blocking is pretty much all we have.
If I had to guess I would say the reason this block has not been appealed yet is that LODM is already operating another account. Either that or they had their fun here and moved on to some other website. I think if you thoroughly examine their contributions, as I did when evaluating this situation yesterday, a picture will emerge of a user who is more concerned with posting pictures of genitalia in as many places as possible and discussing the various ways a person might stick their tongue up another persons posterior than in building an encyclopedia. I am strongly opposed to censorship myself, but what LODM was doing was not fighting censorship, it was premeditated disruption for purposes only they understand. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Pardon my intrusion into this dialogue. If you guys really care about the fate of blocked/banned users, could you two take an independent look into the BruceGrubb case? From my perspective as a completely uninvolved editor, I still have a bad taste in my mouth about this sordid affair a year and a half later. Imho, this was a classic case of WP:POV railroad. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just had a little word about needing references if he/she is going to launch it out of user space, and about FAKEARTICLE if it isn't launched. (I've also suggested deciding on the subject's gender...) Peridon ( talk) 21:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Richhoncho, who created the category, voted "delete" in the CFD, so I tagged the category for G7. That's what happened there. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
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 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot ( talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't begun the draft, but that is the raw selection. Serendi pod ous 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Please join the
Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. -- Pharos ( talk) 21:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
was just perusing an/i (yeah, i'm that bored) and noticed you used the term "Indian-Canadian". Solely in the assumed spirit of everyone 'round here wanting to be better informed, it's "Indo-Canadian". (For the record i am the latter but not the former). Peice Owt. Primergrey ( talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata ( submissions), Hawkeye7 ( submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber ( submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).
The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I see you decided to contribute to the Evidence page after all. I'm glad you weighed in with a view of what happened on your talk page, and I'm also glad you said something about what John Carter did to Ret.Prof.
One of the things you noted in Evidence is how few actual edits to articles John Carter has made. I have looked into this in detail and plan to discuss it in the Workshop. If a contribution to article content is defined as a least one complete sentence supported by at least one reliably sourced reference, here is John Carter's last contribution to sourced article content: diff. On September 16, 2010, he created the Modern Ebionites section of the Ebionites article. Other than about a half-dozen pages of bibliographies (lists of references) created on or around Oct. 29, 2010 that is all. After Oct. 2010 there is not even a single sentence added to article pages in 3 years. This is relevant to Smeat75's point about John Carter's lack of understanding of reliable sources. How can someone who edits so little have so much to say on article talk pages about what everyone else should be doing regarding the proper use of sources? It will be interesting to see what other editors have to say about this in the Workshop. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz! I just wanted to remark that the statistics collected on those user pages that are up for deletion were not about sports AFAICT: rather, it seems, a form of trainspotting for circulating banknotes, a hobby that’s unlikely to be the subject of extensive articles.— Odysseus 147 9 01:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorrowStravis ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've replied. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding this, see the first sentence of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#List. (Or am I missing something?) Anyway - bedtime! Pdfpdf ( talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammonton, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supernatural (TV series) ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been crying after reading that talk page and her contributions both the articles and other pages. I find it difficult to believe that she was as young as is stated but even if she was three times that age, well, what she had to offer was amazing. Life just isn't fair sometimes. - Sitush ( talk) 20:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I know I'm going to make you fat but just the same :-) I wanted to acknowledge your astute and succinct contributions to the Ebonites3 ArbCom evidence page. Its important to have uninvolved editors step in and give their perspective. OK.......... now eat your cupcake!! — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
Wow, thanks, Keithbob, it's appreciated. I wish I could remember how I ended up on the edge of this fierce dispute since I have no opinion about subject. I hesitated to get involved at ARBCOM because I'm more of a witness to a fight than an involved party (and this fight has lasted six years!). I've made a few comments on the Workshop page until I saw how many ideas were being put on the table and I think the Arbs need to sort this out themselves.
But I appreciate you noticing! Have a great week! Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Liz,
I submit the following for your consideration. First, as I explained recently to Flyer22 on her talk page:
1) the identification "non-Muslim Arab" in the opening sentence, though true, has the effect of stereotyping Wael Hallaq and his academic contributions. Although the fact that he is a non-Muslim and an Arab may be of interest to some readers, stating the fact at the outset gives it undue precedence; this wrong emphasis is a disservice to the living subject of the article and to the reader, and, as I have said, comes off as a an attempt to stereotype. Imagine, for example, if the article on Reza Aslan opened with "Reza Aslan is a non-Christian Persian," or the article on Muhammad Ali opened with "Muhammad Ali is a non-Christian African." 2) For the above reason, I chose to remove "non-Muslim Arab" (which, along with its citation, had been added by another editor), and to insert the term "non-Muslim" into the third sentence of the second paragraph. In this way, the fact may be known to those who, for whatever reason, deem it important, but not in such an essentializing and stereotyping manner. As for "Arab," so much should be evident through the combination of his name and birthplace; it need not be stated at the outset as a defining characteristic--the effect, again, is stereotyping.
Second, I continue to disagree that the phrase "is a prominent scholar" requires citation, and here is the argument I presented to Flyer 22 for the same:
3) As for my choice of the word "prominent" to replace "non-Muslim Arab," this is not POV requiring citation. The facts related in the article are eloquent testimony to Wael Hallaq's prominence in Islamic Studies: three decades in the academic field, two highly-sought-after and influential professorships, nine authored volumes, and some sixty other publications are evidence enough of prominence in an academic field. Prominence is not proven by citing a text which links the subject to the word "prominent;" rather, it is evidenced by the subject's many and influential accomplishments and publications. Scholars and students in the field of Islamic Legal Studies--my own area of study, authorship, and teaching--know the name Wael Hallaq very well.
Finally, I understand the concern you expressed as "Removing sourced material," as the opening "non-Muslim Arab" was indeed cited, and the citation removed when I removed the opening phrase.
Seeking resolution to this persistent rolling back of my edits, I will do the following: 1) I will remove "non-Muslim Arab" for the stereotyping reasons outlined above 2) Despite my continuing disagreement, I will not replace it with anything (i.e., I will not insert "prominent" or any other descriptor) 3) I will retain the citation, and move it to the term "non-Muslim" which now occurs in the second paragraph, deemphasizing the fact so as to avoid stereotyping
Regards, RaHHaal ( talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I am not sure if there are any admins or other well-meaning editors who 'police' the reference desk, sorry I can't really help here :( Giant Snowman 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Liz, I saw your comments at Jimbo's page and was wondering why you don't run for RFA. Your editing history seems to support that you would do well. 71.126.152.253 ( talk) 01:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
So, for all of these reasons, I don't think I'd do very well in an RfA and I'm not sure that Admin work is the kind of work I wanted to spend hours doing. But, again, I do appreciate your encouragement! Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering if contributing to the encyclopedia itself ever interested you? What sort of topics interest you? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Thanks for informing me about this. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hiyo. This is barely worth mentioning, but (afaik) there is no consensus on whether talkpage headers or article headers should have a gap underneath them. It's good to be consistent within each page, but otherwise it's best not to add or remove the gaps (as you did here). Some people prefer them for visual clarity when scanning the wikitext. Also, if we click the "New section" button, (as I've done for this message) then the software will automatically produce a header with a blankline underneath it. That's all, and again, no big deal. :) – Quiddity ( talk) 21:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Sweet Treat Award | |
For your continuing contributions at WP:BLPN, Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Don't call names, you dissembling fly-bitten clack-dish!
You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you goatish unchin-snouted puttock.
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)
The Original Barnstar | |
I don't know which one to give you, but thanks for trying to help L'Odm :) ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
Wow, Charmlet, two "rewards" back-to-back! Thank you for noticing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz
When you create categories, please can you check that they have a proper set of parent categories?
I just reviewed some recent categories which you created, and found that they all lacked at least one parent:
WP:CAT#Category_tree_organization explains some of this.
Hope this helps. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS ( talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Newjerseyliz. Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I notice you seem to have an interest in the fate of blocked or banned users. I watch a lot of pages relating to these processes as I am a fairly active admin, and I'm sure you have noticed that I participate in many discussions of these areas myself.
I have been active on WP for about six years now, have been an administrator for just over four years and an oversighter for about three years. I'm telling you this not to brag or pull rank, but to indicate that I have seen a lot of what Wikipedia has to offer. People who work on developing content in areas not rife with controversy get the best of it, and (contrary to what many believe) us janitors and behind-the-scenes folks get the worst. I've dealt with many trolls and vandals in my time, from school kids who insert obscenities into articles all the way up to folks with their own entry at WP:LTA, and I,can tell you this with a high degree of confidence: LODM is not a new user at all. This is someone who has edited here before, probably under multiple past identities and who created this account knowing all along it would end up like this. They claim they are fighting censorship but they are really just trying to upset people. In other words, trolling.
Why, you may ask, would someone do that? I can't say I really know. Most people have a hard time understating such behavior, and as we are directed to assume good faith they assume such a person is just misunderstood or bad at communicating, or something like that. In many cases they are right, but not in this case. This is a user who, from practically their first edit and with virtually every edit they have made since, is deliberately trying to cause problems, not solve them. I imagine a research psychiatrist could write several books on these people if they cared to. What is it that makes them want to come to a website that exists to share free knowledge with the world and try to turn it into a circus? If we understood that we might have more effective ways of dealing with it than blocking, but we don't and blocking is pretty much all we have.
If I had to guess I would say the reason this block has not been appealed yet is that LODM is already operating another account. Either that or they had their fun here and moved on to some other website. I think if you thoroughly examine their contributions, as I did when evaluating this situation yesterday, a picture will emerge of a user who is more concerned with posting pictures of genitalia in as many places as possible and discussing the various ways a person might stick their tongue up another persons posterior than in building an encyclopedia. I am strongly opposed to censorship myself, but what LODM was doing was not fighting censorship, it was premeditated disruption for purposes only they understand. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Pardon my intrusion into this dialogue. If you guys really care about the fate of blocked/banned users, could you two take an independent look into the BruceGrubb case? From my perspective as a completely uninvolved editor, I still have a bad taste in my mouth about this sordid affair a year and a half later. Imho, this was a classic case of WP:POV railroad. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just had a little word about needing references if he/she is going to launch it out of user space, and about FAKEARTICLE if it isn't launched. (I've also suggested deciding on the subject's gender...) Peridon ( talk) 21:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Richhoncho, who created the category, voted "delete" in the CFD, so I tagged the category for G7. That's what happened there. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
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 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot ( talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't begun the draft, but that is the raw selection. Serendi pod ous 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Please join the
Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. -- Pharos ( talk) 21:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
was just perusing an/i (yeah, i'm that bored) and noticed you used the term "Indian-Canadian". Solely in the assumed spirit of everyone 'round here wanting to be better informed, it's "Indo-Canadian". (For the record i am the latter but not the former). Peice Owt. Primergrey ( talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata ( submissions), Hawkeye7 ( submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber ( submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).
The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I see you decided to contribute to the Evidence page after all. I'm glad you weighed in with a view of what happened on your talk page, and I'm also glad you said something about what John Carter did to Ret.Prof.
One of the things you noted in Evidence is how few actual edits to articles John Carter has made. I have looked into this in detail and plan to discuss it in the Workshop. If a contribution to article content is defined as a least one complete sentence supported by at least one reliably sourced reference, here is John Carter's last contribution to sourced article content: diff. On September 16, 2010, he created the Modern Ebionites section of the Ebionites article. Other than about a half-dozen pages of bibliographies (lists of references) created on or around Oct. 29, 2010 that is all. After Oct. 2010 there is not even a single sentence added to article pages in 3 years. This is relevant to Smeat75's point about John Carter's lack of understanding of reliable sources. How can someone who edits so little have so much to say on article talk pages about what everyone else should be doing regarding the proper use of sources? It will be interesting to see what other editors have to say about this in the Workshop. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz! I just wanted to remark that the statistics collected on those user pages that are up for deletion were not about sports AFAICT: rather, it seems, a form of trainspotting for circulating banknotes, a hobby that’s unlikely to be the subject of extensive articles.— Odysseus 147 9 01:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorrowStravis ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've replied. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding this, see the first sentence of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#List. (Or am I missing something?) Anyway - bedtime! Pdfpdf ( talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammonton, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supernatural (TV series) ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been crying after reading that talk page and her contributions both the articles and other pages. I find it difficult to believe that she was as young as is stated but even if she was three times that age, well, what she had to offer was amazing. Life just isn't fair sometimes. - Sitush ( talk) 20:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I know I'm going to make you fat but just the same :-) I wanted to acknowledge your astute and succinct contributions to the Ebonites3 ArbCom evidence page. Its important to have uninvolved editors step in and give their perspective. OK.......... now eat your cupcake!! — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
Wow, thanks, Keithbob, it's appreciated. I wish I could remember how I ended up on the edge of this fierce dispute since I have no opinion about subject. I hesitated to get involved at ARBCOM because I'm more of a witness to a fight than an involved party (and this fight has lasted six years!). I've made a few comments on the Workshop page until I saw how many ideas were being put on the table and I think the Arbs need to sort this out themselves.
But I appreciate you noticing! Have a great week! Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Liz,
I submit the following for your consideration. First, as I explained recently to Flyer22 on her talk page:
1) the identification "non-Muslim Arab" in the opening sentence, though true, has the effect of stereotyping Wael Hallaq and his academic contributions. Although the fact that he is a non-Muslim and an Arab may be of interest to some readers, stating the fact at the outset gives it undue precedence; this wrong emphasis is a disservice to the living subject of the article and to the reader, and, as I have said, comes off as a an attempt to stereotype. Imagine, for example, if the article on Reza Aslan opened with "Reza Aslan is a non-Christian Persian," or the article on Muhammad Ali opened with "Muhammad Ali is a non-Christian African." 2) For the above reason, I chose to remove "non-Muslim Arab" (which, along with its citation, had been added by another editor), and to insert the term "non-Muslim" into the third sentence of the second paragraph. In this way, the fact may be known to those who, for whatever reason, deem it important, but not in such an essentializing and stereotyping manner. As for "Arab," so much should be evident through the combination of his name and birthplace; it need not be stated at the outset as a defining characteristic--the effect, again, is stereotyping.
Second, I continue to disagree that the phrase "is a prominent scholar" requires citation, and here is the argument I presented to Flyer 22 for the same:
3) As for my choice of the word "prominent" to replace "non-Muslim Arab," this is not POV requiring citation. The facts related in the article are eloquent testimony to Wael Hallaq's prominence in Islamic Studies: three decades in the academic field, two highly-sought-after and influential professorships, nine authored volumes, and some sixty other publications are evidence enough of prominence in an academic field. Prominence is not proven by citing a text which links the subject to the word "prominent;" rather, it is evidenced by the subject's many and influential accomplishments and publications. Scholars and students in the field of Islamic Legal Studies--my own area of study, authorship, and teaching--know the name Wael Hallaq very well.
Finally, I understand the concern you expressed as "Removing sourced material," as the opening "non-Muslim Arab" was indeed cited, and the citation removed when I removed the opening phrase.
Seeking resolution to this persistent rolling back of my edits, I will do the following: 1) I will remove "non-Muslim Arab" for the stereotyping reasons outlined above 2) Despite my continuing disagreement, I will not replace it with anything (i.e., I will not insert "prominent" or any other descriptor) 3) I will retain the citation, and move it to the term "non-Muslim" which now occurs in the second paragraph, deemphasizing the fact so as to avoid stereotyping
Regards, RaHHaal ( talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I am not sure if there are any admins or other well-meaning editors who 'police' the reference desk, sorry I can't really help here :( Giant Snowman 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Liz, I saw your comments at Jimbo's page and was wondering why you don't run for RFA. Your editing history seems to support that you would do well. 71.126.152.253 ( talk) 01:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
So, for all of these reasons, I don't think I'd do very well in an RfA and I'm not sure that Admin work is the kind of work I wanted to spend hours doing. But, again, I do appreciate your encouragement! Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi I was just wondering if contributing to the encyclopedia itself ever interested you? What sort of topics interest you? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)