![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lucio Dalla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm contacting you about a study that I'm running with TheOriginalSoni exploring newcomer mentorship activities in Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your interactions with newcomers and to explore how a tool like WP:Snuggle might make your work easier. The interview and demo session will take 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much time we spend discussing things. If you're interested, let me know. If not, disregard this message and I won't bother you again.
Thanks for your consideration. -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
First, I thought you might be interested in taking part at the RfC at Talk:List of new religious movements. Also, if you have anything you wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#John Carter, feel free to do so. John Carter ( talk) 21:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A proposed tool for reducing backlogs.
APerson (
talk!)
01:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
A number of your recent edits have added parent categories to articles. As a general rule, we avoid doing this. For example: Once Kel Mitchell is in Category:African-American male child actors, he should not be added to Category:African-American male actors [1] or Category:American male actors [2] as both of those categories are subcategories (or "daughter" categories) of Category:African-American male child actors. Similarly, we would not add him to :[[ Category:African-American child actors, Category:African-American actors, Category:American male child actors, Category:American actors, etc. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization for another explanation of the same issue. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Liz.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gary Coleman may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Shawn Landres may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Liz for the suggestion to start by sandboxing my content that is not yet notable. I'll do that Trpeters1 ( talk) 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Liz! Trpeters1 ( talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Pornographic male actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish ( talk) 22:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Perry Belcher has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I had never seen WP:POV Railroad before. Sounds a lot like my own perspective. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Liz, I simply couldn't resist that. Oh, and why were you writing in first person?!? I like to saw logs! ( talk) 03:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Happy to be of help. I can't take all the credit...or even most of it, really. I'm building a lot on the shoulders of others. I've created a very few categories, as most of them were already in place when I came along. It is tedious, yes - and I check manually for much the same reason you do (although there are ways to harness AWB's power, if you wish...not much less tedious, though.) But it's a great way to keep busy and do something productive when I need to. :-)
Keep up the good work, and happy editing! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
– Muboshgu ( talk) 10:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hahaha - there are some weird number of page watchers for my user page, I suspect forgotten visit/watch tags from people long gone quiet or off on a permananent lunch. To have actually a comment about the myrmecia (ant), is probably the first comment about my user page photo for at least a year... so it begged a reply. A bite, or an accumulative series can kill if you are allergic to bee stings. I have been bitten a few times over the last x years, so my reactions have not been of the sort to create alarm. A biology specialist at a local University counselled me seriously over the issue when I alerted him to my photos, I suspect he has had to guide medicos through people bitten and their medical issues. Interestingly the particular nest that I had photographed had a group of ants that grew accustomed to me and my camera, and did not go through the typical response of trying to rush the camera or me. I was quite devastated when the local council destroyed the nest in some roadwork activity.
User page photographs can be quite a revealing or deceptive device on the part of some users - some years ago more effort would be put imnto user boxes than actual editing, and I do remember fondly the Australian editor who never left his talk page, long diatribes about the injustices of the world, all on his talk and user page. Then eventually he went quiet and hasnt been seen again. I now know many more who have either left or are literally inactive on wp en than currently out there in the general wp editing. Enough. Thanks for your comment. sats 11:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Liz. You tagged a page for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by
Cymru.lass (
talk •
contribs)
21:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
Huon (
talk)
00:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Santiago B. Villafania. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope members of this WikiProject can weigh in on these discussions at CfD. - Hmmm. Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it. But what's the incentive? As you are more than aware, the only successful communication I had was with you! Why would anyone try to have a rational conversation on that page when the major noisemaker has no understanding of, or interest in, the word "consensus", or any other POV than his own? I feel that your comment at the top of your talk page is an excellent summary of the situation.
If you wish to discuss this topic with me via email, please feel free; I have the expectation that any public discussion will lead to "tears before bedtime".
Never-the-less, despite my cynicism, I want to make it clear that I am encouraged by your reasonable and rational approach, and I am highly supportive of it. Please keep up the good work - far too many editors are, like me, throwing their hands up in the air and thinking that trying to have a half-way "normal" conversation is just too much effort. Best wishes,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey you! Can not put this article in the elimination just because you think he is an essay that was made or invented in one day! I spent two months researching to write. I put the references and they are accurate. Learn to read in Italian and buy the book indicated to confirm. Hey I'm very upset with you administrators of wikipedia. I do an article, someone comes along and wants to eliminate. I modify the article then comes another unhappy and complains saying the change I made became Article inappropriate. You need to set parameters! This time I will not accept! I researched a lot and I did not invent anything that is written. Respect! Respect my work! You use parameters defined by wikipedia, but judge subjectively, as if they knew or were all, like doctors experts on the subject! There are dozens of articles like this scattered throughout wikipedia worldwide! see:
/info/en/?search=Theia_ (planet) # Theia
/info/en/?search=Vulcan_ (hypothetical_planet)
http://wikipedia.qwika.com/it2en/X-Proserpina_ (astrology)
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Proserpina
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_ (planet)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_(Planet)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpluto
Now please stop me miserable, as do the other and go do something more productive! Will read about astronomy and the theory of hypothetical planets!
Ad Astra2013 AdAstra2013 ( talk) 00:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AdAstra2013 (
talk •
contribs)
00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
2º epistemological round
Yeah, but either way , but should pay attention to the fact that in other wikipedias World , there are articles like this. This demonstrates quality standard and level things . FACT there are items in any other part of wikipedia dealing on the subject , it is prerequisite to validate the article , and you have the least notion of erroneous assessment has committed. Should pay attention to the fact that we live in a cosmopolitan world , and if you think that is inserted into it , have to be aware of things happening around you and that are documented as such in one language into another. Act contrary to it , only makes clear how limited is your horizon . Must answer three questions before judging my article :
I understand and know deeply astrology?
I understand and know deeply astronomy ?
The subject of this article is that a fact? Yes , because there is a lot of intellectual and physical events that support it.
You do not know Italian, but should have a minimum of epistemological understanding to judge information , and knowledge sharing . especially those in areas of knowledge that you do not know .
I can not go beyond what I have written in the article. Add more information would THEN write an essay and my interest is just PRESENTED facts . You should know that quantity is not quality , and that there are small items that say it all and are perfect , and while there are plenty of those who are confused a drug . This article reached your limit of information , as I said , anything will make him a trial . So be content . Around the world millions of people are interested in astrology and astronomy. But as you yourself made it clear , do not know Italian and even have money to import the books that talk about the subject of the article . Because of this this article becomes the primary source for the subject . From it , anyone who speaks English , have knowledge of aa theory presented . Will know that there is a theory of a certain hypothetical planet , as well as other wikipedia is filled with articles on many different theories. And so the person can seek ways to enhance your knowledge on the subject . You, but what anyone else should have in mind that wikipedia is basic and quick source of information for many who do not otherwise have access . And remove my article is to deny people who like astrology and astronomy, in South Africa , Korea , Angola and even in the USA there is information about the fact .
Now you would like , please let me know to whom I look for , that is above you , to solve this problem . I want to know who will finish judging this issue and want to talk to him . Because from what I am seeing , it does not matter to you what will happen to my article .
AdAstra2013 AdAstra2013 ( talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
"If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."
Great.
I know I will not make any difference post here. Cause the only cpisa you even know to do is tweak articles without prior knowledge for disposal. Still, thank you, you answered what I wanted. Furthermore, I will not worry about writing well in English for someone who has little knowledge and epistemological general.
Thanks genius! AdAstra2013 AdAstra2013 ( talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 1, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I saw your note to the clerk, so I wanted you to know I'm finished presenting my evidence. Although I preserve the option make changes in the next 10 days, it's essentially complete. As you said yourself, for me it's all about the content. Beyond that, I can't discuss the specifics of the case. However, while arbitration is not to be taken lightly, it also presents a rare opportunity. If you have something to contribute that you think will help the encyclopedia, particularly the long-term health of the encyclopedia, please have at it. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Kudpung's talk page.
14:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you Irish? Sorry for the question, feel free to not reply if you don't want to. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Userboxes in Userboxes! | This user has userboxes in their userboxes! |
Greetings, You deleted Category:Human names from Africanization. I've responded with a comment and request for feedback at Talk:Africanization#Categories. TIA.-- A12n ( talk) 07:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it wasn't you. I wasn't sure if it should be Liz' or Liz's or some other grammar style that I'm unaware of.--v/r - T P 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, thanks for citing me in your discussion on the Teahouse. I won't contribute to your discussion there, for fear of making it too long :p but I totally agree with the issue you raised. AugurNZ ✐ ⌕ 05:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hi. I noticed you undid my removal of tabloid sources for contentious information on this article. On consideration, I have restored this edit. I made it in an admin capacity while enforcing WP:BLPSOURCES, so I'd be grateful if you could refrain from restoring it a second time. Could you instead take it ti article talk or (preferably) find better sources for this info? -- John ( talk) 08:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Sweet Treat Award |
For your continuing contributions at WP:BLPN, Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 22 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)
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 am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Newjerseyliz. Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I just lost interest in it, or rather I wasn't that interested in it initially. The raw data comes from the database dumps, which are still being generated. Hut 8.5 09:32, 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 2800 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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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 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)
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)
I just came across this
WMF Editor Survey Dec 2011 results pdf file. What is particularly interesting is Section III (pg. 18) about how Editors feel about the Wikipedia Community and interactions with Admins and other Editors. It dispels some common misconceptions and reveals other interesting facts. Also, in demographics, 25% of those responding were under 21 years of age, most were male, single and had no children. I imagine parents, especially of young children, have little time to devote to editing.
Of course, all of the regular disclaimers apply, this was not a randomly selected group of Editors, those who are willing to take time to respond to a survey request are those individuals who tend to be more satisfied with the process.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
English Wikipedia at a glance August 2013
Stat | Data | Yearly Change | Monthly Change |
---|---|---|---|
Page Views per Month | 9,985,326,806 | -- | -- |
Article Count | 4,382,898 | +8% | +1% |
New Articles per Day | 869 | -- | -- |
Edits per Month | 2,915,395 | -16% | +2% |
Active Editors | 30,941 | -6% | +0% |
Very Active Editors | 3,156 | -8% | -0% |
New Editors | 5,986 | -9% | -1% |
Speakers | 1,500,000,000 | -- | -- |
Editors per Million Speakers | 21 | -- | -- |
Page views: 9,985 million/month = 333 million/day = 13.9 million/hour = 231 thousand/minute = 3.9 thousand/second
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)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Chris Innis may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Nancy Bauer (philosopher) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:PROD says "Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion" and "provide a clear and non-generic reason" and "indicating the article's general subject area or what notability guidelines it falls under is considered good practice" and "Make sure to provide an edit summary that clearly indicates that the article has been proposed for deletion" amongst other advice on how to nominate - I'm not sure how clearer it could be. And no, you cannot re-add the tag - it now needs to go to WP:AFD I'm afraid. If you're unsure how that works please let me know. Giant Snowman 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Liz, you forgot to sign your comment under Pre-planned dispute: diff. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Liz, I found one more. diff You might want to fix it for the record. Sorry I missed this yesterday. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Should a parenthetical comment be inserted in the bio lead saying that Swartz killed himself “just after the second anniversary of his arrest”?
Illustration: “On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested.... On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest, Swartz was found dead....”
(This is my first RfC.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi liz,
I just discovered Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions and immediately thought of you. I know you are busy but I doubt you will get a lot of requests if you list yourself there. Cheers, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking an interest :) The discussion moved to the editor's talk page ( User talk:Narrow Feint) but he seems to be busy at the moment and is only replying sporadically. He has not continued with his editing either, so we'll see how it progresses. Cheers, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The Tumbleman AE is the second time I happen to see you make an astute comment as you did on Risker's talk page... Nothing to say but to support the comments in both places. Thanks for the great work.( olive ( talk) 18:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
I didn't mean to imply that it would crush Wikipedia, only create a great deal of trouble for it. Watching the Trial of Tumbleman I can only marvel at how completely this group of ideologues has captured Wikipedia. That, not the Sheldrake web page, will be the main source of trouble because it's an indication that the entire system is broken. Craig Weiler ( talk) 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Joss has a lot of fans in the looser, broader sense; but he has never ever been a member of actual SF fandom. He never came to conventions, never pubbed a fanzine, etc. His contact with fandom has been as a showrunner, writer-producer, etc., after he started creating genre television; not as an actual fan. Contrast this to somebody like Harlan Ellison, Marion Zimmer Bradley, or Damon Knight, who were fans first and pros afterward. Just sayin'. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (This has nothing to do with my attitude towards Joss' shows; see my userboxen on that matter.)
Hello, I appreciate many of the points you made at the Tumbleman AE. I would only say that it was not the right place to make those points. I was surprised that Tumbleman had supporters at all, since I don't think he makes anyone look good. The issue of his trolling/socking history elsewhere is telling (and still recent), but the AE case didn't require it. It was based on activity that extended a month prior to the "event" which brought an influx of Sheldrake supporters leading to the present situation.
What was this "event"? It was this. If you want to understand what is really going on with the Sheldrake article, that link is the place to start. One person had blogged about crazy conspiracy theories, and then Sheldrake himself bought into the conspiracies and expanded upon them on his blog. Tumbleman had harassed me about it on my talk page. It's all nuts.
And the propaganda continues. Take a look at this post which says, "The Tumbleman has been banned for a week supposedly for creating a sockpuppet account that never appeared on the Sheldrake page." The blogger had to have gotten that information from the SPI, where it plainly says that one sock had zero edits. The blogger doesn't mention the other two socks who participated in the Sheldrake page to support Tumbleman (the only thing they did as editors). This kind of brazen dishonesty continues to astound me.
I value your perspective in these Sheldrakian matters, which is why I want you to be informed about the absurd propaganda that's part of all this. vzaak ( talk) 17:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent points Liz. While WP:FRINGE is an important guideline for the encyclopedia it is often misapplied as you are pointing out here. This exuberance for the skeptical point of view is becoming quite strong on WP as the skeptic movement is actively campaigning on the web to enlist and recruit WP editors to further their national agenda. [3] [4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I have quoted you from this talk page in a recent blog post. While I chose quotes to make a certain point, I made sure to include enough information to avoid making it appear as if you were endorsing one side or the other. Craig Weiler ( talk) 21:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I'm Andrew Cabral, the guy from Jimmy Wales' page (Hindu nationalism). I just wanted to apologize for the peevish tone with which I'd replied to you. I don't mind admitting that I was irritated just because of your anonymous IP remark. Silly, but there you have it!
Anyway, I trust there are no hard feelings from your side. Shake, shake! (That's hand, not head.)
Sincerely,
Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.128.126 ( talk) 19:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You too, Liz, you too! Take care! Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.4.203 ( talk) 13:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Description | Number | Percentage of Active Users |
---|---|---|
Total Users | 1924618 | 462.5% |
Active Users (one edit) or more | 416139 | 100% |
Users with three or more edits | 200270 | 48.1% |
Users with ten or more edits | 111163 | 26.7% |
Users with thirty-two or more edits | 50733 | 12.2% |
Users with 100 or more edits | 23709 | 5.7% |
Users with 316 or more edits | 11076 | 2.7% |
Users with 1000 or more edits | 4789 | 1.2% |
Users with 3162 or more edits | 1658 | 0.4% |
Number of admins | 976 | 0.2% |
Number of users with over 10,000 edits | 381 | 0.1% |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
Well, this is quite a surprise. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a message to demonstrate to Jasper Deng from https://www.mediawiki.org that I "own" this username. I put in a request to change my username there. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Tentinator 06:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Yo, Liz, I saw your reply on ANI, and decided to bring it here for further discussion, only because it's kinda off-topic from the point of the ANI thread. Anyway, I'm not really sure what your point is. I mean, anyone's edits can be deleted through page deletion; I have 2,168 deleted contribs, and you have 73. I suppose you're right in the sense that an IP address may, on some level, have fewer deleted contribs than a user account (simply because IP addresses cannot create articles in main space), but that doesn't mean they're immune to them, nor that they're immune to being blocked due to them. IPs can (and have) created articles in the Talk: namespace, and they're allowed to create articles at AfC, too, so they can still create articles that can then be deleted. Not to mention that they can make edits to articles that have been created by others that are then deleted; as one example, it's not unknown for people to contribute an obviously inappropriate article and then, when it is nominated for speedy deletion, they log out and edit the page to be deleted as an IP address, to create the illusion of support and to evade the restriction that article authors cannot remove deletion tags from their own articles. And of course, registered usernames are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
By the way, in the future, if you come across one of these accounts, you can use a tool on the toolserver ( here) to look up a user's contribution count, and this will also give you a deleted contribs count. So yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 03:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope [6] was a mistake? -- regentspark ( comment) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, just thought to mention that in this edit you removed part of a comment you made that had already been responded to. In this instance I don't care, and likely no one else will either, but for future you may want to consider striking the comment rather than removing per WP:REDACT. Cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz - thanks for the cat cleanup on a lot of the philosopher articles I've put up recently. I'll make a greater effort to get them in the right set of cats from the get-go in the future. Also... your Jimbo.. your Jimbo... it's staring at me.... :p Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who know how to express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
Lou Sander's notice to you. Thank you.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
09:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Biggest problem here is the lack of independent third-party in-depth reliable sources to show notability. Plus it's a BLP, everything needs to be sourced to such sources. If the article doesn't get properly sourced, I'll be nominating it for deletion. Academics aren't automatically notable. Yworo ( talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Liz, Can you help me with RolandR? He is wrong about all my contribs (Heidegger, Hölderlin, Benjamin and so on). Thank you! I´m Ketxus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketxus ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've met a real one. A pretty important one, as I understand it: Nicholas Rescher. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Tenebrae:, thanks for letting me know. I don't recall editing that article but I'll check it out. Liz Read! Talk! 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that N94228 misunderstands one of the criteria for speedy deletion. (It isn't clear whether he or she understands anything about Wikipedia.) Articles written by banned or blocked users can be deleted. N94228 apparently is concerned that he or she is about to be blocked, which may happen if he or she continues making idle accusations. However, the deletion rule does not apply to users who are blocked or banned after writing the articles. It only applies to users who are already blocked or banned, and so never should have written the articles, but were evading the block, typically by
sock-puppetry. You are an experienced editor and knew that. The original question did not have to do with the article containing racism, which it does not, but with whether the author is blocked for racism. The author is likely to be blocked for disruptive editing, a different matter. Now that another editor has properly sourced the article, the article is unlikely to be deleted for any of racism (which it does not contain), lack of notability (established by another editor), or blockage of the author (which may happen but the article was validly composed.) Maybe N94228 is a racist, or is accused of racism. That doesn't matter unless he or she points racist drivel. N94228 almost certainly is a teenager. That doesn't matter; some young teenagers, let alone adult teenagers, can edit responsibly. N94228 is a disruptive editor; that does matter.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@
Robert McClenon: What is this about?
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
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.
--
MorrowStravis (
talk)
18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Category:Public philosophers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes to the categories at Christine de Pizan, and thought I’d drop a line to explain. I haven’t studied the categorization guidelines; this is just what seems sensible to me. Since the category Italian women philosophers is included in Italian philosophers, it seems redundant to list the latter: being the ‘parent’, members of its ‘children‘ belong to it by implication. Likewise for the French. And since French women poets is included in French women writers and French poets (which I realize weren‘t among your additions—just while we’re at it), it can replace both of them.
BTW, I notice you’re using HotCat: if you click the superscripted plus-sign near the beginning of the category list, you can make several changes in one edit.— Odysseus 147 9 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Liz, How can I remove a tag, correctly? Thank You ( Ketxus ( talk) 14:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
Funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOxlSOr3_M Lou Sander ( talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not that again. I left it that way, and I want the top few comments I posted to remain that way. I don't mean to be rude, but I wish for it to stay that way. Thinks anyway. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 18:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't create Category:Hispanic and Latino American film actors unless the current discussion on Category:African-American film actors closes as a keep. We have already seen Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors upmerged after a very short existence. This will just lead to more work for people. At a minimum open a discussion on the wikiproject for actors and filmmakers and wait until you get a clear support for creating this category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. -- Pharos ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Liz. Thank you for stating your opinion on the ANI. If you want, it might be helpful to restate it in the "topic ban for milesmoney tendentious editing" section. Steeletrap ( talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
inquiring mind
Thank you, busy reading editor with a pumpkin, for gnomish work sorting categories and
rescuing articles, for inquiring about the work of admins and arbitrators (you would be good at it!), for
missing people, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
Thanks, Gerda! Much appreciated! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 16:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions). Our final nine were as follows:
All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:
Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
milesmoney.m2h1n3@gmail.com MilesMoney ( talk) 01:39, 30 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lucio Dalla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm contacting you about a study that I'm running with TheOriginalSoni exploring newcomer mentorship activities in Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your interactions with newcomers and to explore how a tool like WP:Snuggle might make your work easier. The interview and demo session will take 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much time we spend discussing things. If you're interested, let me know. If not, disregard this message and I won't bother you again.
Thanks for your consideration. -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
First, I thought you might be interested in taking part at the RfC at Talk:List of new religious movements. Also, if you have anything you wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#John Carter, feel free to do so. John Carter ( talk) 21:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A proposed tool for reducing backlogs.
APerson (
talk!)
01:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
A number of your recent edits have added parent categories to articles. As a general rule, we avoid doing this. For example: Once Kel Mitchell is in Category:African-American male child actors, he should not be added to Category:African-American male actors [1] or Category:American male actors [2] as both of those categories are subcategories (or "daughter" categories) of Category:African-American male child actors. Similarly, we would not add him to :[[ Category:African-American child actors, Category:African-American actors, Category:American male child actors, Category:American actors, etc. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization for another explanation of the same issue. Thanks. - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Liz.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gary Coleman may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Shawn Landres may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Liz for the suggestion to start by sandboxing my content that is not yet notable. I'll do that Trpeters1 ( talk) 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Liz! Trpeters1 ( talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Pornographic male actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish ( talk) 22:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Perry Belcher has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I had never seen WP:POV Railroad before. Sounds a lot like my own perspective. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Liz, I simply couldn't resist that. Oh, and why were you writing in first person?!? I like to saw logs! ( talk) 03:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Happy to be of help. I can't take all the credit...or even most of it, really. I'm building a lot on the shoulders of others. I've created a very few categories, as most of them were already in place when I came along. It is tedious, yes - and I check manually for much the same reason you do (although there are ways to harness AWB's power, if you wish...not much less tedious, though.) But it's a great way to keep busy and do something productive when I need to. :-)
Keep up the good work, and happy editing! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
– Muboshgu ( talk) 10:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hahaha - there are some weird number of page watchers for my user page, I suspect forgotten visit/watch tags from people long gone quiet or off on a permananent lunch. To have actually a comment about the myrmecia (ant), is probably the first comment about my user page photo for at least a year... so it begged a reply. A bite, or an accumulative series can kill if you are allergic to bee stings. I have been bitten a few times over the last x years, so my reactions have not been of the sort to create alarm. A biology specialist at a local University counselled me seriously over the issue when I alerted him to my photos, I suspect he has had to guide medicos through people bitten and their medical issues. Interestingly the particular nest that I had photographed had a group of ants that grew accustomed to me and my camera, and did not go through the typical response of trying to rush the camera or me. I was quite devastated when the local council destroyed the nest in some roadwork activity.
User page photographs can be quite a revealing or deceptive device on the part of some users - some years ago more effort would be put imnto user boxes than actual editing, and I do remember fondly the Australian editor who never left his talk page, long diatribes about the injustices of the world, all on his talk and user page. Then eventually he went quiet and hasnt been seen again. I now know many more who have either left or are literally inactive on wp en than currently out there in the general wp editing. Enough. Thanks for your comment. sats 11:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Liz. You tagged a page for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by
Cymru.lass (
talk •
contribs)
21:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
Huon (
talk)
00:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Santiago B. Villafania. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope members of this WikiProject can weigh in on these discussions at CfD. - Hmmm. Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it. But what's the incentive? As you are more than aware, the only successful communication I had was with you! Why would anyone try to have a rational conversation on that page when the major noisemaker has no understanding of, or interest in, the word "consensus", or any other POV than his own? I feel that your comment at the top of your talk page is an excellent summary of the situation.
If you wish to discuss this topic with me via email, please feel free; I have the expectation that any public discussion will lead to "tears before bedtime".
Never-the-less, despite my cynicism, I want to make it clear that I am encouraged by your reasonable and rational approach, and I am highly supportive of it. Please keep up the good work - far too many editors are, like me, throwing their hands up in the air and thinking that trying to have a half-way "normal" conversation is just too much effort. Best wishes,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey you! Can not put this article in the elimination just because you think he is an essay that was made or invented in one day! I spent two months researching to write. I put the references and they are accurate. Learn to read in Italian and buy the book indicated to confirm. Hey I'm very upset with you administrators of wikipedia. I do an article, someone comes along and wants to eliminate. I modify the article then comes another unhappy and complains saying the change I made became Article inappropriate. You need to set parameters! This time I will not accept! I researched a lot and I did not invent anything that is written. Respect! Respect my work! You use parameters defined by wikipedia, but judge subjectively, as if they knew or were all, like doctors experts on the subject! There are dozens of articles like this scattered throughout wikipedia worldwide! see:
/info/en/?search=Theia_ (planet) # Theia
/info/en/?search=Vulcan_ (hypothetical_planet)
http://wikipedia.qwika.com/it2en/X-Proserpina_ (astrology)
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Proserpina
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_ (planet)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_(Planet)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpluto
Now please stop me miserable, as do the other and go do something more productive! Will read about astronomy and the theory of hypothetical planets!
Ad Astra2013 AdAstra2013 ( talk) 00:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AdAstra2013 (
talk •
contribs)
00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
2º epistemological round
Yeah, but either way , but should pay attention to the fact that in other wikipedias World , there are articles like this. This demonstrates quality standard and level things . FACT there are items in any other part of wikipedia dealing on the subject , it is prerequisite to validate the article , and you have the least notion of erroneous assessment has committed. Should pay attention to the fact that we live in a cosmopolitan world , and if you think that is inserted into it , have to be aware of things happening around you and that are documented as such in one language into another. Act contrary to it , only makes clear how limited is your horizon . Must answer three questions before judging my article :
I understand and know deeply astrology?
I understand and know deeply astronomy ?
The subject of this article is that a fact? Yes , because there is a lot of intellectual and physical events that support it.
You do not know Italian, but should have a minimum of epistemological understanding to judge information , and knowledge sharing . especially those in areas of knowledge that you do not know .
I can not go beyond what I have written in the article. Add more information would THEN write an essay and my interest is just PRESENTED facts . You should know that quantity is not quality , and that there are small items that say it all and are perfect , and while there are plenty of those who are confused a drug . This article reached your limit of information , as I said , anything will make him a trial . So be content . Around the world millions of people are interested in astrology and astronomy. But as you yourself made it clear , do not know Italian and even have money to import the books that talk about the subject of the article . Because of this this article becomes the primary source for the subject . From it , anyone who speaks English , have knowledge of aa theory presented . Will know that there is a theory of a certain hypothetical planet , as well as other wikipedia is filled with articles on many different theories. And so the person can seek ways to enhance your knowledge on the subject . You, but what anyone else should have in mind that wikipedia is basic and quick source of information for many who do not otherwise have access . And remove my article is to deny people who like astrology and astronomy, in South Africa , Korea , Angola and even in the USA there is information about the fact .
Now you would like , please let me know to whom I look for , that is above you , to solve this problem . I want to know who will finish judging this issue and want to talk to him . Because from what I am seeing , it does not matter to you what will happen to my article .
AdAstra2013 AdAstra2013 ( talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
"If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."
Great.
I know I will not make any difference post here. Cause the only cpisa you even know to do is tweak articles without prior knowledge for disposal. Still, thank you, you answered what I wanted. Furthermore, I will not worry about writing well in English for someone who has little knowledge and epistemological general.
Thanks genius! AdAstra2013 AdAstra2013 ( talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 1, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I saw your note to the clerk, so I wanted you to know I'm finished presenting my evidence. Although I preserve the option make changes in the next 10 days, it's essentially complete. As you said yourself, for me it's all about the content. Beyond that, I can't discuss the specifics of the case. However, while arbitration is not to be taken lightly, it also presents a rare opportunity. If you have something to contribute that you think will help the encyclopedia, particularly the long-term health of the encyclopedia, please have at it. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Kudpung's talk page.
14:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you Irish? Sorry for the question, feel free to not reply if you don't want to. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Userboxes in Userboxes! | This user has userboxes in their userboxes! |
Greetings, You deleted Category:Human names from Africanization. I've responded with a comment and request for feedback at Talk:Africanization#Categories. TIA.-- A12n ( talk) 07:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it wasn't you. I wasn't sure if it should be Liz' or Liz's or some other grammar style that I'm unaware of.--v/r - T P 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, thanks for citing me in your discussion on the Teahouse. I won't contribute to your discussion there, for fear of making it too long :p but I totally agree with the issue you raised. AugurNZ ✐ ⌕ 05:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hi. I noticed you undid my removal of tabloid sources for contentious information on this article. On consideration, I have restored this edit. I made it in an admin capacity while enforcing WP:BLPSOURCES, so I'd be grateful if you could refrain from restoring it a second time. Could you instead take it ti article talk or (preferably) find better sources for this info? -- John ( talk) 08:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Sweet Treat Award |
For your continuing contributions at WP:BLPN, Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 22 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)
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 am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Newjerseyliz. Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I just lost interest in it, or rather I wasn't that interested in it initially. The raw data comes from the database dumps, which are still being generated. Hut 8.5 09:32, 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 2800 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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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 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)
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)
I just came across this
WMF Editor Survey Dec 2011 results pdf file. What is particularly interesting is Section III (pg. 18) about how Editors feel about the Wikipedia Community and interactions with Admins and other Editors. It dispels some common misconceptions and reveals other interesting facts. Also, in demographics, 25% of those responding were under 21 years of age, most were male, single and had no children. I imagine parents, especially of young children, have little time to devote to editing.
Of course, all of the regular disclaimers apply, this was not a randomly selected group of Editors, those who are willing to take time to respond to a survey request are those individuals who tend to be more satisfied with the process.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
English Wikipedia at a glance August 2013
Stat | Data | Yearly Change | Monthly Change |
---|---|---|---|
Page Views per Month | 9,985,326,806 | -- | -- |
Article Count | 4,382,898 | +8% | +1% |
New Articles per Day | 869 | -- | -- |
Edits per Month | 2,915,395 | -16% | +2% |
Active Editors | 30,941 | -6% | +0% |
Very Active Editors | 3,156 | -8% | -0% |
New Editors | 5,986 | -9% | -1% |
Speakers | 1,500,000,000 | -- | -- |
Editors per Million Speakers | 21 | -- | -- |
Page views: 9,985 million/month = 333 million/day = 13.9 million/hour = 231 thousand/minute = 3.9 thousand/second
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)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Chris Innis may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Nancy Bauer (philosopher) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:PROD says "Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion" and "provide a clear and non-generic reason" and "indicating the article's general subject area or what notability guidelines it falls under is considered good practice" and "Make sure to provide an edit summary that clearly indicates that the article has been proposed for deletion" amongst other advice on how to nominate - I'm not sure how clearer it could be. And no, you cannot re-add the tag - it now needs to go to WP:AFD I'm afraid. If you're unsure how that works please let me know. Giant Snowman 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Liz, you forgot to sign your comment under Pre-planned dispute: diff. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Liz, I found one more. diff You might want to fix it for the record. Sorry I missed this yesterday. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Should a parenthetical comment be inserted in the bio lead saying that Swartz killed himself “just after the second anniversary of his arrest”?
Illustration: “On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested.... On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest, Swartz was found dead....”
(This is my first RfC.) -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi liz,
I just discovered Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions and immediately thought of you. I know you are busy but I doubt you will get a lot of requests if you list yourself there. Cheers, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking an interest :) The discussion moved to the editor's talk page ( User talk:Narrow Feint) but he seems to be busy at the moment and is only replying sporadically. He has not continued with his editing either, so we'll see how it progresses. Cheers, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The Tumbleman AE is the second time I happen to see you make an astute comment as you did on Risker's talk page... Nothing to say but to support the comments in both places. Thanks for the great work.( olive ( talk) 18:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
I didn't mean to imply that it would crush Wikipedia, only create a great deal of trouble for it. Watching the Trial of Tumbleman I can only marvel at how completely this group of ideologues has captured Wikipedia. That, not the Sheldrake web page, will be the main source of trouble because it's an indication that the entire system is broken. Craig Weiler ( talk) 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Joss has a lot of fans in the looser, broader sense; but he has never ever been a member of actual SF fandom. He never came to conventions, never pubbed a fanzine, etc. His contact with fandom has been as a showrunner, writer-producer, etc., after he started creating genre television; not as an actual fan. Contrast this to somebody like Harlan Ellison, Marion Zimmer Bradley, or Damon Knight, who were fans first and pros afterward. Just sayin'. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (This has nothing to do with my attitude towards Joss' shows; see my userboxen on that matter.)
Hello, I appreciate many of the points you made at the Tumbleman AE. I would only say that it was not the right place to make those points. I was surprised that Tumbleman had supporters at all, since I don't think he makes anyone look good. The issue of his trolling/socking history elsewhere is telling (and still recent), but the AE case didn't require it. It was based on activity that extended a month prior to the "event" which brought an influx of Sheldrake supporters leading to the present situation.
What was this "event"? It was this. If you want to understand what is really going on with the Sheldrake article, that link is the place to start. One person had blogged about crazy conspiracy theories, and then Sheldrake himself bought into the conspiracies and expanded upon them on his blog. Tumbleman had harassed me about it on my talk page. It's all nuts.
And the propaganda continues. Take a look at this post which says, "The Tumbleman has been banned for a week supposedly for creating a sockpuppet account that never appeared on the Sheldrake page." The blogger had to have gotten that information from the SPI, where it plainly says that one sock had zero edits. The blogger doesn't mention the other two socks who participated in the Sheldrake page to support Tumbleman (the only thing they did as editors). This kind of brazen dishonesty continues to astound me.
I value your perspective in these Sheldrakian matters, which is why I want you to be informed about the absurd propaganda that's part of all this. vzaak ( talk) 17:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent points Liz. While WP:FRINGE is an important guideline for the encyclopedia it is often misapplied as you are pointing out here. This exuberance for the skeptical point of view is becoming quite strong on WP as the skeptic movement is actively campaigning on the web to enlist and recruit WP editors to further their national agenda. [3] [4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I have quoted you from this talk page in a recent blog post. While I chose quotes to make a certain point, I made sure to include enough information to avoid making it appear as if you were endorsing one side or the other. Craig Weiler ( talk) 21:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I'm Andrew Cabral, the guy from Jimmy Wales' page (Hindu nationalism). I just wanted to apologize for the peevish tone with which I'd replied to you. I don't mind admitting that I was irritated just because of your anonymous IP remark. Silly, but there you have it!
Anyway, I trust there are no hard feelings from your side. Shake, shake! (That's hand, not head.)
Sincerely,
Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.128.126 ( talk) 19:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You too, Liz, you too! Take care! Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.4.203 ( talk) 13:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Description | Number | Percentage of Active Users |
---|---|---|
Total Users | 1924618 | 462.5% |
Active Users (one edit) or more | 416139 | 100% |
Users with three or more edits | 200270 | 48.1% |
Users with ten or more edits | 111163 | 26.7% |
Users with thirty-two or more edits | 50733 | 12.2% |
Users with 100 or more edits | 23709 | 5.7% |
Users with 316 or more edits | 11076 | 2.7% |
Users with 1000 or more edits | 4789 | 1.2% |
Users with 3162 or more edits | 1658 | 0.4% |
Number of admins | 976 | 0.2% |
Number of users with over 10,000 edits | 381 | 0.1% |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
Well, this is quite a surprise. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a message to demonstrate to Jasper Deng from https://www.mediawiki.org that I "own" this username. I put in a request to change my username there. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Tentinator 06:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Yo, Liz, I saw your reply on ANI, and decided to bring it here for further discussion, only because it's kinda off-topic from the point of the ANI thread. Anyway, I'm not really sure what your point is. I mean, anyone's edits can be deleted through page deletion; I have 2,168 deleted contribs, and you have 73. I suppose you're right in the sense that an IP address may, on some level, have fewer deleted contribs than a user account (simply because IP addresses cannot create articles in main space), but that doesn't mean they're immune to them, nor that they're immune to being blocked due to them. IPs can (and have) created articles in the Talk: namespace, and they're allowed to create articles at AfC, too, so they can still create articles that can then be deleted. Not to mention that they can make edits to articles that have been created by others that are then deleted; as one example, it's not unknown for people to contribute an obviously inappropriate article and then, when it is nominated for speedy deletion, they log out and edit the page to be deleted as an IP address, to create the illusion of support and to evade the restriction that article authors cannot remove deletion tags from their own articles. And of course, registered usernames are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
By the way, in the future, if you come across one of these accounts, you can use a tool on the toolserver ( here) to look up a user's contribution count, and this will also give you a deleted contribs count. So yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 03:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope [6] was a mistake? -- regentspark ( comment) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, just thought to mention that in this edit you removed part of a comment you made that had already been responded to. In this instance I don't care, and likely no one else will either, but for future you may want to consider striking the comment rather than removing per WP:REDACT. Cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz - thanks for the cat cleanup on a lot of the philosopher articles I've put up recently. I'll make a greater effort to get them in the right set of cats from the get-go in the future. Also... your Jimbo.. your Jimbo... it's staring at me.... :p Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who know how to express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
Lou Sander's notice to you. Thank you.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
09:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Biggest problem here is the lack of independent third-party in-depth reliable sources to show notability. Plus it's a BLP, everything needs to be sourced to such sources. If the article doesn't get properly sourced, I'll be nominating it for deletion. Academics aren't automatically notable. Yworo ( talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Liz, Can you help me with RolandR? He is wrong about all my contribs (Heidegger, Hölderlin, Benjamin and so on). Thank you! I´m Ketxus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketxus ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've met a real one. A pretty important one, as I understand it: Nicholas Rescher. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Tenebrae:, thanks for letting me know. I don't recall editing that article but I'll check it out. Liz Read! Talk! 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that N94228 misunderstands one of the criteria for speedy deletion. (It isn't clear whether he or she understands anything about Wikipedia.) Articles written by banned or blocked users can be deleted. N94228 apparently is concerned that he or she is about to be blocked, which may happen if he or she continues making idle accusations. However, the deletion rule does not apply to users who are blocked or banned after writing the articles. It only applies to users who are already blocked or banned, and so never should have written the articles, but were evading the block, typically by
sock-puppetry. You are an experienced editor and knew that. The original question did not have to do with the article containing racism, which it does not, but with whether the author is blocked for racism. The author is likely to be blocked for disruptive editing, a different matter. Now that another editor has properly sourced the article, the article is unlikely to be deleted for any of racism (which it does not contain), lack of notability (established by another editor), or blockage of the author (which may happen but the article was validly composed.) Maybe N94228 is a racist, or is accused of racism. That doesn't matter unless he or she points racist drivel. N94228 almost certainly is a teenager. That doesn't matter; some young teenagers, let alone adult teenagers, can edit responsibly. N94228 is a disruptive editor; that does matter.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@
Robert McClenon: What is this about?
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
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.
--
MorrowStravis (
talk)
18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Category:Public philosophers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes to the categories at Christine de Pizan, and thought I’d drop a line to explain. I haven’t studied the categorization guidelines; this is just what seems sensible to me. Since the category Italian women philosophers is included in Italian philosophers, it seems redundant to list the latter: being the ‘parent’, members of its ‘children‘ belong to it by implication. Likewise for the French. And since French women poets is included in French women writers and French poets (which I realize weren‘t among your additions—just while we’re at it), it can replace both of them.
BTW, I notice you’re using HotCat: if you click the superscripted plus-sign near the beginning of the category list, you can make several changes in one edit.— Odysseus 147 9 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Liz, How can I remove a tag, correctly? Thank You ( Ketxus ( talk) 14:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
Funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOxlSOr3_M Lou Sander ( talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not that again. I left it that way, and I want the top few comments I posted to remain that way. I don't mean to be rude, but I wish for it to stay that way. Thinks anyway. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 18:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't create Category:Hispanic and Latino American film actors unless the current discussion on Category:African-American film actors closes as a keep. We have already seen Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors upmerged after a very short existence. This will just lead to more work for people. At a minimum open a discussion on the wikiproject for actors and filmmakers and wait until you get a clear support for creating this category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. -- Pharos ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Liz. Thank you for stating your opinion on the ANI. If you want, it might be helpful to restate it in the "topic ban for milesmoney tendentious editing" section. Steeletrap ( talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
inquiring mind
Thank you, busy reading editor with a pumpkin, for gnomish work sorting categories and
rescuing articles, for inquiring about the work of admins and arbitrators (you would be good at it!), for
missing people, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
Thanks, Gerda! Much appreciated! ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 16:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions). Our final nine were as follows:
All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:
Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
milesmoney.m2h1n3@gmail.com MilesMoney ( talk) 01:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)