![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.
Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on
Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
Figureskatingfan (
talk ·
contribs),
Miyagawa (
talk ·
contribs) and
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk ·
contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from
the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This probably takes some explaining. At the recent ArbCom case regarding Landmark Worldwide I suggested that maybe it might be possible to get together a group of editors with some broad experience of wikipedia and knowledge of the general topic area to get together and review the sources available on the topic with the intention of ultimately starting a broader discussion, probably through RfC, about the issues involved. It is more or less in line with a proposal I made for something like a "content" committee, which would probably be more reasonably called a "comment" committee, given the role I think RfC and the hopefully wide variety and number of editors might play in the real outcome of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content?. ArbCom itself requested some broader input in the topic area in its decision.
I was thinking of editors around here who might have some sort of broad experience in the social/religious issues involved and you were one of the first names that came to mind for maybe taking part in reviewing information presented and evaluating sources and the like. If you would have any interest in maybe taking part in this sort of test run for such a committee, I would obviously welcome it. I haven't actually started a separate section on the article talk page yet, because I wanted to see if there were any responses from the individuals I was considering, or, potentially, anyone else who might be interested. John Carter ( talk) 16:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I liked the way your sign is made. Will try out "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" too. Aside: at first I thought that Liz stands for lizard.
. --
AmritasyaPutra
T
07:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon | |
---|---|
![]() ![]() You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!).
The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, It's been a while. How are you? I've been hiding under a rock.
I remember a while back you were interested in research about WP demographics etc. So...... here's something new you may find interesting.
[1] Best, -- —
Keithbob •
Talk •
16:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your comment about the GG talk page archives being daunting. Please don't let those stop you. A good portion of the talk pages is soap boxing or explaining BLP and RS policy to new editors. An experienced editor like yourself should have no trouble jumping right in! Cheers. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Liz, re your question: there are a couple of sources (Kain's articles on Forbes, the HuffPo interviews, David Pakman's interviews and a couple of others, plus a lot of blogs have research data) - yet no 'acceptable' RSes if I get the mood of the current GamerGate-talk page right, cover it. If Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia, it needs to uphold truth too. I realize that can get messy, but currently the GamerGate article is as about as far as the truth it can be - both the statistics, documents gathered on blogs and other resources as well as collective experiences (and not those only focused on by the MSM) show this. I'm getting mighty tired of this, and there have been times I really doubted the integrity of Wikipedia. The verifiability vs truth balance is really getting out of whack and really absurd. MicBenSte ( talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!
– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
though I don't really get the controversy; it's been reported in several news sites that he's come out as transgender, yet there seems to be a blanket ban on adding it to his article. Serendi pod ous 17:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I was reading a recent discussion on the RfA talkpage, and one of your comments caught my attention a little bit - [2] - you say "someone with those criteria", but criteria are points that one needs to pass, not attributes one may already possess. I'm sorry if that was just slip of the tongue and you already knew this, but I am one of those people who likes to educate others on their mistakes so that they will be correct the next time. It's not a criticism, just something I noticed. Good afternoon (by two minutes)! Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 12:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Please read my reply. Thanks Quis separabit? 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
You seem to know a lot about arbcom, so I'm asking you this: if an editor's block log says that they've been blocked indefinitely by arbcom, how can I find out the reason? I've searched arbcom with no success. I don't know if it was through an arbcom case or by one of their other enforcement methods. Going by just a username, is their a way to find out? Thanks! EChastain ( talk) 20:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Good catch, thanks. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
(The Wikimedia Highlights issues from some recent months have not been distributed via this notice, but can be found in the archive.)
One was when I was on vacation. Not sure about the other one. Serendi pod ous 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm the one who removed the "Yule Log" thingy. I've looked around for a Scandinavian source for this, and couldn't find any. The blog used for article reference doesn't give any sources. AFAIK there is no such tradition, the info is false. I'd of course be happy (and really, really surprised) to leave it in if you could dig up a reference for this, but it would be nice if you didn't simply revert w/o talk page mention and real references. Good of you to notify me, though,thx for that.
T 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:16E1 ( talk) 01:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering... I've seen you around the site a lot recently (since I came back from a brief hiatus), and with the low numbers of active admins we have I was wondering if you've ever thought of going up for the bit? From what I've seen you seem to be a fairly calm and reasonable editor (which we need more of in the admin community), and I'm not aware of any issues that you've had (if there's anything I should be concerned about let me know haha). If you'd consider it, I'd be willing to be your nominator. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your message. I just want to let you know that the categories I tagged for speedy deletion for being empty was done so appropriately. When I tagged them, they were empty, but then someone else ended up adding content to them after I had done so. For example, based on the time stamps, I tagged Category:2008 elections in New Zealand as C1 at 7:22 on February 19, but then Category:New Zealand general election, 2008 was added to it at 8:09 on February 19. I marked Category:Sri Lanka Mitra Vibhushana as C1 at 23:45 on February 18, but its two articles within it were added at 15:56 and 15:57 on February 21. If empty categories end up getting populated after I've tagged them for deletion, then of course the speedy deletion criteria no longer applies and the tags should be removed. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I was self reporting my unjust temp block for starting a SPI and false allegation made by Chillum. I also asked for the salted SPI to be looked at which was properly done with all parties involved being informed and 2 admins as well. I even went to the extra step of informing those who were affected by the sock or meat puppet. Something is rotten in Denmark and I am going to point it out. Meat and sock puppets involved in a heated article deletion discussion are very troubling especially when they appear to be done by the editor who nominated the article for deletion. I provided ample evidence of a SPI and it was quickly closed and salted and I was blocked based on false accusations. The article that stood for 9 years was also salted. Here is a link to the SPI I started that was closed in three hours and then deleted so no one else could see it. [ [3]] This investigation has been started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot.
See Jimbo's page [4] and ANI [5] 172.56.21.218 ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, @ Liz:. Per your catch on the Providence Research circular reference issue that came up on the Jimbo Wales Talk page discussion of that entity's citing of the Wikimedia Foundation as co-author on its works, I did an internal Wikipedia search (inadequate for the task), then resorted to a backdoor Google search ( here).
It appears the only circular ref at Wikipedia (that turns up in the latter) is in the Patton article. There is one also at the German version. Dropping the "Wikipedia" parameter from the search ( here) returns a crop of hits for the "Providence Research" books at amazon.com, google books, and elsewhere.
Thus, at the moment the problem of circular references citing both Providence Research and the Wikimedia Foundation (which is being assumed as a proxy for Wikipedia research being utilized) is limited, thankfully. Hopefully it will remain that way. However:
1) I haven't any way of readily identifying other entitles employing Wikipedia research which is then circularly cited at Wikipedia, I only stumbled into the Providence Research effort by accident. It would take an internal search tool I don't have access to (or, presumably, skill to use, as I am not proficient in Visual Editor);
2) The spread of entities citing Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation as co-authors can hopefully be staunched (per the initiative which closed the discussion on the topic at Wales' Talk page).
Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.
Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on
Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
Figureskatingfan (
talk ·
contribs),
Miyagawa (
talk ·
contribs) and
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk ·
contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from
the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This probably takes some explaining. At the recent ArbCom case regarding Landmark Worldwide I suggested that maybe it might be possible to get together a group of editors with some broad experience of wikipedia and knowledge of the general topic area to get together and review the sources available on the topic with the intention of ultimately starting a broader discussion, probably through RfC, about the issues involved. It is more or less in line with a proposal I made for something like a "content" committee, which would probably be more reasonably called a "comment" committee, given the role I think RfC and the hopefully wide variety and number of editors might play in the real outcome of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content?. ArbCom itself requested some broader input in the topic area in its decision.
I was thinking of editors around here who might have some sort of broad experience in the social/religious issues involved and you were one of the first names that came to mind for maybe taking part in reviewing information presented and evaluating sources and the like. If you would have any interest in maybe taking part in this sort of test run for such a committee, I would obviously welcome it. I haven't actually started a separate section on the article talk page yet, because I wanted to see if there were any responses from the individuals I was considering, or, potentially, anyone else who might be interested. John Carter ( talk) 16:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I liked the way your sign is made. Will try out "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" too. Aside: at first I thought that Liz stands for lizard.
. --
AmritasyaPutra
T
07:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon | |
---|---|
![]() ![]() You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!).
The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, It's been a while. How are you? I've been hiding under a rock.
I remember a while back you were interested in research about WP demographics etc. So...... here's something new you may find interesting.
[1] Best, -- —
Keithbob •
Talk •
16:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your comment about the GG talk page archives being daunting. Please don't let those stop you. A good portion of the talk pages is soap boxing or explaining BLP and RS policy to new editors. An experienced editor like yourself should have no trouble jumping right in! Cheers. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Liz, re your question: there are a couple of sources (Kain's articles on Forbes, the HuffPo interviews, David Pakman's interviews and a couple of others, plus a lot of blogs have research data) - yet no 'acceptable' RSes if I get the mood of the current GamerGate-talk page right, cover it. If Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia, it needs to uphold truth too. I realize that can get messy, but currently the GamerGate article is as about as far as the truth it can be - both the statistics, documents gathered on blogs and other resources as well as collective experiences (and not those only focused on by the MSM) show this. I'm getting mighty tired of this, and there have been times I really doubted the integrity of Wikipedia. The verifiability vs truth balance is really getting out of whack and really absurd. MicBenSte ( talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!
– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
though I don't really get the controversy; it's been reported in several news sites that he's come out as transgender, yet there seems to be a blanket ban on adding it to his article. Serendi pod ous 17:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I was reading a recent discussion on the RfA talkpage, and one of your comments caught my attention a little bit - [2] - you say "someone with those criteria", but criteria are points that one needs to pass, not attributes one may already possess. I'm sorry if that was just slip of the tongue and you already knew this, but I am one of those people who likes to educate others on their mistakes so that they will be correct the next time. It's not a criticism, just something I noticed. Good afternoon (by two minutes)! Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 12:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Please read my reply. Thanks Quis separabit? 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
You seem to know a lot about arbcom, so I'm asking you this: if an editor's block log says that they've been blocked indefinitely by arbcom, how can I find out the reason? I've searched arbcom with no success. I don't know if it was through an arbcom case or by one of their other enforcement methods. Going by just a username, is their a way to find out? Thanks! EChastain ( talk) 20:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Good catch, thanks. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
(The Wikimedia Highlights issues from some recent months have not been distributed via this notice, but can be found in the archive.)
One was when I was on vacation. Not sure about the other one. Serendi pod ous 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm the one who removed the "Yule Log" thingy. I've looked around for a Scandinavian source for this, and couldn't find any. The blog used for article reference doesn't give any sources. AFAIK there is no such tradition, the info is false. I'd of course be happy (and really, really surprised) to leave it in if you could dig up a reference for this, but it would be nice if you didn't simply revert w/o talk page mention and real references. Good of you to notify me, though,thx for that.
T 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:16E1 ( talk) 01:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering... I've seen you around the site a lot recently (since I came back from a brief hiatus), and with the low numbers of active admins we have I was wondering if you've ever thought of going up for the bit? From what I've seen you seem to be a fairly calm and reasonable editor (which we need more of in the admin community), and I'm not aware of any issues that you've had (if there's anything I should be concerned about let me know haha). If you'd consider it, I'd be willing to be your nominator. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your message. I just want to let you know that the categories I tagged for speedy deletion for being empty was done so appropriately. When I tagged them, they were empty, but then someone else ended up adding content to them after I had done so. For example, based on the time stamps, I tagged Category:2008 elections in New Zealand as C1 at 7:22 on February 19, but then Category:New Zealand general election, 2008 was added to it at 8:09 on February 19. I marked Category:Sri Lanka Mitra Vibhushana as C1 at 23:45 on February 18, but its two articles within it were added at 15:56 and 15:57 on February 21. If empty categories end up getting populated after I've tagged them for deletion, then of course the speedy deletion criteria no longer applies and the tags should be removed. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I was self reporting my unjust temp block for starting a SPI and false allegation made by Chillum. I also asked for the salted SPI to be looked at which was properly done with all parties involved being informed and 2 admins as well. I even went to the extra step of informing those who were affected by the sock or meat puppet. Something is rotten in Denmark and I am going to point it out. Meat and sock puppets involved in a heated article deletion discussion are very troubling especially when they appear to be done by the editor who nominated the article for deletion. I provided ample evidence of a SPI and it was quickly closed and salted and I was blocked based on false accusations. The article that stood for 9 years was also salted. Here is a link to the SPI I started that was closed in three hours and then deleted so no one else could see it. [ [3]] This investigation has been started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot.
See Jimbo's page [4] and ANI [5] 172.56.21.218 ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, @ Liz:. Per your catch on the Providence Research circular reference issue that came up on the Jimbo Wales Talk page discussion of that entity's citing of the Wikimedia Foundation as co-author on its works, I did an internal Wikipedia search (inadequate for the task), then resorted to a backdoor Google search ( here).
It appears the only circular ref at Wikipedia (that turns up in the latter) is in the Patton article. There is one also at the German version. Dropping the "Wikipedia" parameter from the search ( here) returns a crop of hits for the "Providence Research" books at amazon.com, google books, and elsewhere.
Thus, at the moment the problem of circular references citing both Providence Research and the Wikimedia Foundation (which is being assumed as a proxy for Wikipedia research being utilized) is limited, thankfully. Hopefully it will remain that way. However:
1) I haven't any way of readily identifying other entitles employing Wikipedia research which is then circularly cited at Wikipedia, I only stumbled into the Providence Research effort by accident. It would take an internal search tool I don't have access to (or, presumably, skill to use, as I am not proficient in Visual Editor);
2) The spread of entities citing Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation as co-authors can hopefully be staunched (per the initiative which closed the discussion on the topic at Wales' Talk page).
Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)