User talk:RFC bot

Template:NoAutosign Generic talk page test.

Template:Autoarchivingnotice

Page Template:Template for discussion/styles.css has no content.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Template:Signpost-subscription Template:Centralized discussion

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hmm never seen this template before, but in my opinion its abusive and a personal attack and its should be discontinued.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was funny, Keithbob, and placed it on my Talk Page myself. The "epiphets" are so ludicrous and silly, I can't believe anyone would take them personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought it was placed here by someone else. Glad you find it fun. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a moment, could you head over to this article and complete the AFD? You tagged the article here, but I can't find the debate or a rationale for deletion. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a bot would pick it up and create a page. What do I do next? I appreciate your help, I find the AfD instructions confusing. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why you want it deleted, and I can complete the rest of the steps for you. A bot can list it and complete templates, but can't guess at your reasoning - and the reasoning is a big part of the process. AFD can be a bit obtuse, on occasion - but it's no problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She just doesn't seem like a notable actress. There are hundreds (thousands?) of actors who have a smattering of film and TV credits. She didn't have a long-running or sustained career. I realize the article is a stub but I don't foresee it being expanded or worked on further.

As for the AfD, I don't know how to get it listed on the page with all of those values in parentheses (like (Talk) ). I have posted one AfD successfully but it took me hours to figure out how to get it listed properly and I don't recall the steps I took (beyond posting the tag on the article page). Thanks for the patience and help. I'd like to do more work on the AfD and Categories for Discussion levels. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Juanin Clay, in the box headed "This article is being considered for deletion", you should find a list of four steps. You've done step 1; in step 2, click the first blue link (Preloaded debate) and this opens an editing window. Leave most of that alone; change the |cat=U to |cat=B but most importantly, change the word "Reason" to your reason why the article should be deleted (more on deletion reasons at WP:DELETE). Then set the edit summary to Creating deletion discussion for [[Juanin Clay]] and save the page; we can handle the remaining steps. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Redrose64, I would NOT have figured that out! For the one successful AfD I posted (for Brenda Venus) it was a trial and many errors. I think I just went to AfDs and cut and pasted wikitext. Still ended up posting it wrong the first time. Is there a reason it is so much more complicated that CfD? Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't think I'll be creating a lot of new articles (that seems like a perilous undertaking) and finding typos and awkward grammar to correct is haphazard so I'm really looking for some way I can help on the organizational level. I hope AfD and CfD could be these areas once I learn from the masters.  ;-) Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, of the four steps that I mentioned, you've now done step 2 and I've done step 3.

I think we can omit step 4 (Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Juanin Clay}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).), because the creator was Template:UserIP who isn't likely to be watching for such messages. There have been other contributors; but most of them made only minor changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did all steps, as I put WP:NOTE as a reason why the article is being suggested for deletion. I didn't know I had to notify everyone who made a major contribution on the article. Is this done for every AfD? Man, this is complicated. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to notify all the contributors. Typically, only the original creator is informed, but it's courtesy to also inform major contributors. I've notified three who seem to have put more in than most. Hopefully, anybody else who's interested will have the page on their watchlist. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notified some of those same people so I'll go back and remove the tag I put on their Talk Page. Thanks, again. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you all have it under control. Good work! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 04:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, happy to help. No problem at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deborah Pratt 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | children = [[Troian Bellisario]] (b. 1985) (b. 19<br>Nicholas Bellisario

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooter (mixed drink), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Midori, Pousse Cafe and Uboot (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 FAQTemplate:* 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) 11:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The close was as a keep, so nothing has to be done. If you don't believe that we need any child actress categories, then your next step would be to nominate Category:Child actresses for deletion. Which will actually need to be an upmerge of all of the children categories so that they get kept in the by country actor tree. The end result is that to be clear, you will need to nominate everything or at least some of the subcategories. The remainder could be done as speedies if your proposal receives consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed. Either one of the two proposals would be an improvement over how things are right now. If I wanted to move the male child actors out of Category: Child Actors into Category:Male child actors, is they a way to do this with a bot or script? There are 1200+ articles that need to be recategorized in order that there is some consistency in the way that the gender is categorized. That's an awful lot of work. Newjerseyliz (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it might be worth, feel free to comment wherever you want. Ignocrates is going to Arbitration because of his really dubious history of conduct, including I think fairly clear dishonesty. So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition, which, as someone who hasn't myself checked the Coogan reference, published last year, I have to admit might not be as "fringey" any more. But, yeah, even academics, and highly regarded ones, have been known to be advocates of fringey beliefs, like Carl Sagan and global cooling, as I have already mentioned. There are questions of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and a ton of others which might apply here. As someone who is, primarily, these days going through the relevant reference works to see what they cover, and to what extent, I am pretty much only active onwiki a few days a week, because compiling those lists takes a loooong time itself. Those reference sources, particularly the most recent ones, taking into account any reviews of those sources or other statements in the academic literature subsequent to publication, are in general counted as being the best sources to indicate WEIGHT around here. There may be a rather valid case for increased coverage of the oral gospel tradition in some of our articles, I don't know. But it would definitely help if people actually discussed how to add or modify the content, rather than engage in basically useless talk page blather and threats, like Smeat and Ignocrates have in the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U. IN general, as per the third pillar of wikipedia, we are an encyclopedia, and I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible, making allowances if there haven't been any since a major finding. Particularly with the 2012 Coogan book, counted by the American Library Association as one of the best reference sources of 2012, I kinda doubt there are problems there, but I haven't checked the reviews to see if some articles or topics were seen as being insufficient or prejudicial coverage, either.

And, FWIW, like I think I told Nishidani elsewhere, what I am trying to do right now is to get together lists of articles in highly regarded reference sources for the various projects, and then, hopefully, when they're done (if I live that long) reviews of those sources, indicating their strengths and weaknesses. I think the likelihood of people being willing to help with the latter will increase if there are more of the former, but still think that having clear ideas of what is and is not included in reference sources is probably one of the more basic things we need around here, and something that still hasn't been done outside of one list of articles in Britannica. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion about User_talk:Ignocrates#RFC/U evidence? Ignocrates (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm embarrassed to admit how many years worth of argumentative posts I've read, going back and forth between you two. It was like watching a trainwreck and I was left wondering, "Why can't either of these guys just step back, shake the dust from their shoes, and move on? Are they actually getting some satisfaction from the incessant arguing? Are they enjoying it too much?"

This conflict has gone beyond reliable sources, it's downright hatred and contempt now. There is little pretense of actually listening to each other to negotiate compromises. There is too much bad blood, too much history and disrespect that has been shown.

I will go to ArbCom when this ever gets filed because I'm genuinely curious as to how the committee members will ever look through the dozens of diffs I expect will be posted, the voluminous exposition on how "disruptive" the other editor is being, that they will have to parse through. I expect that several other well-intentioned editors will get pulled into this as participants and will have to decide what they will say about this business which has gone on now for years.

John, I realize that you think this argument is about what is a reliable source. But that is just the hammer you are using to pound Ignocrates over the head. You have made some valid points and there have been intelligent editors & Admins who have agreed with you. But you dismiss Ignocrates' (and others) attempts to address your concerns. I sincerely believe that you will continue to obsess about this one article as long as Ignocrates participates in editing it. It will never be good enough for you because of his participation in the process.

I think you will find that the focus of the ArbCom will not be on the nuances of what is a reliable source but instead upon the behavior and misconduct of all of the participants in this long, long dispute. My only suggestion is to keep your comments to ArbCom brief and to the point and not dig yourself into a deeper hole.

Good luck to you both. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, John, I've looked at your some of your work as an Admin and I think you've done some excellent work. You have offered measured and thoughtful guidance and advice. But, for whatever reason, you have lost perspective on this one article which is too bad. I think your efforts are well spent on the other work you do, like putting together lists of sources. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, I've found that John Carter and Ignocrates have already been to ARBCOM twice in the past 6+ years over Ebionites-related content. I didn't realize you two had already pleaded your case in several dispute forums and that there was an ARBCOM history, at least related to appropriate sources (RS) on Ebionite articles. I stand by my opinion that this has become a personal, bitter stalemate between the two of you but I see now that all parties are already familiar with the dispute resolution process and I was mistaken to assume otherwise. But I think now the primary sticking point is conduct, not content and any future case will result in mediators scrutinizing past behavior.

I had just been looking at Talk Page comments going back two years between the involved parties. To see that this dispute goes back to 2007 makes me realize that this disagreement in much more complicated than I knew. I don't envy any mediator sorting through this all. And I was mistaken to think I had an understanding of the extent of this dispute and years of conflict that has led to the present situation. I will leave it to well-intentioned Admins and Mediators who have much more experience than I to determine responsibility for the current impasse and solutions for moving past it. Newjerseyliz (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter wrote : "So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition" well, that's wrong. I am interested in quite a few topics, and one of them is early Christianity and the relationship to the Roman empire and Christian origins. "Smeat and Ignocrates ... the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U" Just to let you know that we have dropped that idea as you have to have two parties to a dispute, Ret Prof is not here and I was not party to disputes on Gospel of the Ebionites. "I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible" I don't agree with that at all. One of the best things about Wikipedia in my opinion is that it can be easily updated with the latest information using, for instance, the most recent works of recognised authorities such as Bart Ehrman. I would echo what Nishidani said here [1]"Tertiary sources are fine as well, though the problem there is that encyclopedias, reference texts and the like are always slighted dated compared to cutting-edge scholarship (b) are often too synthetic and gloss over the details and controversies in a generic way, and, (c) in fields, and I'm sure many colleagues here have the experience, where I have a thorough knowledge, I rarely leave off reading a generic encyclopedic entry on some aspect of it without an irritated feeling that much is missing, or at a too high level of synthesis. Thus secondary sources, and by that, optimally, peer-reviewed contemporary scholarship, should form the basis of our transcriptive work. There the only relevant issue is covered byWP:Undue." Smeat75 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes sense to me, Smeat75. It can be difficult for the typical layperson to get ahold of secondary sources, especially journal articles. But I'd rely on them more than encyclopedias because the author has to lay out his argument and, believe it or not, the scrutiny of peer-reviewed journals is more exacting than for encyclopedia articles. I know of one topical encyclopedia, present in all research libraries, where most of the entries are written by graduate students. That doesn't undermine their scholarship (they may be more on top of new research than full professors), it's just that they were the ones who were eager to contribute and write entries. Heck, I've written entries for encyclopedias when I was in graduate school, too (see Encyclopedia of African-American Religions) and that was because I was a good friend of one of the editors. Of course, he edited down my contributions, but all of the research was mine and I was a second year grad student. Okay, I'm off on a tangent, just here's another vote for secondary sources. Yeah! ;-) Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Smeat75's concerns. The idea for this new Religion MoS is to take the content from 5 or 6 reference sources (i.e. religious dictionaries and encyclopedias), pull out the content they have in common to create an "average" article, and then summarize it with close paraphrasing and call that our best FA work. Anyone else need a barf bag? This is not only misguided; it is dangerous to the very spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think it is a bad decision to prioritize reference sources that one is familiar with and make them the definitive source to be used in all occasions. For example, I pretty much wore out the Encyclopedia of Religion in the university libraries where I worked but it has a "History of Religion" POV that is heavy on abstraction and light on detailed analysis. The encyclopedia entries reflect not only the particular stance of the contributors (who, luckily, are identified--it isn't always the case) but also the editing team. It was a great source to begin to learn about a topic in the field of religious studies but it was deficient in giving in depth examples or a broad range of perspectives on a subject.

So, my point is that even though I probably made copies of something like 70-100 articles in the EofR and am very familiar with it, I wouldn't recommend it as the definitive source of information except as representing the stance of scholars with a History of Religion perspective. It's not the best source of information if one is examining religion from a textual, historical, sociological, cultural, or practice perspective (it's pretty good on anthropological subjects).

This position can make it challenging to write articles since each author is limited to her own library and what resources can be found in libraries and online. But that's why Wikipedia is collaborative, so a number of editors can bring together the resources they have at hand. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you would notice, nowhere did I say we should make it the "definitive source of information", and, honestly, I rather regret the implicit assertion to the contrary by you. You might have noticed that I did mention the reviews as well, which have had some serious reservations about several of the articles contained therein, which I believe I also mentioned. I also remember saying, probably on the talk page of WikiProject Religion and Nishidani's talk page most recently, that the most recent edition of the German RGG, now called Religion Past and Present, and the old HERE are counted as being basically the other two of the three best, most comprehensive sources out there. Regarding Ignocrates' continued harping on the irrational and I believe completely unfounded motivations behind my actions, I simply note once again that not only is he apparently incapable of AGF'ing anyone other than himself, but once again seems to be taking recourse to his apparently repeated ability to read the minds of others. Regarding whether it is the best only from that perspective, I think I already said that as well. Now, I realize that Ignocrates has made a habit of using the talk pages of others to engage in irrational attempts at misdirection from the matters of his own dubiously acceptable behavior for some time now. That is the primary reason I have asked one of the ArbCom clerks to draft the request for arbitration against him. However, to basically point toward the facts that he, in what I can only call his blind stupidity, chooses to ignore, I have been more or less the sole creator and developer to date of the pages in the Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and have made a list, more or less reproduced at User:John Carter/Religion reference sources, indicating the other sources which have been either included in the "reference works" article of tne EofR or in the American Library Association's yearly list of outstanding reference sources. So I believe Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation above is clearly and directly contradicted by the evidence. But, that's not particularly new with him. I am still working on the list of articles and subarticles from the EofR primarily because of the incredible length of that source, and the really incredible number of subarticles, as well as the number of articles which have been changed from one edition to the next or added in the second edition. There are a number of other sources, which I have also at least started lists of articles on, primarily when the specific volumes of EofR aren't available, and which are at various levels of completion, and will be added as they are finished. As I indicated somewhere, I have also recently started to copy out articles from HERE for inclusion in WikiSource, because at least one or two of the reviews of the EofR said some of the articles in the HERE were still the best ever written. But, if one were to review Ovadyah/Ignocrates' history of contributions, which have more or less limited themselves to the "James" hypothesis for a more Christian early Christianity, the fact that under his previous name, Ovadyah, he indicates that he e-mailed the founder of the Ebionite Jewish Community, now Ebionite Community, about the development of the article apparently in a way which supports that group, and is even said by an IP on the talk page to have been a member of the group, I think we can see why Ignocrates has pretty much ignored the Nazarene Ebionites, who, apparently, don't agree with the EJC Ebionites.

"Ignocrates ... irrational...dubiously acceptable behavior ...blind stupidity....Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation" You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession. You seriously need to chill out, take a step back, do not look at anything to do with Ignocrates or Ebionites for several months, this bitter feud obviously isn't good for you, and I do not mean to be condescending. There are plenty of other articles on Christianity on WP that need improvement.Smeat75 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you were to review the history of edits to Ret. Prof.'s user talk page, you would see the number of times several editors have tried to reason with him, to, apparently, not a lot of gain. You will also find in the history that I specifically told him that I, unlike Ignocrates, who had indicated he would "protect" Ret. Prof. and has later twice called for RfC/U's against him, apparently thinking both times it only requires one person to do that, I indicated that I would tell Ret. Prof. before taking him to any boards, so I was honor bound to do so. That was the nature of the comment. I very much wish that some editors would see the history of at best dubious conduct and attempts at misdirection which has, pretty much, been the essence of Ovadyah/Ignocrates from the start, along with the paranoia and more than occasional dishonesty, and that is why the ArbCom clerk is preparing the statement to be made for a request. I might do the same myself, and probably would, if the number of reference sources I have at least started on, and the number of articles I am trying to start for WikiSource, weren't taking as much time as they are. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The reason for the lists of sub-articles, by the way, is that in previous discussion at I believe the notability guideline talk page on the subject of Buddhism, I was told that in general named subsections of "thematic" articles can be used as indicators of notability on some of those topics, so having an indication regarding which subtopics might themselves be notable seems reasonable as well. Particularly with the EofR, and to a lesser extent some others, those interminable lists of sub-articles, sub-sub-articles, sometimes to three or four or more levels of outline, is why some works take sooo much longer than others. And, of course, under no circumstances would I say that we would be only limited to them either, but that they might be usable in such a way. Also, I guess, in all honesty, following policies and guidelines, I think most of our content could, roughly, be said to be best when it basically just says what other existing encyclopedias or reference works say. But there are a lot of them, like I think I told Ret. Prof. once about two a month, including updated volumes, in religion/philosophy/mythology alone. On any topic which is covered extensively in multiple reference sources, the number of times we would need content in our main articles on topics covered by them to include material not included in them is probably few and far between. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to AGF, John Carter, and you have clearly put a lot of work and thought into your interests and putting together resource lists. But it is hard to look past your negativity, WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:HARASS tactics, not just with Ignocrates but you also said horribly harsh comments to Ret.Prof that led him to quit Wikipedia because you disagreed about one source! That was a debate that had gone through the dispute resolution process but it still was a sticking point that was big enough to cause one of the main editors to withdraw from further participation.
And discovering that these disagreements have gone on for 6+ years (with some of the same and some different) parties is not a good sign of being able to collaborate with others and compromise in the name of consensus.
I think your last paragraph to me is a good indication of a direction we can go in and maybe the situation can be defused as long as we are talking about content and resources and not the failings that we see in each other and past conflicts. I should do that myself regarding your conduct so I'll end my comment here and try to be more positive myself.
Let's start anew! Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Smeat75's comment above (I won't interrupt the thread) "You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession.", this is not the first time this observation has been made. I direct your attention to this previous trip to AN/I on Aug. 31, 2010, the second of several, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#False accusations of vandalism and Llywrch's comment in particular which I reproduce here:

Although this thread is practically resolved, I'd like to add one last comment because I've been involved in this dispute in a small way. I hope all of us can agree that John Carter is an established editor who has done praiseworthy work in the past. Further, this article is a controversial one -- which is the case with many subjects where the verifiable facts are few & the speculations -- both expert & fringe -- are many. On the other hand, while the accusations John has made about Ovadyah may perhaps be true, in my experience in the matter I have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing by Ovadyah here. I suspect this has become one of those conflicts where John has simply become inadvertently obsessed with the conflict & now needs to walk away from this article -- both for his own benefit & the project's -- to simply trust that another set of eyes will catch any possible problems in this article. To repeat the cliche, there are 4,306,067 in the English Wikipedia, around half of which are stubs; no need to obsess over just one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This has all been said before, and yet it continues, almost 3 years later, without any resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ignocrates, I read all of the ARBCOM statements from cases Ebionites1 and Ebionites2 along with ANIs, DRs and RfCs, although the harshness of the language varies according to the audience. It is hard to see how those involved can "get past" the damaging words that have been said. I would find it hard if I was the target. Maybe, at this point, an IBan would be best? Unless the parties can forgive, forget and move on...because if these conduct disputes reach ARBCOM, tougher penalties will be involved. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take this bull by the horns and help to resolve this? Contrary to what John Carter seems to believe, I don't hate him at all and never have. Frankly, all I feel for him at this point is pity and sadness. He really needs some help. Ignocrates (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c) The fact that one somewhat biased party hasn't looked to see the repeated violation of both conduct and content guidelines, honestly, means nothing. Neither does his own attempt to justify his actions through the statements of others.

FWIW, you have apparently not reviewed the regular, almost incessant harassment by Ignocrates, who has described his editing as a "penance" as well, presumably taking the form of promotion of a group which has, despite my own and his best efforts to find them, apparently never appeared gotten anything like sufficient RS coverage to qualify for an article. The fact that you have apparently not even looked to, let alone looked past, the fairly regular misconduct of Ignocrates and Ret. Prof. causes me to perhaps conclude that your assessment is, well, lob-sided, based on only recent activity. I believe, honestly, misconduct of all sorts has been steadier and more regular from them than from me. Ret. Prof. also has been, as per previous versions of his user page, not only "continuing the fight" for the non-RS Tabor book and others, and has been repeatedly advised/warned by others about his misconduct, yes, even to Ignocrates himself twice requesting a single-person filed RfC/U against him. Honestly, given the stonewalling of Ovadyah/Ignocrates during the second mediation, when Tabor and the EJC were being considered for removal from the article as non-notable and non-reliable (which they have been from the beginning), and Ret. Prof.'s own misconduct elsewhere. It is also worth noting that Ignocrates has, pretty much since his return from retirement as Ovadyah, been pretty much pathological about attacking me on and off, presumably because I ruined his "penance" of trying to use wikipedia as an advertisement for his favorite non-notable group and his favorite non-RS James Tabor. The fact that he has, to date, so far as I can tell, not only never edited anything not relating to the "James" hypothesis, and has also, apparently, misrepresented sources, like Ret. Prof., leads me to think that the only way to resolve his own ongoing misconduct is through ArbCOm. Yes, he is a master of posturing, and has, ever since being Ovadyah, regularly talked down to anyone who disagrreed with him, indicating to my eyes there is a very real problem of ego and, yes, pathology there. And, unfortunately, I think if one were to review most of Ret. Prof.'s edits, one might find them just as problematic as the misrepresentation of sources and his also, rather apparent, almost obsession with thinking single books not referenced in anything else but reviews require being in articles if the reviews were not negative. In all honesty, when and if the ArbCom reviews this, I believe there is a very good chance, a probability actually, that Ignocrates will be seriously restricted from editing, and that, very likely, Ret. Prof. will be as well. I wish either one of them were apparently capable, or even interested, in doing anything other than, overtly or covertly, trying to promote books or websites or beliefs that really don't qualify as notable in and of themselves. But, in the history of both of them since I first encountered them, despite my actually having tried to encourage at least Ret. Prof. and I think Ovadyah while he still was Ovadyah to either try to get their views notable in a clear way or edit something else, they both, basically, refused to do so. If penalties are invoked by ArbCom, honestly, fine by me. That would also include almost certainly discretionary sanctions, and that's what I think is most clearly needed here. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, John Carter, it takes two people to work on resolving a dispute and you clearly have no interest in aiming at a collaboration so you could work together or at least, work peaceably on the same articles at different times. I guess you are hellbent on seeing this through to the bitter, bitter end so do what you got to do.

By the way, I've gone back years and saw instances where Ignocrates was sarcastic and was openly hostile to you and others. But ARBCOM is more concerned with recent history, not five years ago and Ignocrates has lately turned his focus off you and on to editing. I wish you could do the same but sometimes, I guess conflict is intractable. I wish ARBCOM luck in sorting through the long, tangled history of this dispute. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ret.Prof's name has been invoked twice now with respect to two RFC/Us I recommended, it needs to be restated that (1) he was fully informed of my proposals (the second time by email), and (2) I emphasized both times that the purpose was instructional. I consider Ret.Prof to be a friend, and I only wish the best for him including on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should also see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ebionites/archive1 and other links to that page, where he not only said he as Ovadyah thought he had the right to add his opinions if he got it to FA, but also once again resorted to the rather silly, delusional posturing which is more or less his tradmark. John Carter (talk)

I feel badly about Ret. Prof. He sincerely listened to criticism and responded to critiques but I think he took too much to heart. He didn't want to work in an adversarial environment. To be honest, Ignocrates, I came across comments when you were at odds with him, too. But the important aspect is that you were able to move past your differences and collaborate. Ultimately, I think that is what groups like ARBCOM want to see, constructive, not obstructionist behavior. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Ignocrates was willing to work with him was because, as per the hsitory of Ret. Prof.'s user page, Ret. Prof. was "continuing the fight" for Tabor. Ovadyah was, and I think probably still is, passionately in love with one of the few sources which apparently says anything which might reflect the views of the EJC. Yes, after the first arbitration, when Michael was banned, Ovadyah was able to work with him too, for the purposes of keeping some mention of the non-notable neo-Ebionitism that they both were passionately supporting in the article. Willing to work with people willing to, basically, violate guidelines with you in collusion really doesn't to my eyes qualify as being a positive. ArbCom will also, when it gets to them, see how Ret. Prof. was basically primarily supporting him, and it takes no particular character for one POV pusher to agree with someone pushing the same POV when it looks to be in danger of losing out per policy and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your apparent obsession with James Tabor is, frankly, incomprehensible. That is no way to treat a notable scholar Talk:The Jesus_Dynasty#Tabor's religious bias and fellow Wikipedian User_talk:Jdtabor. There are far bigger problems here than just with me as an editor. You also neglected to mention that the editor who created the neo-Ebionite section of the Ebionites article was -- you, John Carter. Ignocrates (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff? Details? Relevance? Was it, perhaps, a way to get the material off the Ebionites article, and might the IP that was apparently Shemaiah's statement he didn't want a separate article involved in other's opinions. Not that I would expect them, because, honestly, the above comment seems to be just another attempt at diversion from the crucial issue. And, regarding the knee-jerk defense of Tabor, as has been repeatedly demonstrated at RSN and elsewhere, The Jesus Dynasty fails to meet RS standards. Although, of course, I understand the absolute need to defend the opinions which are so clearly favored by the neo-Ebionite community, which you apparently represent, at any cost, even to the point of making basically completely off-topic and irrelevant comments as the one above to serve as distractions. Also, I was referring to the attempt to recreate the Ebionite Jewish Community, again, which you were apparently involved wanting recreated, even if it did violate policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CIR"Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me." Taken to extremes, this easily becomes quite disruptive. An enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases."

As I said, I do not think ARBCOM will be well-inclined to be re-re-visiting this same area for a third time. They will be looking at whether editors have matured over the past six years and the inability to let go of past differences is not a good sign.

But it is definitely time to move this conversation off my Talk Page and into ARBCOM or DRN or wherever this is headed. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a new ArbCom principle, mandated editor review, which allows editors to only make changes to an article after it has been approved by an independent admin. I have a feeling that might well happen here. Also, FWIW, I have in the past contacted editors who have retired, even Ovadyah, after he seemingly retired admitting his own lack of competence, and User:Lung salad, who, honestly, was also according to his response e-mail, forwarded to ArbCom, apparently in violation of conduct guidelines from day one on the Josephus on Jesus content. It would certainly be possible for you to try to e-mail Ret. Prof. and advise him to perhaps come back, although I might suggest that he concentrate perhaps a bit more on material that is clearly notable and of sufficient independent notable content that it wouldn't violate OR/SYNTH. We could use another few editors in religion, although, given his history, I think his focus on minor topics probably makes him one we can function without, at least if he acts the same way he did earlier. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted nothing of the kind. However, I was contacted by email by John Carter, after I announced my retirement and ceased editing, and explicitly threatened. Ignocrates (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, man, have you ever learned to read, or is your blind rage about Tabor being determined non-RS and the EJC non-notable incapable of you even being able to read. I was, I thought, rather clearly indicating it was Lung salad who was in violation of policy. And yes, I did indicate after your own e-mail, referring to me in the most ridiculous and frankly juvenile insults I have ever encountered from an alleged adult, say that if you came back I would request sanctions against you. When you did return, honestly, I gave you a bit of a chance, based on the idea that you may have grown up a little. Of course, I could not have been more mistaken in that point, and that is why you are going to ArbCom shortly. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I feel for you to have this ongoing feud spill over onto your talk page. I hope this does not sour you on Wikipedia. However, this feud has gotten to the point where something must be done, since neither party seem to be able to disengage & let this matter go.--llywrch (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, llywrch. This is not about content or contributions but about editor conduct now. It's been going on for 6+ years, has already been through the ARBCOM request process twice (along with other RfCs and dispute resolution noticeboards) but it seems destined to head to ARBCOM again. While I'm sad to see that this dispute seems irreconcilable, I hope ARBCOM can definitively end this feud. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the irreconciliability is due to one party flouting policies and guidelines for the purposes of POV pushing, if even subtle and less than obvious POV pushing, which is why I believe it will go to ArbCom. But, if you wish some sort of (admittedly, weak) attempt at throwing out an olive branch, you seem to be involved in the topic of Sociology, which is like some others a bit problematic because it isn't, well, cut and dried like some hard sciences. I live in a major city with several really good libraries. If there are any groups like WikiProject Sociology or others you might be interested in seeing lists of articles for, let me know. And, also, FWIW, Ret. Prof. does apparently have e-mailed enabled, so if you were to want I think you might be able to drop him a note requesting his return. like I have with a few others. Sometimes it can be helpful. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point, it's up to ARBCOM to sort out (if you are going to file). I think this dispute has been talked to death, with no resolution in sight.

As for WikiProject Sociology, the last time I looked, there were only 3 or 4 people signed up for it and they weren't all regular editors. It's in such bad shape, it's hard to know where to start. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 00:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from some degree of experience of projects in general, that minimal number isn't that atypical. And even some huger projects, like Christianity, have a lot of people signed up, but not that many actively involved. Unfortunately. Regarding a lot of the "soft" topics, like psychology, sociology, virtually anything new-agey, and the paranormal in all its varieties, there tend to be quite a few people who have indicated an interest, often in promoting their local minister or their own particular beliefs, who show less interest in anything else, and, when they've done what they set out to do as well as they can, kinda disappear. A lot of the lists I've made so far, like the Jehovah's Witnesses list and the list of Ethiopian Christianity articles (written by someone who knows Ge'ez and French rather well, but not so much English, to the point that subject and verb rather regularly disagreed and sometimes I couldn't be sure what he was even talking about), those reference sources aren't considered extraordinarily good by anyone, but they are, seemingly, about the only ones out there on the topic. I think I looked over the Encyclopedia of Sociology some time ago, and, if I am right in assuming it's considered OK, I can try to generate a list based on it in the next few weeks. Getting some sort of newsletter like the MILHIST Bugle together for maybe some closely related groups in that field might work too, and maybe, like MILHIST, getting some sort of content going with barnstar awards. Ultimately, on finishing the "religion" related lists, I'm somewhat hoping to go on to those other, "soft science" groups as well, along with South America, Africa, Oceania, and a few other important but comparatively neglected and underdeveloped topics. Anyway, if I get tired of looking at the Jones edition of the EoR (which happens a lot now) and just want to look at something which doesn't go on about rituals and sexual symbolism of, depending on the individual culture, damn near everything, I might just do it as a bit of a change of pace. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very tedious job, so it's always nice to get positive feedback :-) Serendi^podous 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine. Tracking Twitter trends exposed me to a lot of music fan gushing that I wish hadn't eaten up as much time as it did. I'd be happy to never see another Excel spreadsheet but I know they are unavoidable. Your work is appreciated! Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice and went to WP:NPOV/N. Please keep a watch on Gospel of the Ebionites. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. It seems like you guys have gone round and round on these issues. I hope you get some definitive answers. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am super-impressed with how professional the guys have been at NPOV/N. The feedback has been useful and at the very least it's due diligence for the next round of dispute resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. 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) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments on the ANI board at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_CIR_enforcement. I was in abject despair about the way so many ganged up on me without cause. To have a little common sense applied was (to me) like giving water to a man in the desert. I really do hope it's caused others to stop and have pause for thought. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're welcome, SonofSetanta. That got really ugly. I've been reading a lot of noticeboards and dispute resolution cases lately and it seems like half of the time, the conversation boomerangs back on to the OP and he or she ends up facing sanctions for bringing a case to a noticeboard. The OP becomes the topic of discussion instead of the original complaint that is filed.

It seems unfair that 3 or 4 vocal opponents in an ANI can generate a topic ban when the original question was on something else entirely. I'm so glad that the people reading the page could see the transparent attack upon you. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry I missed seeing this when you first posted it. It's time to move some discussion on my Talk Page. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tb

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roger Waters. 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) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect my comment to In ictu oculi to have such "legs". It was really just a corrective statement directed to him, to be more careful with language, and not a condemnation of him or any other party. Every single person has their own biases but at least in the Wikipedia universe, we try to set aside biases in the interest of obtaining accurate representations, regardless of our personal allegiances. I apologize to Iio if my words came across as reproving or harsh. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No they came off as ill-informed and justifying sectioning another editor's Talk posts (no matter how silly) "JW views." The comment about imagine "Jew" was particularly silly if you're not intending to follow it up on those actually JW-hounding and instead support the behaviour. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just expected you to either accept or reject my apology for coming across as harsh but I still maintain that your language revealed a bias. I should have left out the part of adding the "e" to J and W but it was to illustrate a point that no one could get away with an antiSemitic comment but JWs seem fair game to some. This is not news on Wikipedia, I see the same kind of statements when people are talking about other sectarian religious movements. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 01:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so don't support editors hounding JWs. Practise what you preach, rather than criticising others who do do what you preach. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said you object to talking behind the back of other editors? And then, you say practise what you preach? Anyway...

Indicating a particular view as that of JWs or Jews or any other group doesn't express a personal judgement of any editor. But the old thread explicitly stated that 607 is a JW teaching anyway. Refactoring the page was in fact uncontroversial, and hardly tantamount to saying 'none of us like JWs'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history shows otherwise per WP:SPA. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need explain or justify my involvement on the JW WikiProject to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you are misusing WP:SPA. It states: "Whom not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) ... Editing only within a single broad topic: When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA."--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practise what you preach ...I try to. And I will criticize discriminatory language when I see it. If one lets comments like "we don't like JWs" go unaddressed, then people assume that everyone agrees with that statement. And I think it's important to point out bias when we see it. I don't think one needs complete knowledge of and participation in a dispute to recognize words of prejudice. I don't see my role as being a watchdog for JW editors or those who dislike them.

What I was apologizing was not what I said but how I said it. But, for some reason, you take my admission of error as an invitation to provoke me, which is a puzzling reaction. Most people would say, "No problem, I understood what you meant" or "Thanks, but that was hurtful." My intention was to ease any tensions between us, In ictu oculi, not continue the debate between you and Jeffro77 on to this Talk Page. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 13:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jeffro, he more or less is an SPA, although I think in large part the reason behind it is not a particular obsession with the topic, but a realization over the years that the content regarding the JWs needs a lot of independent oversight. Unfortunately, for a lot of groups, including just about any that have ever been called "cults", we more or less need to have people like that on those topics. On the comparatively few occasions when I have interacted with him on topics not related to the JWs, like on a template on Christian heresies, he has been as reasonable and objective as anyone else, and even in that particular case AFAIK indicated he didn't want to see any modern groups included, including the JWs, although in a lot of regards they resemble groups which were tagged as "heretical" in early Christianity, so I don't think he has anything against them particularly. But, yeah, particularly today, with the frikkin 4 million articles of various standards of notability, and more being created, on pretty much anything, I regret that we probably need more informed, comparatively neutral SPAs like Jeffro watching over some topics than we have. And, as someone who has gotten a bit of a bashing over the years at least in part because of his efforts to keep the JW content NPOV, so far as I can remember primarily from those within the group rather than without, I can imagine that he might well once in a while get a little tetchy. I wish no one were ever in that situation around here, but things being what they are, in some cases it is bound to happen. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you say, John. I'm more sympathetic than you to NRMs and sects because I spent a fair amount of time studying them and working as a research assistant to a NRM scholar. On topics like religion, it is almost impossible to be completely free of bias, even when you are writing about a religious tradition that is not your own.

I think the important thing is be aware of your own bias and keep it in check. I was in a graduate program where the concepts of Epoché, Weltanschauung and Verstehen was drilled into us which and they mean that you accept but try to set aside your bias (positive or negative) when researching religion and you respect the religious traditions of others even if they are not meaningful or valid for you, personally. As far as writing about religion on Wikipedia, it seems like one advantage of open source knowledge is that articles benefit from the contributions of both insiders and outsiders. They both have viewpoints that can offer others some understanding. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 16:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I agree. Unfortunately, around here, we sometimes get into trouble with some topics when either the number of editors with one POV outnumber, are more dedicated, or are sometimes, simply, so difficult to deal with that they manage to take over the content one way or another. Scientology is probably the best example of that here, although Falun Gong comes close. Personally, from some comments I've seen recently, early Christianity seems to be at this point pretty much at the same level of difficulty in various ways. We really can't tell editors from one side or another en masse to "go away," and I don't think many of us (except those dedicated to the "other" side in those discussions) would really even want to ask them to do it, but I think, looking over the various topics which have discretionary sanctions on them, there is a very large percentage of them which deal with "beliefs" of some kind among them, religious or secular. I hope we can get some guidelines about such content together soon, and, actually, because requests from ArbCom tend to get more attention and response than others, that's one of the reasons I'm going to file a case on this. Some people might say, not unreasonably, that me and some others should have written them already, but a look at some previous attempts can indicate how quickly some previous discussions derailed. Also, honestly, I ain't the best person for writing such anyway, having never really taken part in many guidelines or policies discussions before. But, with luck, maybe we can make things a bit easier to work with soon. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if you ever want to consider becoming the coordinator of WikiProject Christianity (which I am to date the only elected lead coordinator of, us never having had enough candidates to do it again), or WikiProject Religion, you would have my vote, and, maybe, as many other fraudulent votes as I could get through the system. Thank you for returning. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm terribly flattered, John. I have an MA in Religious Studies and a MPhil in Religion and Society (Sociology of Religion) so I approach religion from a secular perspective, not a theological one. The focus of my work was studying divisions and conflict within contemporary American denominations, and, secondarily, Religions in North American and NRMs (most of which couldn't be called "Christian"). But I'm not sure I'm equipped to handle editors (either veteran or IP visitors) who want to rewrite church history or who hate Catholics or who forget that Eastern Orthodoxy exists or who are atheists and want to put everything "religious" in quotation marks because they see it as questionable.

Can you tell me about your participation in WikiProject Christianity and how it stands today? I'm happy to handle organizing or negotiate disputes but if things are very divisive, it might be a bad time for a newbie to take on larger responsibilities because the situation is in flux.

I'm also not sure if this dispute between you, Ignocrates and Ret.Prof is about differences of opinion (regarding COI and RS) and past misconduct, or if it reflects a broader rift between editors who work on articles in this area. If it is the former, I think an ARBCOM decision can decide things but if there are fundamental divides based on theological differences, I think someone with more experience should probably take this on.

If you could give me your candid opinions on any of these questions, I'll consider it. Thanks again for asking. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 18:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is more or less what you're talking, not so much coordination. Although I'm not that familiar with WP:MILHIST, which is much better run than any of the religion groups, and has made us from what I've seen the best military website out there, the coordinators try to more or less get people to work together, getting assessments done, article development, contests, that sort of thing. As an individual, I really am more the lone wolf-type, and I know I come across as a smug, self-satisfied dictator a lot more than I probably like to as a result. Regarding the recent problems you mention above, that's more I think about content and the rules here than conduct. I've tried to find independent sources which support or give much attention to the Butz theory of James, which was one of Ret. Prof.'s first topics of major concern, but haven't. I also tried to find sources for Ovadyah/Ignocrates' Ebionite Jewish Community/Ebionite Community, but even it's local paper hasn't had anything on it from what I can see in the databanks. While there is a theological dispute involved, in some sense, so far as I can tell, it is about a theological position which, to the best of my knowledge and understanding here, doesn't meet notability in and of itself, and which we can't put forward without violating, to some degree, OR/SYNTH. If I knew of any independent reliable sources which gave sufficient content in them linking Tabor, and Butz, and Robert Eisenman, and god knows all the others so that we could have one article or even section of an article on the "Jewish James hypothesis," about how James led a much more Jewish version of Christianity which has died out and might at some point resurface, a lot of the problems would be solved. But I don't know of any, and neither of them has ever come forward with any that I can remember either. There might be some sort of church out there, like the EJC and maybe others, which actually themselves put forward some version of the hypothesis, but I couldn't find any in the Melton Encyclopedia of American Religions or any other similar sources I looked in, so I can't say that there is even a notable theory there. I wish, but, to the best of my ability to determine it, what they seem to want is something I wouldn't myself mind seeing here, and as indicated above I even, assuming good faith and some sort of independent coverage on the neo-Ebionite groups, created an article on the neo-Ebionites, which was deleted as non-notable. There are a lot of web churches out there, unfortunately, many of which haven't been referenced in any independent RS's, and so far as I can tell the groups and theories they want to promote are among them. The fact that, unfortunately, both seem to believe that their material should be included anyway is a problem, and I think per policy and guidelines not acceptable, even if I myself wish that there were enough material for inclusion of them as per policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: Gordon Melton is the researcher I worked for, years ago, he is a walking encyclopedia, he knows so much. He's an independent scholar but he donated this enormous library to UCSB and I worked with him on archiving the collection. Second, we had an awesome professor of Early Christianity at UCSB but he always got mixed teaching evaluations because the students who enrolled in his courses were taught scripture studies from a theological perspective, not a historical perspective. It was troubling to them when he showed them how much doubt existed about the primary sources that exist in this field of scholarship. I think it's actually a more controversial area to work in than Scientology...with Scientology, you can clearly see pro- and con- bias but with Early Christianity, you really need to have a familiarity with ancient languages to assess the arguments of scholars. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 19:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not repeat that I more or less regard Melton as almost some sort of prophet for us here, given the amazing amount of extremely highly regarded reference works he has put out. With any luck, if the Arb is accepted, one of the things that might happen is that we will have some editors from outside religion and "beliefs" maybe working on guidelines for that area, which we don't have yet. I certainly plan to ask for such, and we might be able to get together, maybe, some sort of idea of how to deal with web churches. I hope so. Previous attempts at guideline drafting got sidetracked rather quickly, unfortunately, by some individual editors with very strong opinions. That's why I'm hoping the more, well, serious nature of a request from ArbCom to draft guidelines, we might be able to get something together which people might at least accept. And, personally, I do hope for some way to get included some web faiths, like the modern form of Deism, which is extensively mentioned at Examiner.com, which is neither independent or reliable by our standards, but so far as I can see not yet discussed in any independent sources such that we would have much reason to have content on it. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's no secret that Gordon is "the man"! The man basically started collecting material on NRMs starting in the early 1970s and never threw anything away! Then, he started going back to gather older historical documents and not only that, he remembers every conversation he's had and everything he's read. The only people who don't care for him are the most strident anti-cult folks because he had an open door policy...he'd organize a conference and ask people from NRMs to come and talk about their beliefs and societies and some people who hate cults (not specific ones, just cults in general) thought he was giving them a platform to evangelize. But the NRM reps. still had to write up a standard academic presentation so it's not like they were trying to convert anyone in the audience. But for some people, choosing not to judge others is seen as evidence that you agree with them which is just not the case. 20:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Newjerseyliz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2013 New Haven Open at Yale – Doubles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: That notable people are playing in it is a good indication of notability. Needs to be PRODded or taken to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  11:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, GedUK . Feel free to object and move it to somewhere more appropriate. It seemed to me to be a local sporting event and I didn't see it's significance for Wikipedia. Lots of communities have golf tournaments or marathons or tennis tournaments and don't have a Wikipedia page about it. But I could be wrong. Good luck! Liz ^{Let's Talk} 18:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs) [reply]

I see that you succeeded in getting the article on Valerie Sutton deleted. It is absolutely stupid things like this that are why I hardly ever edit Wikipedia anymore and stick to Wikia, where I don't run into such things.

VS created a system to record movement. It is now used by many people. I do not see how you could possibly consider the article, as written, to be nothing but a promotion for her systems. It was purely a biography and a history of how the system of movement writing came to be designed.

The article was no more a promotion than a biography of Henry Ford is a commercial for Ford cars, or a biography of Bill Gates a commercial for Microsoft.

You've given me one more reason not to bother editing on Wikipedia. -- BRG (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my action is part of the reason why you might quit editing on Wikipedia, BRG. The reason for the article deletion was:

"G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: image is copyright, "refs" are spamlinks, not independent, don'tsupport text support.

You can always appeal a deletion, of course (nothing is ever truly deleted!). I know that deleted pages can be restored if an editor can say they will address the problems that existed in the article. I don't know the specific page to go to so I'd suggest asking Jimfbleak for clarification about this deletion. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to "address the problems that existed in the article" because I cannot figure out what words you found to be "unambiguous advertising or promotion." I can't for the life of me figure out what words led you to characterize it as such.

By not stating where you found words that were "promotional," you gave me no way to defend the article specifically. It's blind-side attacks like this that make me disinclined to do anything on Wikipedia except correct typos and stuff like that. --BRG (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRG, I tagged the article because it was self-promotional, it read like a fan page and had few references. But I don't believe you have to rebut my reasons for tagging it, just make a good argument about why it shouldn't have been deleted.

But as I said above, I recommend you contact Jimfbleak for clarification as he was the user who actually deleted the article. Liz ^{'Read!' 'Talk!'} 13:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Natalie Tran. 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) 17:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just checking if you saw my response to your post about LGBT categorization guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, Roscelese, thanks for letting me know. I did some work with CfD in late July and there didn't seem to be a lot of movement so I hadn't checked back. Now I will! Is this in WP:EGRS? Liz ^{Let's Talk} 18:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any response to my question at WP:EGRS so maybe you can point me to the right page. Thanks! Liz ^{Let's Talk} 18:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roscelese, I also posted this question at WP:EGRS and I believe BLP (maybe the WikiProject on Actors, too). I posted a reply to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies.

I thought this really was an issue for WP LGBT to decide but since you're giving me the only feedback I've received, I might take it to the RSN and see what they say. They are pretty responsive but I think I already know how they will answer (documentation is required). Liz ^{Let's Talk} 21:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Liz/Whiteboard for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, I just decided to call my Sandbox page "Whiteboard" instead. I've seen some users with dozens of sub-pages with different kinds of names (one user calls their Sandbox "Litterbox" instead) so I'm surprised that this page has even gotten the attention of any other users besides myself. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 11:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. All fixed up. See

• User:Liz/Whiteboard
• User talk:Liz/Whiteboard

Any problems, please let me know. Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Shirt58! Have a great day. Full moon tonight! ;-) Liz ^{Let's Talk} 13:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. 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) 15:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. 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) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/wikipedia-changed-its-entry-to-properly-reflect-chelsea-mann

Morwen also blogged here: http://abigailbrady.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chelsea-manning-on-pressing-button.html

--\/\/slack (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, \/\/slack! I just finished reading it. I appreciate the alert! Liz ^{Let's Talk} 12:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. 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, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

If you're interested in the evolution of the Vatican position on homosexuality you should definitely join the discussion/fray at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism! I've been mostly staying outside of the doctrinal bits other than to revert obvious factual inaccuracies, but you sound like you have more knowledge of the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is a complicated mess, Roscelese. I was more on top of things in the 1980s when I was living in San Francisco and all I know is that JPII later issued more compassionate statements and less about homosexuality as a "disorder". But I'll check in and look over the conversation. I'm just not up, right now, on the most recent official documents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the deleted text here. If you want to check, all I've removed is an image which appears not to be copyright-free. I can't believe that there are TWO users (at least) with that irritating hummingbird!!!! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Jimfbleak. I didn't mean to pass the buck but I couldn't recall too many particulars of that article.

As for the hummingbird, maybe it's time to move that to my sandbox. Kind of MySpacey, I guess. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I noticed you are signed up for the feedback request service. You may want to comment on this RfC Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Scope of this article and the GA nomination as well. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, Ignocrates, I'm not sure I want to step back into this dispute! I thought things had quieted down. I'll check in and look at the discussion but I'm not a biblical scholar so I'm not a master of ancient texts. Thank's for the head's up...I think. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not that same tired old dispute. This is a new dispute. Why stop at just one! :0D Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But still the same people arguing, Ignocrates? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is that little problem. You can get the monkey off your back, but the circus stays in town forever. Ignocrates (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an "argument," I see from my end a reasonable question about the scope. Of course, I can see how some people would try to avoid dealing with that question, and how that might cause them to make it an "argument," rather than a reasonable discussion about what the article should cover.

The question here seems to me to be about the content of the article more than anything else. There are at least two works which have been called "Gospel of the Hebrews," one being that source (or those sources) generally referred to as such by scholars today and at least one other called by that name by Jerome. Honestly, as they themselves never really indicated that they were referring to the same book, there is some question whether we should make that assumption either. Honestly, I don't know, but I would assume that if the ABD discusses them both (or all) in the same article first, and then describes the way that scholarship arrived at its current basic consensus, that there were two (at least) and that one seems to be similar (if not identical) to the Gospel of the Nazoreans, that being the one Jerome talked about, and, finally, coming to conclusions (admittedly not supported by any direct evidence) about what can be gathered about the remaining material, if it is all about the same source. The ABD says this is one of the most "vexing problems in the study of early Christian literature," so I think most people would agree with you that it is a thorny one, but it is also, I think, based on that, a very relevant matter. But, yeah, it is a thorny matter, and I can well imagine that others might not want to weigh in on something even academia isn't really sure about. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting that PiCo worked hard to fix up this article, and part of that fix involved restricting the scope. Since then the article has been remarkably stable (until now). That was the point of pulling out all the Hebrew Gospel material: to put an end to the ceaseless edit-warring. The "vexing problems" were moved to the parent Jewish-Christian gospels article where text-critical issues involving both the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans are considered together. Ignocrates (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, you make some valid points and this debate should really happen on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Scope of this article not my Talk Page as I am far from an authority on scriptural texts. I've done some work with archival material but none of it involved ancient religious texts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgian alphabet. 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) 17:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, and the related deletion discussion, might be in your field, and I think it would probably welcome additional outsider input. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John Carter. That is an extremely hard statistic to determine unless you are limiting your study to a well-defined geographic region where there is a history of data collection on religion (which is not common). Many people rely on churches estimates of membership which are variable and unreliable data. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is supposed to be about the factual statistic, but the various claims made by, oh, purty much everybody, it looks like, to qualify as the fastest growing group. And, yeah, I've seen quite a few such claims myself. Also, while I'm bugging you here, I was wondering what you might think about Wikipedia:WikiProject Theology. There is a separate and closely related concept, Thealogy, and, considering the apparent inactivity of that project, whether it might be best merged into the Religion WikiProject. I would support such a merge myself, but I honestly don't know whether we should use the existing name, or maybe change it to a more inclusive title, which wouldn't seem to rule out religious philosophy relating to a goddess, which is, I think, what thealogy is supposed to be. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, John, I would leave topics regarding Feminist Spirituality alone (see Talk:Thealogy#Oppose_the_Merger). They very clearly set out a separate space from mainstream patriarchal religions and trying to subsume them under a Theology banner would not respect that and would seem WP:POINTY. It doesn't matter if not one has worked on it recently. Feel free to place a template on it that it needs improvement or post a question suggesting it on the Talk Page but Categories are political (see WP:EGRS). I just think there are plenty projects you could work on that wouldn't stir up a hornet's nest!

Personally, I'm more interested in dull things like determining membership and conflict in leadership structures in religious organization (religion, modern history and sociology). While I identify as a feminist, feminist spirituality isn't my thing. But I respect how important it is to some women and as long as the articles have proper references, I would let the people who care, define their own terms rather than imposing a conformity on to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned it because you said you were involved in NRMs, and to my eyes, as someone who doesn't know a lot of NRM topics that well, it looked like it might be basically related to the scope of the inactive Theology project, maybe enough to perhaps rename that project if it were "merged" into the parent Religion project, if it were in the scope, for "neutrality" purposes. Also, FWIW, having seen you want to eventually become an admin, I think weighing in on discussions like you have been in some fields will really help a lot, but that there are people who seem to indicate that they want more people involved in content development as admins. Also, I think it is great that we have something interested in the history and organization of groups, which don't get that much attention in general around here. If you think that maybe I could help in maybe getting some sources you might want on some related topic, just let me know. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Soliloquies may be interesting to you. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ```Buster Seven, I'll check it out! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. 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, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of details on my talk. PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PumpkinSky! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Liz, I've answered your latest Teahouse question. (I kinda doubt you need talkbacks, but figured I'd give you a non-template one, just in case.) :) Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Writ Keeper! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Miss Bono's talk page. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz ... I've been seeing you around everywhere, and I'm just stopping by to let you know that the story being told about Raul/FAC on Pumpkinsky's page is ... one person's version at the most charitable. If you are interested in following some facts, you might start here, where you will find that Pumpkinsky (whose former identity was not revealed until well into the four RFCs) had joined with a very small handful of other now-banned or indef-blocked socks and users who were bearing grudges and attempting to force a change in leadership at FAC ... a proposed change that was rejected in four different RFCs, including the largest one, here:

• Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership

Once those four RFCs failed to yield the results that small group wanted, the "battleground" (literally) moved over to WP:TFAR, and they eventually succeeded in chasing off Raul, before several of them were banned or uncovered as socks, which is why your queries likely went unanswered. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I've been seeing you around everywhere..."

You don't say this like it's a good thing, SandyGeorgia!

I just ran across Raul's name on several pages, he was still being listed as the current editor/director in charge but when I went to his page, it showed he hadn't been active since February 2013. So, I was curious and when his name came up in comments, I inquired what the story was. But I'm not taking sides and realize I might be hearing one side of the story. I just recently went from being an uninvolved, casual editor to one who wants to understand how things like the ARBCOM and AN/I works and is trying to find some aspect of Wikipedia (AfD, CfD, AfC, etc.) where I can put my effort.

But I do appreciate you taking the time to come to my Talk Page and tell me your understanding of what occurred. I'm still figuring things out and so any information is good to know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say this like it's a good thing, ...

I'm not sure how I left that impression, but not at all! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean to read anything into it, SandyGeorgia. I have been self-conscious about weighing in on different forums when I was a pretty uninvolved, isolated editor. In one embarrassing incident, I explained to another user how to file a RfD when it turns out they were very experienced. So, I'm kind of bumbling my way through the deeper levels of Wikipedia (or, as I call it, "Wikipedia: Editing Beyond Typos"). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With a bazillion edits, I never quite made it to the "beyond typos" part! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still basically the same. I've seen some editors lecturing people that they should pick an area of Wikipedia and concentrate on improving it. I might be spreading myself too thin but I haven't felt affinity to any particular WikiProject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, I stumbled into Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55 and it's more than I can get through! Looks like this was a hot topic earlier this year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Jem episodes. 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) 17:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4. Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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) 05:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. 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, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the red link in the archive template at the top of this page. You might want to check that. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I am not sure at all if I have the archive code correct. I just copied it from someone else's Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. 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) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

• Study overview: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle
• Consent form: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle/Consent

Thanks for your consideration. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)Template:Z48[reply]

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[2] or Category:American male actors[3] 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)[reply]

tp stalker here - what SummerPhD said is correct if the category in question is diffusing. if it's non-diffusing, then you *do* need to add to the parent category, or, a sibling (which is the same thing as adding to the parent, then immediately diffusing). Read WP:EGRS for guidelines on such categories. The actor categories are a bit special as they seem to be fully diffused on gender (but should not be diffused on race - the race cats should be non-diffusing)). Once you're done with your PhD in set theory you might understand how this works - it's rather complex... :( --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to digest this all, SummerPhD and Obi-Wan Kenobi but there are a lot of inconsistencies with categories.

For example, take Denzel Washington...he could be categorized (this is ONLY considering his acting activity and not including award categories):

Template:Columns-start

• American stage actor
• American film actor
• America television actor
• American voice actor
• American actor
• African-American stage actor
• African-American film actor
• African-American television actor
• African-American voice actor
• African-American actor

Template:Column

• American male stage actor
• American male film actor
• America male television actor
• American male voice actor
• American male actor
• African-American male stage actor
• African-American male film actor
• African-American male television actor
• African-American male voice actor
• African-American male actor

Template:Column

• 20th-century actor
• 20th-century male actor
• 21st-century actor
• 21st-century male actor
• Actors from New York
• Male actors from New York
• Actors from Los Angeles, California
• Male actors from Los Angeles, California

Template:Columns-end

And this is assuming that he doesn't have additional ethnicity to consider and, again, does not include all of the acting award categories that could be applied. So, which ones do you select? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not like resumes - they aren't intended to capture everything you did, they are intended to capture things which are DEFINING. I'd thus say that Denzel is not a television actor, that's not defining for him, nor a stage actor. I'd put him in the following, based on your list above:

• American male film actor
• African-American male film actor
• 20th-century male actor
• 21st-century male actor
• Male actors from New York
• Male actors from Los Angeles, California

Not - I think we should get rid of the "ethnicity+ gender" categories in the acting section - I don't see a point for it really - I'd much rather use category intersects to deal with this. But, as always, not my decision.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this all started this morning because I noticed that there was Category:African-American child actresses and although there is a Category:African-American male child actors most young male actors were in Category:African-American child actors which should be the parent category for both gender categories. So, I was switching the last two.

Now, some of these child actors have transitioned to adult roles and they frequently had Category:African-American actors and Category:American actors (no gender) so I changed their categories to show gender since all of these acting categories have an "Actresses" component. I don't think there's controversy that if the category has a female component, then it should have a male component (although some don't bifurcate and use the same category for both men and women).

But I'm not sure about race and ethnicity. Should an actor be known as an African-American male actor or just an American male actor? It's even more complicated with ethnicity. Suppose an actress is Puerto Rican...then they are not only a "Puerto Rican actress" but an "American actress" (since Puerto Rico is part of the U.S.) but there is also an "American actress from Puerto Rico" and an "Actress with Puerto Rican descent". And that is just considering ethnic descent, not nationality which is another set of categories. And of course, also "Hispanic and Latin American actresses" and then the sub-categories for whatever medium they perform in. It is Categoripalooza.

Personally, I think that film/stage/voice/TV distinctions should be done away with. The way it is (because mostly fans write profile), if an actor has ever done a play, they are a "Stage actor". Likewise, there are a lot of rappers who had a cameo in a movie and are categorized "Film actor". At this point, so many film actors have moved to doing TV shows (and vice versa) that you end up with far too many categories.

At this point, you probably are thinking, "Why don't you pose these questions at the Categorization Talk Page?" Well, it's because you two will respond and when I had a pretty important question about gender orientation categorization, I didn't get much of a response (I think one reply, a month later) and I posted the question at WP:EGRS! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, ethnicity categories are non-diffusing. Meaning, if you're african-American X, you should also be "American X". Gender categories are ALSO non-diffusing, unless they aren't - such as the case with actors. So it's bit confusing. Puerto Rican is a bit of an odd/special case, there are different interpretations of how to categorize puerto rican people, I generally just stay away as it's not worth the hassle. I think there could be an argument to get rid of film/stage/voice/TV - however it is clear there are some people who really are most known for one thing (e.g. stage acting, film acting, TV acting, etc). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me get this straight, Obi-Wan Kenobi, since I've reread SummerPhD's comment several times and I still don't understand her point (and I've also read Wikipedia:Categorization but found it unclear).

Hypothetical case: If Denzel Washington is in "African-American male actors" then he should also be in "American male actors". But, if there didn't already exist a category for "African-American actresses" and "American actresses", then he'd simply be listed as "African-American actors" and "American actors". But since the category of "Actors" already has been bifurcated by gender, these division is still observed.

The ethnicity categories are confusing because it can mean, a) the country one was born in, b) the country one is a citizen of, c) the country where one works and d) the ethnic heritage of ones family ("descent"). Allowing from a mixed ethnic background from multiple relatives, this can quickly lead to overcategorization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Denzel Washington is in "African-American male actors" then he should also be in "American male actors". - correct. If we take a different case, say "Heads of state", where there isn't a male category, then he'd be in "African-American heads of State" and "American heads of state", and a black woman would be in "African-American heads of state, American heads of state, and American women heads of state". The ethnicity categories are again, generally based on wp:defining - so if a source says "X is a french writer" (even if X was born in the US to french parents and then moved to france later), then we classify them as a french writer, and perhaps as an american one as well. Rather than tearing your hair out over this, come help me get category intersection working instead which will make this all MUCH simpler.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was my understanding, too, when I was sorting through categories this morning but it prompted the first note in this discussion so I'm still trying to figure out what SummerPhD's complaint is and how that differed from what I was doing.

"come help me get category intersection working instead which will make this all MUCH simpler"

Point me in the right direction! I've tried suggesting changes at CfD and found a) only 1-4 people comment on my listings, b) the final decision (keep, delete, rename, merge) doesn't always reflect the opinions of the 4 people who managed to voice an opinion and c) decisions are inherently conservative (that is, if some change looks like it will have far-reaching repercussions or involve some work, it's always turned down). 02:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

CFD is inherently conservative, but they are also rather brutal in getting rid of new categories that crop up if they don't fit in. I'd suggest just participating there for a few months to get a sense of things - there are a few people who dominate the discussions and things tend to go their way, they hold a lot of sway. You will get a sense of how to craft a nomination so that it goes through, and when you should/shouldn't do a mass nomination for example. I'll send you instructions for how to test the category intersections in a bit.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that would be so useful, Obi-Wan Kenobi, thank you. I really thought I'd found my niche in finding appropriate categories for articles and standardizing them. For example, sometimes there are identical categories and one category will have 334 articles assigned to it while the other has 12. Or, there will be a parent category with 9 child categories and then 4 articles that are just assigned to the parent category...I'll see if they are better assigned to a child category.

I worked for years in a library so re/assigning categories comes from a desire to organize rather than any ideological/theoretical bias on what categories should exist. Any way, it is more satisfying working with CfD than AfD where I was less successful and always felt like I was crushing someone's work.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are that special type of person who actually enjoys categorization, then you are most welcome. For most people, it is a tedious and depressing. You can read through my deghettoization algorithm here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#List_of_categories_that_need_to_be_de-ghettoized - and if you understand that, you are well on your way to understanding why we should move to category intersection... :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depressing? No! It's bringing order to chaos, more accurate categorization helps people find what they are looking for more easily. No, what I find depressing is deleting articles or reverting people's contributions. I understand that those actions must be done (pruning away the unimportant and trivial), I just don't find that kind of work rewarding. I think it is far too easy to drive away new editors through speedy deletions and reverts.

On the other hand, dealing with categories has led me into a few unexpected conflicts (like the first comment in this thread) when I thought my decisions were pretty straight-forward. But I did recheck some of my work from early yesterday and replaced several categories that I had deleted to address her concerns.

Thanks for that link, I'm eager to read that page. It can be overwhelmingly to consider recategorizing thousands of "neutral" pages into gender appropriate categories so that the parent category can have both male and female child categories (if that is the way it's set up like for Actors and Comedians). That's the only depressing aspect I've found about categories but the work does go quicker with HotCat. However, the more I look at Categorization, the more work I see that needs to be addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Seddon. I'm not sure what to do. I sort of said what I wanted to say in my statement and I wasn't an active participant in the discussion so I'm not presenting "evidence", just my opinion. What do you suggest? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ⇨)
201/1/1998)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/2010%20to%201/1/1998)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22Diff'rent%20Strokes'%20star%20Coleman%20cited%20for% | [[guest star|Guest]]) | As Arnold Jackson, with [[Conrad Bain]] as Phillip Drummond)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [http://jewishjumpstart.org/about Jumpstart website]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 FAQTemplate:* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James S. Levine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Glee, Running with Scissors, Do No Harm, Raising the Bar and The New Normal

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)[reply]

Thanks, DPL bot. All fixed now! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trpeters1, it's important for Editors remember that any work is recoverable unless Wikipedia Oversighters have purged it from the system (which rarely happens, usually only when private information is revealed). Just ask an Admin to "userfy" (I think that's how it's spelled) and they'll move the most recent article copy to your Sandbox. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz! Trpeters1 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What? Robofish, I don't remember creating this category. I don't work on those type of articles. I was working on male actor categories this morning but it was mostly 16th-19th century actors. Please delete away, I have no objection! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

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)[reply]

It looks like this is one argument I won't win, Tbhotch. I think he is a notable figure but I'm not so invested that I'm going to spend time tracking down references when I could be doing other Wikipedia work. Maybe you could just replace your redirect so the page doesn't completely disappear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had never seen WP:POV Railroad before. Sounds a lot like my own perspective. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Wikipedia essays I like, Ignocrates. Another good one!

I hope you don't mind me posting a statement in your ARBCOM case. I tried to be even-handed but I had to share what I saw/read. It'll be interesting if they take this on. There is certainly an abundance of material to read through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. As you can see, perspectives vary greatly on this one. The vote is now 6 for acceptance, so we will see if this can be resolved by motion or if it goes to a full case. As you say, there is an abundance of material. A relevant question is, who wants to find out how deep this rabbit hole goes? They might not like what they find there. Ignocrates (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of horrible, ugly words have been spoken. It won't be hard to find Diffs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks, the WP:POV Railroad essay is newly created. If you have any input about it I'd love to hear your feedback and comments on the talk page there. Good luck with your ArbCom. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It was a Talk Page comment, I didn't edit the article at all and the article is meant to be humorous. You had to delete the entire Talk Page comment, I thought that was frowned upon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, some folks have been busy! I spent hours this morning on Bangladeshi male actors and all of the actresses had already been separated out.

This is the second time someone has mentioned AWB, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, so maybe I should check it out. I've been using HotCat which I've found to be very fast (better at adding and renaming categories than removing ones) but perhaps AWB is more effective.

Although it can be very repetitive and tedious, I'm find categorization work very satisfying but then I spent years working in a library and refiling books (the old days) so there is just satisfying about bringing order to disorder. I've had less success at CfD, I think every category proposal I've made hasn't gone through. I still need to understand the consensus process there.

Thanks for the reply...see you around, Ser. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Muboshgu (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wow, now that I read that you actually took the photo, sats, I'm really impressed! I thought it was a photo you plucked out of the Commons archives. I don't think I would have gotten that close!

Re: WP activity, I have been looking at editing stats for some Editors when I come across their User Page and it's interesting to see what proportion of edits are in Articles vs. Talk Pages vs. User Talk Pages, etc. For some people, they rarely edit on Wikipedia policy/noticeboard pages and spend their time working on Articles while other folks, mostly Arbitrators and Admins, most of their edits are on Wikipedia pages or User Talk pages. Maybe people who file a RfA should be warned that they won't have time any more for article creation or tweaking.

Thanks for visiting! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO - where an editor for rfa or something similar has evidence of s single skill/focus area on the edit counters, I would think there is inadequate knowledge of the workings of wikipedia. X!s Edit Counter - speaks volumes about an editors capacities - for good or for ill sats 01:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.Template:Z19 — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Cymru.lass, you are so right! I forgot to post those notices. I've only put speedy delete tags on categories/articles that I mistakenly created, not those written by others. Thank you for pointing this out to me and I'll remember to do so in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! If you're worried about forgetting in the future, you could always enable the Twinkle gadget in your Preferences. When you nominate an article for deletion (be it CSD, AfD or prod) using Twinkle, it automatically notifies the creator of the article! Cheers, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is brilliant, that it sends out notifications! I have enabled Twinkle but haven't used it much. I also hear a lot about Huggle and AWB but I haven't used them yet. Doing things the old-fashioned way, I'm sure once I figure out the tools I'll wonder why I waited so long! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll really like Twinkle! It streamlines a lot of things. Happy editing! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of HotCat as I work with Categories a lot. Have a great weekend! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Huon (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You sound weary of debate, Pdfpdf. There is more than one Editor participating at CfD and it is Admins who determine the consensus view of a discussion at CfD. I actually had a similar question to yours and went to Admins to see how they arrive at it and close a discussion. Here is one response that I found helpful.

For good or bad, the answers you receive can depend on whom you choose to ask and some Editors are open and forthcoming in explaining the process while others provide answers that are less satisfying. If you strike out with one, I recommend asking another active participant in whichever area of WP you are focusing on, whether it is on an article Talk Page, noticeboard, WikiProject or policy page. I've also had luck at the Teahouse and the Help Desk...Editors working at these places volunteer to track down answers to questions. And those Editors who are welcoming and generous in explaining procedures and processes? I have them on my Wikipedia speed-dial!

If there are further discussions about these matters, I'll keep you posted and invite you to participate. I think the views of both those who are very experienced and those who are new to a decision process should be heard...from the former, you hear the voice of experience and from the latter, you learn what is confusing or unclear.

Thanks for posting! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. I'm glad that people like you are still around. Unfortunately, in my 6 years of experience of WP, I have discovered that people like you are few. And far between. (And yes, they are all on my speed-dial!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pdfpdf, although I first created an account in 2007, I only edited sporadically, mainly as an IP, until recently. So, while I'm trying to get wiser about the way things work here at WP, I still believe that positive change can happen if one gets sufficient support from others.

As a lone voice, you can be mislabeled as "disruptive" but if a group of Editors voices their support for a proposal, even if it fails to sway the majority, at least their voice is heard and a position can no longer be judged as "trivial" or "subjective". Maybe it's because my training is in sociology but I've seen change happen when allies work together where if it was just a solitary person, he or she would be hitting his or her head against a brick wall.

And because our cultures and social mores change, that means consensus changes, too....not in an "end of Western civilization" way but in a progressive way of improving our understanding of the world and each other. Well, that's my hope any way. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_ (planet) # Theia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdAstra2013 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

I placed the tag, AdAstra2013, because the article appeared to be your own original research. You are free to contest the deletion and improve the referencing to support your work.

By the way, this is English Wikipedia and knowing Italian shouldn't be a prerequisite for understanding an article. As for similar articles appearing on Wikipedias in other languages, I only participate on en.wiki so I won't pass judgments on decisions made there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

First, AdAstra2013, I don't understand much of what you've written. A lot of it is because I can not decipher what you are saying based on your use of English. So, I can not begin to answer all of the questions you seem to be asking.

Second, I simply put a tag on your article suggesting it did not meet Wikipedia standards. You can contest this judgment and defend your article but NOT HERE on my Talk Page. I will have no further involvement with your article and will not take any additional actions about it so it is not me that you have to convince. To reiterate, I placed a tag on your article and I've moved on to work on other articles. I have no interest in researching your article and continuing to post on my Talk Page will have no positive effect on the condition of your article since I will not be taking any further action on it. An appropriate place to talk about the state of the article is on the article's Talk Page (Talk:Aeolus_(planet)).

Finally, I recommend you read, thoroughly, "Creating article in wikipedia" which provides some guidelines on what is expected from articles on Wikipedia. Also, as the tag says,

"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."

Good luck with your work! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

AdAstra2013, we don't own any of the articles we create or otherwise contribute to here at Wikipedia; see WP:Own. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Callanecc. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ignocrates, I'm not sure about the mysterious "I can't discuss the specifics of the case" but I think I got pretty up-to-speed over the summer on the current state of this debate. My point to Callanecc was that the only evidence I could supply would concern incivility since the conversation about the history of articles and reliable sources is beyond my expertise. But I saw plenty of violations of AGF and NPA. But since you say this ARBCOM case is about content, then I'll just let the statement I made stand.

But it is nice to hear from you, Ignocrates. I hope your case gets a fair hearing. It is a lot to sort through! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry to see that Ret.Prof deleted his account.

Just for purposes of clarification, ArbCom addressed only matters of conduct, not content. There have been repeated calls over the years for a content committee, but to date none such exist, and ArbCom most certainly is not it. It would be possible for ArbCom to in this case, as they have others in the past, request that the community make some effort to address content-related matters. When they do that, they tend to make the specific request of clarification or development of guidelines, and only once in a great while, like with one of the Macedonia arbitrations, call for respected editors independent of the case to offer a short term resolution of a content related dispute. And, honestly, I find the remarkably self-serving "it's all about content" line completely ridiculous, unless that refers to perhaps using content to advance a position. If it had been all about content, he wouldn't react as he has to me, In ictu oculi, and to an extent PiCo, when they propose changes which would make the content more consistent with policies and guidelines. Ignocrates has rather a long history of self-serving comments, though, and I guess that it would be more of a surprise to see that change than not to. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More incivility and personal attacks, John Carter. I find it baffling that you can't see it despite many people pointing out your continued negativity towards Ignocrates and how over-the-top it is. You make so many worthwhile contributions but this is a huge, enormous blind spot.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter what you, I or Ignocrates thinks, it'll be a team of Arbitrators sorting through all of the Diffs, passing judgment and coming up with solutions to this impasse. As I said to Ignocrates but I hope the case gets a fair hearing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "I can't discuss the specifics of the case", I only meant that I didn't want to bias your presentation of evidence in any way. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Ignocrates. I thought it was due to some oath you had taken. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 14:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm partly Irish. My brother is there right now, in County Tipperary, tracking down distant relatives. But like most Americans, my ancestry is a mixture of cultures. Why do you ask? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I saw your post at the WP Ireland talk page and just curiosity, I admire Irish people :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Miss Bono, I just noticed your userbox page! Very impressive! I might use some of those. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and use them :D If oyu need one in particular just let me know and I'll be glad to do it or teach you how to do them by yourself. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two of my favorites! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:JuWiki/Userboxes in UserboxesUser:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBX edible

What do you want me to do? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing comes to mind at the moment! I'll let you know if I come up with any good ideas. Thanks for the offer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, No problem. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A12n, I removed all culture-based name articles from Category:Human names which contains articles about aspects of naming for human beings. Since Africanization concerns place names, I thought it was inappropriate to be included in this category which includes more abstract articles about human names such as Religious name, Patronymic and Personal name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Not arguing with your choice wrt this particular category, but for clarification, "Africanization" has been used as I understand it for personal names as well as place names - and beyond that to the staff composition of civil services following independence). That's a fairly wide usage, but observed and described in these contexts as Africanization. I reordered some of the page content under various headings which may make that clearer. Would defer to your judgement on catting but feel it's appropriate to somehow account for this range of usage.--A12n (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A12n, this sounds like a topic that is worth its own separate article, on Africanization of personal names. I'll look at the reordered article, as I might have missed this mention. Thank for addressing my concern! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 - TP 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You know, technically, TP, "Liz'" is probably grammatically correct but I've only seen people use "Liz's" so that's I'm used to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, AugurNZ, I think your discussion about deletionism was very important. If you look through Teahouse questions, you'll see the same question--new editors frustrated with speedy deletions of new articles--over and over again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of this deletionist regime in action, along with the obligatory knee-jerk reaction to the provided examples. Also, I've mentioned you in my farewell speech. Thanks for your support previously. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 20:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to read about your frustration, AugurNZ ✐. I find the image copyright legalese confusing so I have done absolutely nothing with photos or images on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that this has led to you deciding to quit but, remember, accounts aren't deleted, they just go inactive. You can always return at another time. Policies do change over time as do attitudes. And, in WP, there are no deadlines and it'll still be here tomorrow and next year. All the best, Augur! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me about this. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, ColonelHenry. I can't believe it's already being revived and discussed after it was closed last week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about your preference, Quiddity. But if there is no consensus then I guess either way is correct, no? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my preference" at all. It's a lack of consensus in either direction. But the more important point is that the software adds these gaps in automatically, so they're endorsed at a certain software level. I would recommend that you not remove existing gaps, especially when an entire page uses them. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Quiddity, thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, John. But I don't know how an Editor (me) is supposed to know when an edit is made "in an admin capacity" and when it is a normal edit. How are these special edits distinguished from others?

Plus, I thought that according to WP:BRD, that the sequence goes, 1) Editor A makes an edit, 2) Editor B chooses to revert, then 3) Editor A goes to Talk Page to discuss the edit...not that Editor A re-reverts the edit. At least, I thought that was how Wikipedia was supposed to work based on what I've been told to do when someone reverted my edit. It's up to the original Editor A to go to the Talk Page and get consensus for their addition or deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talkpage stalker swoops in to suggest... that if an admin (or indeed any editor) wants to communicate some desire to future editors, of a page that they are about to edit, then the best way is to use a short HTML comment, placed 'in the editing path' so that the future editor cannot miss it. There is in fact just such a secret future-editors-only comment in *this* paragraph.

   Usually, if you are editing a mainspace article, and plan to put a hidden HTML comment in there, you should first create a talkpage section, and explain why future editors should be cautious, and then manually archive that talkpage section you just created (to prevent linkrot). Then, in the appropriate place on the mainspace article, put something like this: <!-- hello, please read http29823982932982322989823 on the article talkpage before you make edits here, thanks --> .... the only gotcha is that you should not utilize double-dash characters in you brief comment -- do not do that or this -- because they can confuse browsers into mis-displaying your stuff. I realize you and John have been at this longer than me, but sometimes remembering wikipedia's five bazillion helpdocs is not so easy.  :-)

   p.s. I prefer that editor A makes an edit, editor B collaboratively modifies that edit, goto step one. But that's a rare mode of interacting nowadays. Failing that, I prefer editor A makes an edit, editor B starts the talkpage discussion *before* just flat reverting (except for BLP or COPYVIO or NPA or blatant destructive vandalism or somesuch), then after some discussion editor B collaboratively modifies that edit, goto step one. p.p.s. Actually, I have a scheme slash proposal for colorizing edits, so that it was possible to see how long ago they were made... adding an admin-action-taken tint would be cool. Anyhoo, time to swoop out again. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Sweet Treat Award
	For your continuing contributions at WP:BLPN, Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Keithbob, I don't get many of these rewards. Maybe because I am often contrary! So, thank you very much. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is good, and appreciated, keep going! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	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)[reply]

Wow, Charmlet, two "rewards" back-to-back! Thank you for noticing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Category:LGBT scientists from India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was parented only under Category:LGBT scientists by nationality. However, this category is an intersection of three attributes: Nationality (Indian), Occupation (scientists), and LGBT. There parent categories should locate it within the relevant category trees, so I added Category:Indian scientists and Category:LGBT people from India.
• Category:LGBT scientists from Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) had the same problems as India
• Category:17th-century Japanese actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an intersection of 3 attributes: era (17th c), nationality (Japanaese), and occupation (actors). It needs to be parented under categories which cover all those attributes, either individually or in pairs. You had categorised it under Category:17th-century actors and Category:Japanese actors, both which were valid and correct; but that left it isolated from Category:17th century in Japan. So I added Category:17th-century Japanese people.
• Category:17th-century Spanish actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) had the same prob as the Japanese ones
• Category:Bangladeshi producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an intersection of 2 attributes: nationality (Bangladeshi), and occupation (producers). It needs to be parented under both those attributes, but you placed it only under Category:Bangladeshi people by occupation, leaving it isolated from other producers. So I added Category:Producers by nationality.
• Category:Bangladeshi male voice actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an intersection of 3 attributes: gender (male), nationality (Bangladeshi), and occupation (voice actors). You has categorised it under Category:Bangladeshi male actors and Category:Bangladeshi voice actors, leaving it isolated from other male voice actors. So I added Category:Male voice actors.

WP:CAT#Category_tree_organization explains some of this.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, BrownHairedGirl. I recognize your substantial experience and while at times we might disagree on CfD decisions, I hope to always work within the guidelines of what is appropriate with categorization at Wikipedia.

I appreciate the corrections...it will help me learn to do a better job in the future! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First, Beeblebrox, I appreciate you coming to my Talk Page and offering a thoughtful, considered reply. The response to comments like this that I make is typically dismissive, especially because I've only recently become an active Editor. So, thanks for that.

Second, LODM never hid the fact that she/he used to edit under IPs. So did I, up until when I created this new account in July. So, I had no illusions that she/he was a brand new user.

Third, I don't know if you saw my comments on AN/I but I was no fan of LODM. She/He could be downright stubborn, bull-headed and irritating. I don't think we ever had an exchange where we agreed on anything. We were not friends.

What I objected to was the way these "community blocks" occur on AN and AN/I, these pile-ons that turn what was a simple request for an uninvolved Editor to have a word with LODM into a full-fledged, indefinite block. It is maddening to see some users with what seems like true harassment be ignored while a simple post asking for help turns into indefinite blocks for either the person accused or the accuser (or both). Charmlet didn't come to AN/I in order to drive L'Origine off of Wikipedia, she/he came with a simple request and then page stalkers saw L'Origine as an odd-ball and, boom!, an indefinite block.

Not a one week block, not a one month block, not a 3 month block. An indefinite block. And a block made by your judgment of what "the community" wanted (when we are really talking about a dozen opinionated Editors, right?), a block made by community consensus which doesn't seem to have an obvious way to appeal (how do you address a community to be unblocked?). You get a handful of Editors to show up at AN/I and yell, "Off with her/his head!" and you can get just about anyone off Wikipedia.

I have no doubt that you are an experienced Admin and I hope that you do act with good intentions (AGF and all). But, I just want to let you know that, sometimes, the politely named "community consensus" looks, to a newcomer, to be capricious and random, with a lot of people who visit the noticeboard just to vote people off the island, so to speak.

It makes me understand why people have sock accounts after a block rather than grovel to be let back into the editing circle. After one has been banished, who is in a mood to say "I'm sorry, please forgive me?" So, what started out as a simple request to help with a confused Editor turns into an indefinite block and, probably, future accusations of socking. Wouldn't it have been less painful to simply address the problem that Charmlet had come to AN/I about?

Now, you might be right, LODM could be a troll. Maybe you have keen and sophisticated "troll-dar" that comes from years of being an Admin. But suppose she/he wasn't...well, that's another Editor who might have improved with help who got bounced off the website. I guess we differ on whether there was a justified consensus to take this action. And, in these cases, your opinion is more important than an ordinary Editor. That's just the way it is. But that doesn't mean I can't raise an objection when I think the process is unfair.

Again, thanks for coming here and explaining your action as an Admin. I do appreciate it, despite my disagreement with the action you took. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block, although, admittedly, in many or most cases it winds up being such. User:Bus stop was blocked indefinitely here (I hope you can see it) in 2007, but is active again today. And, in one recent case regarding Messianic Judaism, regarding a minor edit in violation to a topic ban to, I think, a chart on the page, someone was blocked "indefinitely" until such time as he indicated he had been wrong to violate a topic ban he had been placed under, and then when he apologized the block was lifted. Indefinite blocks are, from what I've gathered, rather regularly appealed to ArbCom and others, and in at least quite a few cases, get lifted. Particularly if the editor involved is free to edit his user talk page, I don't know if that is the case here. Just FYI. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John , I saw this discussion continuing on Beeblebrox' Talk Page where I was informed that there actually isn't something called a "community block" that is different from a regular Admin block. For example, Bonkers the Clown was indefinitely blocked, via AN/I, through the same process and on the same day as L'Origine and, boom!, today, he is unblocked. So, it's a) not necessarily forever and b) not impossible to overturn if the individual demonstrates that they won't continue their disruptive behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Ignocrates. Considering my lack of success persuading Admins not to block Editors, I think any action I would take would backfire. Regards, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just wish someone would lance this boil. Compared to my little problems, the controversy surrounding the Christ Myth Theory is ugly beyond belief. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, Ignocrates...it pits those who believe Jesus Christ is a myth against those who believe he is a real, historical figure? I would not like to mediate that dispute. It's remarkable how unChristian some people become when their religious or atheist views are challenged. Lots and lots of heat generated and blood drawn, but nothing resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, Hut 8.5. I guess you need significant knowledge of coding to get this raw data into a manageable form to analyze? I don't have a background in programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I did it was extremely messy, but I don't know anything about the proper way. I would regenerate the data based on a more recent database dump, but the format of the dumps has changed and I'd have to rewrite the program. You might well be able to find someone who can generate this data for you. WP:VPT maybe. Hut 8.5 22:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've since learned that there were pitfalls when I chose to focus on qualitative research rather than quantitative research in my degree work. More stats classes and I could probably figure out this myself.

Thanks for the information, much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been curious about this subject as well, just this past few weeks... I have some programming skill, but knowing where to start, and what to look for, is often more difficult than writing the few lines of code that will give you the answer. (Knowing how to ask the right question is hard, in other words.) So, in an attempt to ask the right question, is there still any interest here? I don't understand the context of this conversation, or what the goal was, so that makes it hard to ask the right question. As for my own interest, I have a hypothesis that users with specific editing-styles (as measured by percent mainspace versus percent talkspace and bytes-added-versus-bytes-removed per edit and such) will be banned less often by admins with similar profiles, and more often by admins with differing profiles. Ping my talkpage if you or Hut_8.5 are also still curious, maybe we can figure out both our answers. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Newjerseyliz. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, Peridon, when I went to look at the page you were talking about, I just assumed it was an article and put a {{refimprove}} tag on it. Usually people put articles they are working on in their Sandbox so I'm not sure what is up here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self promo, I think. I've already deleted an earlier version. He/she's getting a chance to do something with it - but I'm watching like a s****-hawk. That's how I knew you'd been there - and that someone had changed a cat from actor to actress (I've now removed all but one of the cats - shouldn't be there in userspace, but I'd missed that before). If nothing in the way of refs appear, and there's no sign of launching, I'll MfD it as FAKEARTICLE. Peridon (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I try to remove content categories from User Pages when I come across them but not when the Editor is working on an article and the categories relate to the subject in their Sandbox. Then, I think deleting them would come across as hostile and, for all I know, the article will be moved to Wikipedia space and then the categories would be valid. But mostly, I find content categories on User Pages of either new or inactive Editors so they are justified.

Have a pleasant weekend! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}, thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, Pdfpdf! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't begun the draft, but that is the raw selection. Serendi^podous 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Serendi^podous! Don't worry, I won't breathe a word. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, Primergrey, but my choice of Canada was rather random. I didn't want to use "Indian-American" and I'm not sure what you call a person who is Indian and British. So, Canada was their third country that came to mind.

Thanks for the correction though, now I know better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4—who has never participated in the competition before—and Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, Ignocrates, I won't pass judgment on your or his level of knowledge about the subject. My observation was purely from hanging out on the article Talk Pages and noting that John seemed to want the power of veto but he never followed up on your repeated requests that he contribute to the article by supplying other references. This seemed unusual because I do know that John edits other articles. My guess, purely speculative, is that he didn't want the kind of scrutiny he leveled at you to be laid on his contributions. I know that usually people who are judgmental are hardest on themselves.

This is simply my own observation, Ignocrates, but you have the advantage because, in general, you have remained civil and, as this dispute has continued, you stopped personalizing it and made it about the content. I urge you to continue taking the high road throughout the arbitration process. Refrain from reacting to provocative comments and just dispassionately present the facts as you see them. Since I know John has my Talk Page on his watchlist, I'd give him the same advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting point related to the above is that John Carter claimed on the Gospel of the Ebionites talk page that he recused himself from editing because of accusations of bias. When I called him out on this, he either could not or refused to produce any evidence of these accusations. However, in the process of digging for the diff I showed you above, I found these two: diff, diff. In these posts to project talk pages, John Carter claims he was accused of falsifying sources, not bias. I would like to know more specifics about this incident, as it may be relevant to the Workshop. Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my advice above. In my view, less is more, you have strong points, you don't need to pile it on. This hearing is not an attempt to seek some kind of revenge but to clarify a dispute. You don't need to detail every misstep, just present your strongest evidence and answer any additional questions the Abitrators pose to you. My 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.—Odysseus1479 01:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odysseus1479, I'll have to think a little harder to figure out "AFAICT", not sure what that stands for. But the pages I looked at looked like sports teams' rosters and the outcome of conference matches. But I just spot-checked 6 or 7 pages on that long, long list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: “As Far As I Can Tell”. I only looked at a couple of those pages myself–a case of the blind men & the elephant, I suppose.—Odysseus1479 07:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Pdfpdf! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As I've often said: T'ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It), and one of the reasons I enjoy communicating with you is because I like "the Way That You Do It". Pdfpdf (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) "Talkback" b) It's nearly 2am here - past time to "retire'. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight, Pdfpdf! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, you are right, Pdfpdf, there they are. They aren't very prominent though. I've looked over this page a dozen times and never noticed those links. So, thanks for pointing them out to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with what you say, because I had to expend some effort to find them, and I knew what I was looking for, and I knew they were there ... somewhere. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go.to.bed, Pdfpdf! ;-) See you when the sun come up down under. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 FAQTemplate:* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure how you came across my question about Teenly, Sitush, you must have that Departed Wikipedians page on your Watchlist. Yes, it's hard to believe that a 6 year old was actually editing on WP and communicating with others. But her User Talk Page doesn't read like a hoax. And, in my years on Twitter, I'm pretty familiar with accounts that pretend to be sick children. This doesn't sound like those.

If you found her Page moving, read the note that mentioned her passing at User:Bwilkins#Special notes left for me ...I think any Editor would tear up after receiving a note like that on their Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Departed page is watchlisted from the time when Tito Dutta was improving it earlier this year. I agree that Teenly is not a hoax. She was clearly a very gifted child, and I've known a couple. I just find it very upsetting: what we've lost and what she gave. I don't usually get too bothered about deaths or about children but reading of and around this particular one hurts. It seems that I have a heart after all but it is preventing me from editing right now, so I'm going to sign off for a bit. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a surprise to me that WP brought a small child pleasure but with what she was dealing with, I'm glad it could provide a little distraction from her illness. Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's flattering, 71.126.152.253, thanks. But I have some strikes against me:

• Though my first Wikipedia account was registered in 2007, I was a sporadic Editor until July of this year. I doubt that I'd get credit for all of my edits under my other accounts (including my IP account) and there seems to be a 12 month minimum for consistent editing.
• I'm interested in the processes of how Wikipedia runs smoothly, assessing consensus, examining policies, voicing unpopular opinions that should be heard, dispute resolution. I don't see my forte as content creation and that's, pretty much, a basic requirement for all successful RfA. Lots of GAs, FAs and DYKs are often emphasized.
• They now require extended "tours of duty" (2 or 3 months) in a variety of areas (AfD, AfC, Vandalism, NPP, etc.) and I'd rather find something I'm good at and stick with that (along with regular Wikignome activities) then round out my resume just for the sake of an acceptable future RfA.
• Plus, I've looked at the editing stats of long-time Admins. Doing Admin grunt work, putting out fires, checking unblock requests, requests for help, and the like, seems to consume all of the time that Admins used to spend working on the encyclopedia. It's like being an engineer and getting promoted to be a manager and finding that instead of doing creative work, all of your time is spent filling out paperwork and attending meetings. Yes, you get these powerful tools, but it looks like much of Admin work is borderline unpleasant and they are constantly criticized, no matter what they do. Yeah, sign me right up! ;-)

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)[reply]

You are right that usually 12 months of consistent editing and some experience in deletion/vandalism/etc. is typically a must for an admin candidate. But there are actually a number of admins who spend a lot of time writing content, like Wehwalt, Casliber, Jimfbleak, etc., so if you do become an admin you can always keep that up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, Mark Arsten. Unless my circumstances change (that is, I can unpack my library!), I don't see myself creating a lot of serious content, which is really needed right now in the sociology area. The limitations of a small apartment and not having an office any longer, everything is boxed up, especially bulky reference books. But, luckily, there are always a lot of other necessary tasks that need to be done! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 :( GiantSnowman 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Giant, you can help me if you'll indulge me in one more question: Have you seen disputes concerning the Reference Desks (regarding users, incidents or policies) posted to AN or AN/I in your tenure here at Wikipedia? I'm just wondering if that's where a discussion like this would happen. Thanks for your assistance! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have certainly been dispute about the RD posted at ANI - but if you're seeking more guidance then I'd try AN. GiantSnowman 18:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it's just an observation, Giant. But now I'll search the AN and AN/I archives and see if it is an issue that has come up before. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That sounds perfectly reasonable, RaHHaal. Note that these guidelines about language like "well-known", "accomplished", "top-ranked", "most important", "the best", "spectacular", etc. are applied to all profiles and are actually a big problem on articles about entertainers (actors and singers). It's not a standard that is being unjustly applied to this article alone. It's a constant battle on Wikipedia against superlative language.

As for Wael Hallaq's prominence, you don't have to find a reference that specifically uses that word. It can be any reference (from a reliable source) to his importance as a scholar that you can find. One source you could cite, for example, is any prominent award or honor he has received or if holds an endowed chair for his professorship. That would demonstrate his prominence.

I think Wikipedia has a particularly high bar for academics...there are many scholars who I think should be listed on Wikipedia but there are Editors who evaluate academics and they can't have a regular record of teaching and publishing, they have demonstrate they are exceptional or notable outside of their academic discipline. Since most academics spend the their time on research and don't seek out media attention or publicity, this is a difficult standard to meet.

I'm glad we could come to a compromise you can live with at the moment. Note that if these edits are challenged by others, we'll need to move this conversation to the article Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 User:Liz, Here is another interesting chart I found on a user page (so accuracy and date of data are questions) but whats' really striking to me is that only 1658 editors have more than 3,000 edits and there are 976 administrators. So I wonder what % of users over 3,000 edits are Admins. It would seem like it could be a very high %.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Users

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%

And there is a lot of interesting data here too.[4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I missed seeing this chart, Keithbob...thanks for sharing it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And according to this page there are only 634 Admins who have made more than 15 edits per month for the past two months.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, Dr. Blofeld, 51.70% of my edits are to the Wikipedia article space so I do work on the encyclopedia itself. All sorts of topics interest me, I try to fix problems, especially regarding references, tables and categories, when I come across them...small improvements that help articles.

But I imagine you aren't talking about merely edits but content creation itself. After seeing so many newly created articles quickly deleted, the idea of putting a lot work into writing which is then erased, well, that is completely unappealing to me. I also don't see a lot of value in creating a lot of random stub articles which, by and large, are never expanded by other Editors, just for the sake of article creation. They typically don't provide much information and are just placeholders.

It's been interesting to me to see so many unreferenced, badly written, older articles that currently exist on Wikipedia and then see such a high bar set for newly created articles. I'm not saying that bad articles should be accepted, just that standards have changed a lot on Wikipedia regarding article creation and now a lot of articles that could improve over time are simply being deleted.

At least, that is my perception of what is occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a massive cleanup job is needed on here and it's difficult to know where to start, and shoddy new articles which go under the radar are adding to the cleanup job and workload. I just didn't recognize your name which if you're a veteran here that strikes me as odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I first registered in 2007 as Nwjerseyliz but I made most of my edits logged out, as an IP. My most recent IP account seems like it is static as it only contains my edits if you check Contributions. But all I did was fix typos that I saw or run-on sentences, I didn't know much about formatting or how Wikipedia was organized.

I decided to become more active last summer and my first comments in the Wiki space reflect my confusion and frustration over where to find information on how Wiki operates and how to edit. Now that I know my way around, it seems obvious but back in July, I kept searching for topics with Wikipedia's search function, not knowing that I had to go to Advanced and check the "Wikipedia" box in order to find pages in the Wiki space. It was very frustrating and I'm glad the Editors who staff the Teahouse are incredibly patient.

My first serious edits, of course, stepped on toes. I wish Editors and Admins who post warnings on User Talk Pages would realize that casual Editors don't even know that policy and guideline pages exist...they don't know there are these articles they should read first or where they are and they couldn't find them without a direct link. So, I was labeled as "disruptive" and some of my edits were reverted because I was learning by trial and error. This scolding led to me spending a lot of time reading Wiki articles and noticeboards, in order to better understand Wikipedia culture and what expectations were. This is why you just started to seeing my name around the past few months and also why I also often advise against imposing blocks on new Editors because I know how much I stumbled around, ignorant of what customs and practices I was violating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nwjerseyliz still exists and if I go to other Wiki sites it logs me in under that username and when I return to en.wiki, I'm still logged in as Nwjerseyliz. So, you'll still see some edits there.

• Liz wrote: But I imagine you aren't talking about merely edits but content creation itself. After seeing so many newly created articles quickly deleted, the idea of putting a lot work into writing which is then erased, well, that is completely unappealing to me.

I know exactly how you feel.

Liz wrote: I also don't see a lot of value in creating a lot of random stub articles which, by and large, are never expanded by other Editors, just for the sake of article creation. They typically don't provide much information and are just placeholders.

Just to play devil’s advocate: Most, if not all, the articles I created were stubs, and while what you say above (still) applies to some, others have received some nice contributions. See for example Wage Earner Protection Program Act

Liz wrote: It's been interesting to me to see so many unreferenced, badly written, older articles that currently exist on Wikipedia and then see such a high bar set for newly created articles. I'm not saying that bad articles should be accepted, just that standards have changed a lot on Wikipedia regarding article creation and now a lot of articles that could improve over time are simply being deleted.

How true, sigh… XOttawahitech (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was spending a lot of time in WP:CfD last month, Ottawahitech, but it could get so adversarial, it was tiring. I mean, the easiest thing is to vote Delete because it takes no effort (just like posting Block! on AN/I). But if you want to Keep, you have to find policies, guidelines or logical reasons to justify why content should exist. I also felt like I needed to notify everyone who might be effected by a Delete and found that the majority of Editors are not checking in daily and decisions in Deletions wrap up quickly (usually in a week or less). So, that effort didn't pay off with much response but I'm glad I did it.

I'm still finding out where I fit in to the Wiki world, where I can help out the most but also get some satisfaction.

I didn't mean to knock stub authors, some that I've seen are closer to articles while others are pretty meager. I just became curious how some Editors could create 100s (or 1000s) of articles and when I looked into it, they were often just a sentence-long stubs about some obscure type of salamander or gnat that lists their scientific name and common name and a reference to some biological reference book. A decent article could take weeks or months to craft especially considering all of the other things going on in life. It's quite an investment of time and effort to track down all of the necessary references so the subject is going to have to be one I already know something about. I truly admire Editors that have the persistence to take a so-so article to GA and FA status.

But like the guidelines say, this isn't a race, Wikipedia grows as a cumulative effort and a new article can be added today, next month or next year and still be a worthwhile addition. Sorry for rambling a bit, I tend to get a little reflective in the morning when I'm drinking my coffee. Thanks for being a Talk Page Stalker! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here, I wholeheartedly agree with you about how it can take a long time to find sources, particularly at present. That's probably the main reason I'm working on getting together the lists of encyclopedic articles, and also trying to add some of the older PD ones to commons. Particularly for a lot of older topics, like maybe a 19th century mayor of Berlin, some of those older sources might be among the best out there, considering the possibly greater temporary significance of the subject at the time those works came out, and more space devoted to them on that basis, and the fact that, in a lot of cases, except some involving homosexual outing, revelation of subsequent sometimes questionable sexual or other forms of behavior, etc., there won't be a lot of currently regarded information about them that won't be included in those old sources. Granted, a lot of that sort of material can also, not unreasonably, be called "boring", but it might still be significant enough for inclusion here to some degree. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be very careful with old reference materials, John. They reflect what certain scholars believed at the time they were written, but our understanding about most fields, from physics to literature to anthropology, is not even the same as it was ten years ago. I'd say that even a reference text from 1993 is out-of-date, depending on the type of information it contains.

I've seen old Catholic Encyclopedias from the turn of the 20th century and reading them gave me a good idea about what a particular group of chosen Catholic theologians (but not laypeople) believed about the saints or the sacraments in 1907. But we not only know more 100+ years later but scholarship itself has changed. Methods of research have changed, there are more academic contributions from scholars in countries outside of Europe and North America and also, gasp!, women, too. While much of academic training itself has changed little over the past 150 years (unfortunately), the individuals who are doing the research have changed, immensely, the research questions that are being asked have evolved over time and so have the conclusions drawn from that research.

Older reference materials are valuable in that they can demonstrate how understanding of a concept or event has changed over time but they are, basically, a moment encapsulated in a time capsule. I'd argue that they should only be used as a reference if a Wiki article is discussing what people at a certain moment in time believed as these works do not reflect contemporary scholarship. That doesn't make them useless, just that their use has to be qualified and it should be noted that they are dated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the matters you referred to, I actually more or less agree, which is why I mentioned the example of an older mayor of Berlin, although I suppose any older biographical article about minor figures who haven't gotten much subsequent attention might be similar. Regarding matters of religion, yeah, I have seen how in some cases like regarding Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mani's early Christianity, and several other matters which have been significantly changed by recent discoveries would invalidate a lot of the older conclusions, but that number of topics, broad as it is, is probably still a non-majority of the total number of all the possible topics out there. Particularly starting in the era of when written sources became particularly common, say the end of the 19th century, and some works like the Chambers, Britannica, and a few other comparatively non-biased sources, the older articles on, for instance, countries which have since been merged, or conquered, or whatever, might still be among the better sources for those older topics. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | Director [[Oliver Stone]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• philosophy|political]]/[[ethics|moral philosophy]], and [[philosophy of language]] thereof), [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]], and philosophy in [[film]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. GiantSnowman 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Giant. I don't take reverts personally, I try to use them as a way to understand what I did incorrectly. I think I need a short list of valid reasons for deletion because I thought that being an insubstantial article was evidence enough. I mean, it was a sentence long with all of these external links! Is "it looks like junk" a valid reason? No, that's probably too generic.

What I find puzzling is that there are so many Editors who are a quick draw with Speedy Deletes...they seem to tag dozens of SDs all day long. And I find myself an Inclusionist and usually argue to Keep articles and categories from deletion. But when I find a delete-worthy article, I don't know the right way to get it done. Seriously, I've proposed maybe 3 AfD (over 3 months) and they were all kept. I must be doing something wrong because I wouldn't haven't proposed them unless I thought they would meet the criteria for deletion.

Any way, thanks for explaining it to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reason as short as "Does not appear to meet notability guidelines" is more than sufficient for PROD purposes - you might also want to take a look at WP:DEL-REASON. GiantSnowman 08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Giant. Thank for pointing me in the right direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, you forgot to sign your comment under Pre-planned dispute: diff. Ignocrates (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was just that one place, right, Ignocrates? I guess you are both watching that page!

Your answers to the questions seemed a little snippy but I gather it is just coming out of exhaustion about the whole process. But that's how the text read to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seemed a little snippy but you are right about the reason. I'm getting really tired of having my motives impugned all the time. Ignocrates (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates, you can be snippy with me. ;-) But I'd advise both you and John Carter not to be snippy with Arbitrators who, for all I know, are all still undecided on this whole case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to be more tactful in the future. Btw, do you still agree with this statement? You are getting a small taste of what I have been enduring for 3 years. Maybe that is why I am a little snippy. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, John had always been civil and respectful to me until now. And I, along with others, have repeatedly asked him to tone down the hostility and while he never paid any attention to us, he also never attacked me. But I think my criticism of his MOS religion guidelines offended him. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Damn! Well, there were so many proposals and suggestions to comment on. Thanks for catching my errors. My sig came after the deadline but I hope that ARBCOM can see that it was the only content that was added.

It was time-consuming to go through each suggestion so I can only guess at how many hours you and John have invested in just this one dispute resolution process (and over 3 years, I'm sure it's 100s of hours). Nishidani came in at the last moment with a fair evaluation, I thought, on the content aspects of this dispute which had not received as much attention as it should have. I wish Ret.Prof. and Keilana could have offered their perspectives (along with others who were actually involved in the debates over 2013) but they didn't so ARBCOM will just have to make an evaluation based on the evidence that they do have.

I think it's interesting to see how few of the various parties who have been involved in this persistent discussion over the years chose to participate in ARBCOM proceedings. I think most just want to move past this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can manually backdate the timestamps on the two signatures you added if you want to be more precise.

Nishidani's comment is very helpful because I didn't want to presume to speak for him in my response to the second question. Now the Arbs can see the perspective from both sides.

The deafening silence you detect is not a coincidence. There is an almost tragic aspect to this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to manually fix the timestamp as, though it is innocent, it could be interpreted as manipulation. I trust ARBCOM can see that the edit was just a matter of crossing Ts and dotting Is.

The tragedy is that there were so many times when this dispute could have deescalated and, well, it didn't. And my direct knowledge is just from July, I had to read up on its history on archived pages to see how long this has been going on. It was certainly a discouraging glimpse into conflict that resists resolution. But, at least now, it's out of all of your hands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a theory about why this didn't de-escalate. Maybe I'll expound on it after all of this is over, if there is any curiosity & I can keep myself from sounding too pretentious. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of conflict within organizations, I'd love to hear your theory, llywrch, if you could draw abstract insights instead of grounding it in the specific personalities involved. I think it's a combination of an interpersonal relationship conflict and the sensitivity of the content area. How is that for pretentious? ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts treat this incident more of an example of a phenomena, than requiring me to mention any one person. I don't think it depends on specific personalities -- well, maybe it does explain mine -- but so no one thinks I'm bad-mouthing anyone, I'm waiting until this is over with before I share it. -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. The more generalized it is, the greater ease there is in applying it to a variety of similar situations (all grounded in the context of history though). Whenever you're ready, llywrch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in as well. There should be lessons learned from this protracted dispute beyond the crime & punishment administered to the involved parties by ArbCom. Ignocrates (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I may say so, I believe it would really be in your own best interests to review some previous arbitrations. I acknowledge that you seem to have generated in your own head a rather unsupportable conclusion about me, which is rather obvious given some of your edits. But you will find that for instance WP:ARBMAC2#Stalemate solution specifically was an instance of ArbCom requesting involvement of the kind of outside input I am requesting. Particularly for someone who seeks to be an administrator, it would really help to refrain from making statements about what can and can't and should and shouldn't be done until after you make an effort to see if it has or has not been done before. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me, John? Why would you assume I wanted to be an administrator? Or are you referring to My very best wishes?

I'm not sure what you mean by "in my own best interests" but I reviewed the Ebionites request for arbitration and Ebionites2 case over the summer when I was trying to sort out what was happening on the Talk Pages and Noticeboards where you and Ignocrates sparred.

As for Arbitration, the deadline is today and I've posted what I've posted. So far, the ARBCOM hasn't paid much attention to the statements I've made, so I don't think my words will have a great effect upon the proceedings, especially compared to your own words. Any further comments I make will be regarding the proposed decisions, if I choose to participate in that discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, at some point you said you wanted to be an administrator. And I find the borderline hysteria of the comment about how I might be talking to Mvbw laughable. I'm not sure if you have bothered to review the recent discussion on his user talk page, which you apparently haven't, between me and him, but you will find that I suggested to him maybe doing some translations of Russian material. But, I guess, you didn't review such, did you, and you have taken his declarations based on his own prejudicial views of the Falun Gong 2 arbitration at face value. If you are not planning to seek adminship, though, then perhaps you should feel free to continue to make the sort of poorly researched and judgmental comments you seem to at least in my eyes enjoy making about others. And you apparently didn't review the talk pages of Jayjg, or Dougweller, or any of the other pages I had linked to in my evidence page, where a lot of the problematic conduct took place, which is also relevant. Poor research, and drawing conclusions based on poor research, is actually something I would have not expected from an academic or a former librarian. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, you offer some wise advice here which I try to follow. I suggest you take your own words to heart. Peace. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you perhaps read them more fully, so that you might "take to heart" the actual words I said, as opposed to a personal spin of the comments I said in applying them to situations they did not address. I note that I was referring to article talk pages, and this is not an article talk page as per WP:TPG, which specifically applies to article talk pages - there is a difference, even if you don't seem to recognize it. Also, you seem to believe that my indicating you did insufficient research, and that such a statement is somehow a "personal attack," as per my own earlier comment, really can't help but call into question your research even more. Saying someone has demonstrated poor judgment is not necessarily a personal attack. I hope in time you may come to understand that. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Liz, based on your comments at Ebionites 3 Workshop, I'd say you are insightful about other people & have a level head on your shoulders; you would make a fine Admin -- if you want to be one. (Nothing wrong if you don't want the mop; Wikipedia could use more mediators, too.) And I'm speaking as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia fairly regularly (except for an 18 month break) since late October 2002. -- llywrch (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for mediator. Liz, you would be awesome. Imagine the concept - people getting together who actually want to work out a dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, llywrch and Ignocrates, for your kind words. My attempts to mediate this case over the summer were spectacularly unsuccessful but, then, I had no idea going in how longstanding this grudge was and I spent quite a few days reading over archived Talk Pages and ARBCOM decisions just trying to identify the sticking points and the "players". But I was in over my head.

Mediating is more appealing to me than doling out blocks, and it doesn't require Admin status. I think a problem with ARBCOM is that, like a law court, it looks for violations of conduct and hands out sanctions and admonishments, it's a very blunt tool for resolving conflict and can be scarring. I'm more interested in assessing what each party's goal is and seeing how much everyone can accommodate each other (all according WP policies and guidelines, of course). This process involves an acceptance by everyone that they won't get "their way" 100% and not every person will agree to those terms. That is why I'd bet that most conflicts on WP are resolved by one party just saying, "Enough" and leaving. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to engage in "mediation," I believe your best option would be to actually do something you have not, so far as I can see, necessarily done, and maybe become active at the dispute resolution noticeboard or similar venues, where you can perhaps pick up some experience in mediation. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Dervorguilla! I read over the article text, the remarks already posted and left a comment. It looks like this textual edit has already been made so now it is a matter of Editors arguing for a reversion and I didn't see any such comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me, Ottawahitech. I've wanted to get involved into some aspect of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I think I could make a contribution there. But while I've been editing WP, on and off, since 2007, it's just been fixing typos, grammar mistakes and the like and I've only been exploring, in depth, Wikipedia itself since July.

So, I'll look over 3O and maybe in a little while, I'll feel like I have the experience to be useful there. Thanks again, Ottawahitech. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, Bretonbanquet. It's frustrating when someone brings a problem to be resolved, everyone weighs with an opinion but nothing happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so too! People like to have their say but no decisions are made. Hopefully this will be resolved on the editor's talk page anyway :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

Thanks, olive. I'm uninvolved in the Sheldrake discussion but I went over to the Talk Page several times to read through the discussion over the past three weeks. I see the polarity that I've noted in previous discussion between skeptics and sympathizers. While I didn't follow all of Tumbleman's arguments and comments, he shouldn't be turned into a scapegoat for what is a very uncivil and heated conversation. This minor sock incident and some old message board comments from 2005 have been brought up and it's grounds for an indefinite block? Sometimes, to the casual observer, it seems like AN, AN/I and ARBCOM are just a means for driving Editors who one disagrees with off of Wikipedia. And the more I dig into the ARBCOM case files, well, I see the same names come up again and again and again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been participating in the chaotic mess that is the Rupert Sheldrake biography. I guess you could say that I'm a Sheldrake supporter. I got into it because someone requested it of me due to my strong subject knowledge. But it is useless there. The arguments have nothing to do with good scholarship and everything to do with turf wars. I have tried to be civil, but the abuse and bullying is just endless. I end up being terse. I have dealt with a lot of skeptics over time and these are by far some of the worst I've ever encountered.Craig Weiler (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Craig Weiler, it's important to know that there has been an ongoing struggle on Wikipedia between skeptics and sympathizers since at least 2006 (that's the first Arbitration case I came across). There is one group of skeptics that targets what they judge to be pseudoscience and a similar group that targets new religious movements (like Scientology or Transcendental Meditation). The goal is to convince others, hopefully influential Editors, that a specific theory, opinion or viewpoint is "fringe". Once that is accomplished, you can ridicule it and marginalize it all you like.

Since the body of the world's scientists or theologians don't gather together to debate these matters, it all becomes a race for sources that back up what you believe to be true. Instead of swords, people pull out references and duel with them. You would think the least painful resolution for all concerned would be compromise but it's become a matter of ideology so people consider this a matter of TRUTH (WP:But it's true!) so Editors are reluctant to back down from their entrenched positions.

From what I can gather, the most common way for disagreements on contentious subjects to be settled on Wikipedia is:

1. outnumber your opponent by bringing in reinforcements
2. overwhelm them with data/references and ask them to refute each one
3. get them kicked off of WP for 3Rs or edit warring
4. someone gets frustrated, angry and gets bounced off WP for launching a personal attack or
5. you wear your opponent down until they get tired of the fight and leave

Wikipedia is people and people have virtues and vices so Wikipedia does, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That about sizes up what I've seen so far. This is all going to blow up in Wikipedia's face. Liz, how long have you been editing on Wikipedia if I may ask?Craig Weiler (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, Craig, Wikipedia has weathered full-on scandals that were pretty enormous and it still survives. That's one of the advantages of having a decentralized organization, individuals can leave (or be kicked out) while new users are just signing up. And English Wikipedia is just one of the hundreds of Wikis. I'm sure there are huge problems on Wikis in different languages that most of us aren't even aware of.

As for me, there is a little bit of information about me on my User page. I first created a registered account in 2007 but I chose to mostly edit logged out, as an IP, because I didn't really want to engage with other users, I just wanted to fix typos and grammar mistakes when I saw them and move on. It's only since July 2013 that I've really become a full participant here but it's been quite an immersion! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I guess my point is this is not the first time there has been a dust-up like this. I don't know if there was ever a time when the system wasn't "broken". Conflict happens every day in a collaborative environment. Most times, it is peacefully resolved through the passage of time (you make an edit, I come by a week later and edit the same page, someone else comes by later that day and edits my work) but there are occasions when an article like Sheldrake becomes a focal point for a much larger debate on what is legitimate knowledge and what is not. For the participants, the stakes are high and it goes far beyond Sheldrake himself. Right now, the article is on a 3 day lock-down, which means no one can edit it and hopefully, people talk to each other instead of warring over edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a chance in hell of people working together. This parapsychology stuff just sets the skeptics off too much. The history of parapsychology, which dates to the late 1800's is full of this kind of behavior from detractors from the very beginning. Irrational, ideologue, rude, nasty authoritative: everything happening on the Sheldrake page is the mirror of a history that stretches back 130 years. The skeptics are all frightened by something so deep in their subconscious that they're not even aware of it and they fight like hell to keep it that way.

I know that it's tempting to view both sides as heads and tails of the same coin. It's easy and it seems to make sense until you realize one side is purely reactionary and the other side isn't reactionary at all. Wikipedia is like a warm, comfortable blanket for skeptics; it has boundaries; rules, authority and procedures. It's their virtual playground and prison. They can be kings here, but leaving means giving up their Wikipedia kingdom and starting over.

By contrast the very thing that draws them in repels the people on the other side of the debate. Unlike them, we can never stop seeing the prison bars, nor can we stay in a perpetual state of hate and fear, constantly motivated to fight the smallest battles, which is why they always win in places like this, but are slowly losing in the world at large.Craig Weiler (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very insightful analysis, Craig Weiler. I don't judge people by their beliefs but on how they treat other people so my sympathies lie with those who can remain civil and who strive overcome any bitterness or animosity they might feel towards those who are different from them. As for the two camps in this debate, I think they have such dramatically different worldviews. But I think Wikipedia should reflect them both. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Your idea that Tumbleman might have gone to a mediation is a good one and one that would help retain valuable editors. In my mind we should always be looking for ways to keep people rather than ways to get rid of them. The missing ingredient in this case was that Tumbleman was one of many on that talk page as you've said, and that he is a relatively inexperienced editor. How does an intelligent person react to the heated, often illogical arguments presented with out the experience to see what the outcomes can be given the Wikipedia environment? What do they feel they have to do in desperation as they try to have their points heard. There are those who understand and have the experience to manipulate the system in favour of a world view. I believe this encyclopedia is collaborative, that behaviours that are deliberate attempts to damage other editors and get rid of them are the most egregious and in the long run the most dangerous to the collaborative environment, and to Wikipedia. A friend wise friend once told me he doubted Wikipedia over time could sustain the kind of negatively driven environment this kind of editor created. I hope he's right.:O)(olive (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You sound like the voice of experience, olive. I don't have any magic answers to your question. I know that it is important to listen to others, hear their concerns and address the ones that you believe have merit. I think it's also important not to react out of anger but I know how hard it is to refrain from snapping back when one feels attacked or belittled. The best one can do is try and learn from ones mistakes.

You do point out a problem I see, which seems like wikilawyering to me (although I'm not sure if that is the correct term). There are those Editors who are very smart about the way to file complaints, who have allies who are Admins, who are ready to back up any claim with a "diff" and if an inexperienced (and even some experienced) users run afoul of them, good luck! They are very effective at mustering support for whatever they propose because they know the system well while most newbies don't even know the WP jargon, what a noticeboard is or that in a defense of their actions they can't be sarcastic, flippant or angry (which, frankly, is a standard internet response).

They begin at a disadvantage that is difficult to overcome and becomes impossible if the complainant is able to get them labeled a "troll", "vandal", "sock", "puppet" or the nebulous "disruptive Editor". Whether these identifications are valid or invalid, these labels are almost impossible to shake and they follow a user even if they quit WP, go away for a few years and then return under a different username. If someone connects them to a maligned, previous account (and they haven't acknowledged this on their User Page), the typical response seems to be an automatic block.

It's ironic for a medium that is constantly changing, second by second, edited by tens of thousands of people, that it also seems to be unable to forget and forgive. Regarding its users, WP has a long, long memory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, if you have any interest in this area you are touching on here, and have a few minutes, could you look at my essay WP:POV Railroad and give any feedback or comments you may have, on the essay talk page? Thanks in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of tabs open right now, Keithbob, but I'll look over it sometime today. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.)[reply]

And Isaac Asimov was a big ol' fanboy, Orange Mike? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Okay, I saw your User Page and see your scifi cred. ;-) L.

Isaac was part of the original New York fan scene, certainly! He was one of the naughty leftists excluded from the 1st World Science Fiction Convention by the Great Exclusion Act, perhaps the earliest major fan feud. Remember: the article science fiction fandom is about people involved in the active culture of SF fandom, not the kind of "fan" who is a passive media culture consumer rather than a participant in a fandom. A "fanboy" might never do anything but watch a show or maybe collect action figures, a very different model of behavior. (And please, don't call it "scifi"!) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Orange Mike, I tip my hat to the depth of your knowledge about SF fan culture. Thanks for being understanding about my mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, vzaak, since that Sheldrake Talk Page had over 100 edits/day, I stopped keeping up with the conversation over the weekend. I appreciate you approaching me politely as I'm coming from an opposing viewpoint to yours. I will look into those comments that you're sharing. I was not aware there were other socks associated with Tumblemen who participated in the Sheldrake discussion, that wasn't indicated in Tumbleman's SPI. And I see newly created accounts arguing pro- and anti-Sheldrake so I think there are socks on both sides. Without seeing your evidence, from where I'm standing now, it looks like an united effort was made to drive off an Editor that some others found annoying. And I find that tactic chilling.

You will prove me 100% wrong if it turns out that those who are skeptical of Sheldrake can work constructively with those who support him to come up with a biography that has a NPOV. If I see other users receiving blocks for expressing their opinions, well, I guess I called it right. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbleman asked me to make some sort of comment on his behalf. I'll be brief. He was cleared of sockpuppetry, so this is a non issue. He had no sockpuppets on the Sheldrake page. Rupert Sheldrake himself has been banging the drum for something to be done on Wikipedia for some time now, so because of his influence and reach, he is the most likely sources of new supporters. I first heard from him, not the other way around.Craig Weiler (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check, Craig, but I thought the situation sounded contrived. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TpsIt cannot be emphasized strongly enough that WP:NPOV does not require us to treat fringe theories as equal in scientific regard to the mainstream of actual present-day science, be they indigo children, flat earth, scientific creationism or morphic resonance. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike (and everyone else), Sheldrake's article is a biography, it is not a page on Theories of Morphic Resonance. Of course the man's ideas need to be included but the bulk of the article should be factual, about Sheldrake's life and work. Within an article like this, of course, it can be stated that the science community doesn't accept certain ideas. But at most, this is a paragraph or two of the entire article. You can present someone's work without saying, "and this is TRUE" or "this is FALSE". It just is. Present who the man is and let the reader pass judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, we do not give extra legitimacy to pseudoscience by not putting it in context with respect to the most respectable sources. That's contrary to Fringe and WP:MEDRS (where applicable). It's quite frankly irrelevant that its a biography. Fringe theories don't get a free ride just because they are in a biography, we aren't writing hagiographies, sourced criticism with due weight can be included. Including reliably sourced claims can never be a BLP violation. Following from your view, we would barely mention that Andrew Wakefield work is regarded as fraudulent and that was never accepted by the scientific/medical community, or the refutations by the scientific/medical community, but rather focus on the claims he made. That would be a very dangerous way of writing that article. When a topic is not independently notable from the main protagonist (Sheldrake), then that topic is described in the persons article, as is currently done. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of focus. A biography should be focused on the subject first, their work, second. One can present Sheldrake's ideas in the context of talking about the legacy of his work and mention that they are not highly regarded without trashing the person. I believe that encyclopedias should be descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm just arguing for this:

• Tone: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
• Balance: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."
• Where BLP applies: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, persondata, and article titles." Wikipedia:BLP

• Fringe: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea..." (and this is a BLP article, not an article about a "mainstream idea")
• Fringe: "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."
• Unwanted promotion: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article."
• Evaluating claims: "Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality....but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations."
• Notability versus acceptance : "Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy." Wikipedia:FRINGE

What I see here is a lot of guidance that stresses "neutrality". Editors can point out that a theory is not widely-supported by the scientific community (which is neutral) and not describe an idea as "fraudulent" or portray an individual and his theories as absurd (which is a judgment and is not neutral). What I also see is that most of the guidelines are about presenting fringe ideas in the context of an article on a mainstream subject...that is not the case here when the article is about a person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.[5] [6]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the Fringe Noticeboard today, Keithbob, and found it really depressing. It's a very lop-sided discussion board, the participants seem to be in agreement that the goal is to get theories they find unacceptable to be identified as "fringe" and then they can be mocked. It seems like the view of the world is very black and white there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, these talk pages are all public, Craig, so we don't own our words and you are free to use what you find on Wikipedia as long as it is attributed. I appreciate you letting me know and for not misrepresenting me.

To be a little confessional, I was trained in the social sciences so my grounding is as a skeptic (everything we studied were aspects of life which were measurable) but my personal belief system is that science can't be used to explain everything (like "meaning"). So, I understand the skeptic's need for evidence and proof but I also know that many important aspects of life are not rational, measurable or scientific. As in most things in life, I think a balance is most appropriate. Thanks again for letting me know, Craig. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You might be interested to know that my blog has drawn the attention of some psychologists. One thing I hear repeatedly from them is that researchers are on a whole different planet. In the day to day job of helping people with their issues and dealing with their emotions, it is often impossible for these health professionals to ignore their own obvious psychic intuitions which come as a result of interactions with their patients. Further, it is not at all advisable to ignore these intuitions because they are almost always extremely helpful. So those who practice are generally very open to psi, in contrast to researchers who aren't.Craig Weiler (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a lot of sense, Craig, it's the difference between theory and practice. Scientists, of all kinds, use hypotheses and run experiments to test the boundaries of theories. The test results can support theory, contradict theory or be inconclusive. And this can vary according to the level of confidence the researcher has in the results. It's levels of abstraction.

Practice is something entirely different. A practitioner deals with the concrete, this person, here, now, and their own personal history. They have education and training but their goal is not to prove the truth of falsity of a theory but find a way to help a person heal. This means that, for the most part, most psychologists have an eclectic approach, they have a "toolkit" of concepts, approaches, skills and they try to find the ones that help with that individual. It's a completely different attitude, not one of finding truth but finding what will work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, Andrew, I was not aware of your comment but thank you for the apology. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You too, Liz, you too! Take care! Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.4.203 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Much appreciated. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is quite a surprise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The rename has been done. Have fun editing!--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Jasper! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the additional information, Writ Keeper. That whole conversation got off-track but that's not unusual on the noticeboards. Some Editor comes in with a specific complaint and people end up debating some other point. I appreciate you addressing my question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope [7] was a mistake? --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for pointing it out to me so that I could undo it, regentspark. I was using STiki and it doesn't give the user very much context, or mentions that I was reverting a revert. Thanks again for catching that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wow, Lou, I've already alienated so many fellow Editors when I defended Tumbleman after he was blocked, I don't think I'd be seen as neutral (despite truly, honestly, not caring about Sheldrake). My actual interest in reading through through alllllll the Talk Page comments was to see how consensus could be arrived at when there are Editors with such different points of view. I no longer think that's possible but I haven't seen what's been going on there for the past week, maybe conditions have improved...well, it's a possibility, even a slim one, right? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you know how to reason, and you appear to be a Decent Human Being. Who cares whether they think you are neutral? Voice an opinion, ANY opinion, and show those who lack those attributes how it's done. Lou Sander (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the nicest thing I've heard lately. Thanks, Lou! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know these folks' motivation. My working hypothesis is that they are very young, and this is a place where grownups have to listen to them. Their incessant scolding and sarcasm are probably a passing along of what they get themselves at home and school. A child learns what he lives. Lou Sander (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have this lame, childish "let's call everyone who disagrees with us a 'troll' and get them banned" attitude. You would think that if they were so sure of their position, they wouldn't rely on tactics to remove opponents from the discussion, that they would let their superior argument help form consensus. Instead they annoy everyone at AN/I. They seem to prefer drama over compromise.

By the way, I've noticed at least one account seems to be a SPA who just seems to be here to edit the Sheldrake article. And several accounts have less than 1,000 edits, for what it's worth.

And, since I don't know where you stand, I assume that given the people trying to get you blocked, Lou, that you are either sympathetic or neutral about Sheldrake? When I read over the Talk Page comments a week or two ago, I didn't notice your remarks (sorry). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they ARE very insecure in their arguments, and thus the childish behavior. I'm basically neutral on Sheldrake. I've read some of his books and find them interesting. I'm open to all kinds of alternative ideas, but they don't loom very large in my life. On Wikipedia, I just want to get Sheldrake a fair BLP article, written neutrally. It's not appropriate, IMHO, when the section on his books starts off with "He has been criticized for writing books for the general public, rather than going through the peer review process," based on some critical quote from The Guardian. I REALLY dislike it when that stuff creeps into the lead. They can't just say "he challenges some basic tenets of modern science" without following it up with "he thinks perpetual motion machines are possible, and everybody knows that perpetual motion machines are impossible, the idiot" (or words to that effect). The editors think that every time something from him is said, it has to be balanced by something from the mainstream. That may be their legitimate understanding, or maybe it's just part of their crusade. My comments on the talk page are usually brief, so they tend to get drowned out by the endless blather. Lou Sander (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Lou, you sound radically, radically neutral. Wanting to give Sheldrake a fair BLP article, now that's totally fringe and outrageous! No wonder they want you topic banned, it actually sounds like you might do something constructive like creating a better article instead of joining in with the incessant squabbling.

Maybe we do share the same point of view. Damn, now I'm on their hit list, too. I know my dull, routine work categorizing actors and philosophers is skirting sanctions of some kind. Well, I know I'll make a mistake sooner or later that can be dressed up in bows, ribbons and diffs and taken to AN/I. And just when I was getting into an editing rhythm. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're absolutely right, Keithbob. I'll undo it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

LOL! Well, Kevin I do a lot of work with categorization. I find it satisfies my need for putting things in order, I learn a lot and there are some big projects that need to be done regarding gender categorization. For a while, I was picking a nationality and changing all of the "actors" to "male actors" since the powers that be decided to use "actresses" so we need to place men in a similar gendered category.

I'm not sure what led me to look at philosophers but I noted there were only about 225 women philosophers currently in that category, so that is a manageable problem that I could work on. For example, there is another category change I need to get to eventually that has over 1200 articles to change and that just seems like such a large number to take on. Maybe one day!

Regarding Jimbo, I know people hate animated gifs but I thought that one was so funny and, since you have to linger on the page a few moments before he pops in, not everyone would see it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think it is great you are working on articles on women philosophers. Some of the ones that Wikipedia does have are no more than stubs. I'd love to know more about Collegium of Black Women Philosophers, that sounds like an interesting group. I'll see if they have an online presence. L.

• Only 225, and I've written probably 30 of them in the recent past... kind of depressing ;) The Collegium does have some online presence, and there's been enough coverage of them in various places that they'd pass the GNG fairly easily. I'll hopefully get around to writing an article about them eventually, but decided to go ahead and start with people. Further depressing fact pulled from an article by Kathryn Gines: there are less than thirty Black women with phds in philosophy working in academia in the US today. You could, quite literally, fit all of them in a classroom together. Black capitalized per Kathryn's logic in her essay about the founding of the collegium. Let me know if you feel like writing about the Collegium (or anything else) and need me to pull articles for you if you don't have access to an academic library :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I spent half of my life in academia but right now, I'm not affiliated with a university and my own library is boxed up so references are inaccessible (and I don't have much faith in online sources unless it's news). Maybe when I get more confidence, I'll work on article creation. Even though I see hundreds of badly written, insubstantial, unreferenced articles as I traverse through Wikipedia, I've seen newly-created, starter articles get deleted every day. So, I want to make sure I have the necessary resources to write a decent article.

But thanks for the offer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I realize that, Yworo. In fact, it is harder for an academic to have a Wikipedia article than it is for a 19 year old back-up dancer for Justin Bieber. What I was thinking is that for two days now, I've been going through dozens of BLP articles on philosophers and, I gotta say, some of them have less information on them than Iveković had on hers.

Now, it's not in my nature or Wiki habits to tag a dozen articles on philosophers and take them to AfD, especially when every single episode of Seinfeld has its own page. I think having mediocre listings on some Continental philosophers is infinitely more valuable to the world than having a complete listing of every Pokemon character.

So, while I'll admit that you likely have WP guidelines on your side in deleting this article, there is a whole lot of content on Wikipedia that is completely insignificant and insubstantial and I don't believe that having a profile of a Croatian Buddhist philosopher is even on that list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, we have a very strict biography of living persons policy. And we should. If she were deceased, it'd be different. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a shame she isn't dead. J/K. I explained my position, Yworo, you do what you have to do and I'll keep categorizing philosophers. I have a work to do.

Thanks for taking the time to come to my Talk Page and explain your side of the situation. Lots of Editors are not that thoughtful and I do appreciate it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on... Editors who know how to do categories properly rock! Yworo (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are quick, they are usually straight-forward and uncontroversial and there aren't people watchlisting categories, leaping to revert edits. They are not very social but sometimes, that's a blessing. Also, they can bring visibility to little known phenomena...who knew there were several noteworthy Lithuanian women philosophers? I didn't until today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ketxus, I'm not sure what you are asking me to help you with or who RolandR is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Liz, it is not easy to explain. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketxus (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lou Sander: I'm not familiar with Rescher. In my 20s, I studied with Jacob Needleman but his Wikipedia article is pitiful. I'm surprised his students haven't made it more substantial. I guess I'll get around to doing that one day. He's had a long career.

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)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: What is this about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ANI, N94228 asked: "If I will be blocked for racism\vandalism\reason will my article be killed or they will stay in Wiki?" You answered that if the article contained racism or vandalism, it would probably be deleted. The article is not racist. However, the author is engaged in disruptive editing, is exhibiting ownership behavior, and is being a diva without an entourage. The author is likely to get blocked, not for racism, but for disruptive editing. Is that an answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:, thanks for the reference, it didn't ring a bell. Now I remember. I didn't look into the user or her/his contributions, I was just answering the question of if an Editor is blocked, are the articles they worked on deleted. It sounds like she/he might be heading for a block if they are being disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so that the question about whether the article will be deleted is the wrong question, and the right question is whether the editor will be blocked unless there is a change in behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Yes, it's usually a bad sign when an Editor calls it "my article". Staying off the noticeboards today and getting so much work done! Have a good weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.—Odysseus1479 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odysseus, please read WP:EGRS. Ethnic, gender, religion and sexual orientation categories are "non-diffusing" categories. That means, for example, that football wide receiver Dez Bryant is listed under both Category:Dallas Cowboys players and Category:African-American players of American football. Agatha Christie is not only in Category:English mystery writers but also Category:Women mystery writers.

Gender, race and ethnicity categories do not exclude the person from also being listed in the parent category. So, Ayn Rand is both in Category: American philosophers and also Category: American women philosophers (and both Category: Women novelists, Category: Jewish novelists as well as Category: 20th-century American novelists, too).

This not only is general practice but there was a big media to-do about this very issue back in Spring 2013 where Wikipedia got a lot of bad press for segregating women into gender-only categories. So, women authors were only listed as Category: Women novelists and Category: Novelists only contained male authors. A lot of work has been done over the past six months to rectify this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I hadn’t come across the “non-diffusing“ concept before. The Rand example is pertinent, but I don’t see the relevance of Bryant or Christie, because none of those categories includes the other. (Indeed, I note Bryant is not included in American players of American football—an oversight?) Anyway, I’ll restore the ‘parents’ at C. de P. & tag the ‘daughter’ categories accordingly.—Odysseus1479 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

Hello Liz, How can I remove a tag, correctly? Thank You (Ketxus (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ketxus, you can go to the Edit tab at the top of the page to edit most aspects of an article.

Can you give me an example that I can look at? Then I could give you specific advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See please the article Joxe Azurmendi It has a tag about "self-published sources", so I added more independent sources. I don´t know if I can remove the tag now.(Ketxus (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You have provided links to a few websites, which is nice, but an article about an academic really needs more secondary, print material (books, journal articles, encyclopedias, newspapers, etc.). If you don't have access to a library, you can sometimes find useful material at Google Books or Google Scholar.

I don't think you have added enough to remove the tag right now. But the tag was just put on three days ago and won't lead to an immediate removal of the article. I encourage you to keep working on it...it's a challenge but it will really improve the article! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I learned a lot with you about wikipedia. You are very kind.(Ketxus (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I'm not sure how much I helped, Ketxus! The thing about Wikipedia is that a great deal of it is rarely reviewed. There are over 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone! An article might go a year or two (or longer!) without any Editor touching it. But when an article does get scrutinized, the expected standards of writing are actually quite high, reliable sources are required to validate all claims, especially when they involve a BLP (biography of a living person). So, with your article, someone has noted that it doesn't meet the desired standards and a tag is just a notice to attract Editors to put in a little effort to improve it. But the article has not been nominated for deletion so that's acknowledgment that it's already has a lot going for it, it just could be better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Hispanic and Latino actor categories

[edit]

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)[reply]

Don't worry, John Pack Lambert. I was just offering a contrasting perspective in that conversation. And I hope there also isn't a move to delete entire actor categories without discussion on the actors' WikiProject either. See you at CfD! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldrake/Telekinesis

[edit]

Funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOxlSOr3_M Lou Sander (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the change to my talk page

[edit]

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)[reply]

You're not being rude, Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, . You have every right to have your Talk Page appear as you wish. I apologize for my attempts to "clean up" the page. I had thought you were a new Editor and were unfamiliar with Talk Page formatting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney ANI

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2

[edit]

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)[reply]

Feel free to drop me a note.

[edit]

milesmoney.m2h1n3@gmail.com MilesMoney (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, I wish you wouldn't flounce away and quit, especially when you have friends here arguing on your behalf. Specifico, especially, is speaking up for you, repeatedly, arguing against your topic ban. But you seem to be resigned to quitting so I guess my words are unlikely to have any effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to respond by email, but you have not registered an email address for this use. If you wish, drop me a note by email and I will respond there. MilesMoney (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, there are more people who I don't want to receive email from than people I want to correspond with. As you have learned, it's easy to get on the wrong side of people here. Thanks for trusting me with your email address. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in invading your privacy. I was warned that any public comment I make about the ANI would be analyzed in bad faith, taken out of context, and generally used against me, so I would have preferred to speak privately. The email account I gave out is the one I made especially for Wikipedia, and you could have likewise created a Wikipedia-specific one. For what it's worth, I recommend that you do so, regardless of me.

As for me, I've broken my silence on ANI, so it doesn't really matter anymore. I'll take a look at your earlier comments and see if they still need replying to. MilesMoney (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"England, UK" vs "England"

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wow, Bretonbanquet, is this still being discussed? Thanks for letting me know. All I want is a definite decision, one way or the other! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor brought it up again without informing me, not that he was obliged to, I suppose. The discussion seems to be alive again...! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Editor who was removing UK from all England locations still doing it or did it stop? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has stopped, but is basically asking if he can start again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little shocked that he is asking for approval since before he just "went with it", whole hog, without ever inquiring about it on a noticeboard or Talk Page. Glad he is taking a different route this time around. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still more than a touch surprised that no admins are even raising an eyebrow at his editing patterns. It's this kind of thing that makes Wikipedia look rather ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

[edit]

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!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Much appreciated! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'tis the season

Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

[edit]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4. Our final nine were as follows:

1. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
2. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
3. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
4. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
5. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
6. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
7. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
8. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4
9. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4, for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant4 the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

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)[reply]

NBA awards categories

[edit]

Hi, could you please add the basketball awards discussion notifications at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association as well? I would but I do not know how to do that. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suuuuuuure, Hoops gza. ;-) It was kind of complicated but at this point, I can copy and paste what I posted at WikiProject Basketball. Thanks for being open to hearing the voices of others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For opposing a lengthy ban on a broad range of articles despite supporting some sort of ban. Moderation is a rare thing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How unexpected, MilesMoney! Even though I disagree with you on, well, just almost everything, I think you offer a unique perspective to Wikipedia. I don't want you to quit editing, I just want you to work harder at consensus (i.e. try to play nicely with others!). Short bans can reinforce good behavior, lengthy bans or bans that basically forbid an Editor from contributing to their main subjects of interest, simply drive Editors away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point: you acted in good faith. By opposing a fatal ban, you showed that, whatever your concerns were, this wasn't just a way to get rid of me. Contrast this with the participants who've revealed through words and actions that this is their goal.

Given how good a job Wikipedia does at driving away contributors, your willingness to work with even those you disagree with is the sort of reasonable attitude that, if only it were more common, might reverse the decline of this site. Or, realistically, if only admins shut down these assassination attempts instead of enabling them.

In any case, I would have given this Barnstar to you sooner, but I wanted to wait until the report was locked down, so that it wouldn't appear as if this was an attempt to sway you. I genuinely wish the you best of luck, as you have been a Wikipedia rarity: an honorable opponent. MilesMoney (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know this is heresy but, as a sociologist, the process of creating the encyclopedia is as important to me as the actual content. Wikis are a modern invention, a unique effort of group collaboration. They often succeed when they focus on a specific topic (like a TV show or a programming language) and there is a homogeneous group of like-minded individuals. But the fact that Wikipedia tries to take on every aspect of knowledge, well, it is a miracle that it is still up and running and hasn't imploded, especially considering that there are individuals actively trying to disrupt it through vandalism.

I'm not sure if you've read about the wisdom of crowds, but crowd sourcing works when there is a wide diversity of perspectives, attitudes and talents. It's not just having a large group of people, each devoting a little time to create some big project but the fact that they represent so many different points of view that it can cancel out bias, particularly cultural bias which is invisible almost everyone.

Thanks again for the compliment. It's a nice antidote to the rancor one comes across on the noticeboards. Have a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Liz. Nobody can stand Miles. He's so feisty. But he's one of the best and most productive editors and knowledgeable in a broad range of content. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I wouldn't expect you to say that, SPECIFICO, since you are such a loyal defender. I was just reading the user page of a particularly productive editor and their main piece of advice? Stay away from AN/I! The drama boards are a time sink, they suck all of your energy and leave one with the feeling that Wikipedia is going to hell.

Meanwhile, there are thousands of Editors, making contributions and going about their business, not lodging complaints, putting in the time and effort to get the articles in better shape, reverting vandalism, finding citations, editing awkward language into smooth prose. It's definitely not as exciting as going to battle but, you know, these Editors tend to last longer on Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not afraid to stand my ground but I am selective about the battles I take on. It helps to be a little detached from your work...it's not easy but it helps it not to sting when someone chooses to delete something you just wrote. Still stings a little. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement. Miles is like the young mongrel puppy who has two different ears, a bristly coat, and keeps running in circles with too much energy. However I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's a Rhodes Scholar as well. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I appreciate how you bring empathy and subtlety to these pages. Both of those are extraordinarily rare in ANIs. Steeletrap (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Steeletrap, that's refreshing to hear. I get my share of grief (as I imagined you do, too) for defending Editors that others have written off as "disruptive". In fact, I was told that in defending one person, I was "just as bad as he was" and, according to this Editor, that was pretty damn awful! I don't think long-time users of Wikipedia realize the amount of insider jargon, standards, history and practices which are unknown to newer Editors. After 4, 5, 8 years of blocking vandals, even mild rabble-rousers start looking like potential vandals to some Admins (not all, but a few!).

I know when I've done vast amounts of grading or copy-editing, that it's easy to ignore what is normal while ones eye is drawn to errors or whatever seems like it doesn't fit in. Whatever deviates from normal is exaggerated and, on Wikipedia, mild irritations become suddenly intolerable. I spent a fair amount of my academic life studying deviancy and one core concept is that once a person becomes "labeled", others treat them differently (usually negatively). So, I am really antsy when I see labels like "troll", "sock", "vandal" or "fringe" thrown around, usually just to see if they stick. They are labels that are difficult to overcome once a critical number of influential people in ones social circle accepts that it is an accurate description. </soapbox> Any way, have a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, as a trans woman, I am all too well acquainted with the notion of the "Other" to which you are alluding. Miles is different from most people; all too often we are threatened by those who are different and seek to banish them rather than try to understand and find a place for them. Steeletrap (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a trans woman, Steeletrap, there is all the more reason why a project like Wikipedia needs your participation and to hear your perspective. My hope is that none of the Three Musketeers faces a block from editing the site but I can't tell which way the wind is blowing right now among the Admin crew. They have little patience when a dispute seems persistent and unlikely to be resolved. It helps to have allies who support you in these Noticeboard disputes. But what is even better than that is for those involved in a conflict to go through Dispute Resolution and find some way to work with each other. From what I've seen, in a "Last Person Standing" battle, there are often no winners. Peace. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-30

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict

[edit]

If you want to cut through to the core of the dispute; it boils down to basic organization more so than any concrete policy issue. Ryulong doesn't believe there should be different articles for anime and manga. I point to Harry Potter and how the movies and books are covered; noting that despite a very faithful adaptation different articles exist. The latest issues are amongst the largest and most notable of all anime. Each one more than 100 hours long and making hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The Wikiproject is highly aligned against adaptations and their respective cast lists, reception, non-English dubs, music, themes and production segments. These are all segments that are perfect for stand alone articles. We can't even discuss a set index or disamb for Ghost in the Shell because Ryulong wants the manga to be page despite being part of 30+ works containing the name and a film and video game using the same name. And rather than let it take a natural form, listings of the media, even briefly, get removed as "not important".[8] There needs to be an intervention. Arb Com or not; hundreds of articles are affected and the entire scope of the project is deeply affected by the handful of editors of A&M who follow Ryulong's lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I don't know who is right and who is wrong, I just sense that if you and Ryulong show up one more time at AN/I, you'll both get blocked. I know nothing about anime or manga and I assume most Editors don't either so the details of the dispute are lost on me. All I notice are you and Ryulong at AN/I at least once a week, for the past two months. AN/I isn't a place to settle content issues. My advice is either go back to dispute resolution or file a request at ARBCOM but these weekly visits to AN/I are going to backfire soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I did not anticipate Knowledgekid's bring it to ANI - I was not informed or contacted prior to it. I sent a message inquiring about ArbCom yesterday, but pending response and this ANI's closure I believe I will be seeking it. Ryulong doesn't want to sit down and discuss, but Arb Com is not voluntary. These constant little battles over basic policy are disruptive to the community, but I hope you understand that repeatedly blanking and redirecting pages with 40 or more sources rightfully troubles me and my first response is to restore and state "take it to AFD per WP:BLAR". This is what provoked the ANI from Knowledgekid. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've gleaned from participating in a recent ARBCOM case, what's important in presenting a case request is

• Be concise. Do not go on and on, there are strict word limits (I believe 500 words). Do not waste words in a request, you can go into details if a case is accepted. If you go on too long, you will be asked to cut down your stratement. That doesn't start the request off on a positive note.
• Have diffs ready that are examples of the pattern of behavior or interactions that is causing a disruption.
• Do not use a request to make personal attacks. Stay focused on conduct, not personalities.
• Have individuals willing to write brief statements supporting your position.
• It really helps to have evidence that a) you tried, repeatedly, to work things out and b) that you can work constructively with other Editors in fruitful collaborations. Otherwise, it could appear that it is a problem you have working with others.

Just some unasked for advice. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I must admit that this is the last place I wanted this to go, but I suppose I should spend a few hours researching the history and running through everything. I've grown to become a better person and deal with conflict throughout this ordeal. I believe I could get it to about 250 words, but what do you mean by have people willing to write brief statements? And does this run afoul of canvassing? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but you might think about waiting a couple months before filing an Arbcom case. There will be a new committee then and you might have better luck getting it accepted/getting a sensible solution. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #82

[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Events/Press/Blogs
  • Wikidata celebrates its first birthday!
  • Wikidata presentation at the Open Knowledge Workshop Day on November 4th by Wikimedia Suomi
  • Interview with Magnus, a Wikimedia tool creator
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • record held, the one-thousandth property, is created.
  • Wikidata could be a multilingual picture dictionary
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Lattes Platform number, NTA PPN identifier, PTBNP identifier, MusicBrainz Place ID, NLR (Romania) identifier, engine configuration, belongs to jurisdiction, record held, ARICNS, dmoz, scan file, NFPA Reactivity, NFPA Fire, NFPA Health, function/mission, elected holder, voice recording, spoken text audio
  • Newest task forces: Railways task force
• Development
  • Create and remove claim diffs will now show a diff for the WHOLE claim, bug 53142
  • Sitelinks in diffs now have a link to the article
  • ByPropertyLists now also accept lower case propertyids as keys instead of just uppercase
  • WikibaseDatabase extension released to version 0.1
  • Entity descriptions are now included in the search index text
  • Sitelink titles are also included in search index text
  • Further developments on Quantities
  • Fixed the hiding of the remove button when adding a new statement
  • Serialization options have been cleaned up
  • Escape titles on revision history and diff pages
  • Further work on Query and QueryEngine
• Open Tasks for You
  • Update, expand and translate d:Wikidata:Introduction to make it easier for newcomers to understand what Wikidata is all about.
  • Improve some road items in your country by adding some statements to them.
  • Help fix formatting and value issues for a property.
  • Build a bot for one of the "bot requests".
  • Hack on one of these.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Magic Solution

[edit]

But there is a magic solution. It just exists in a different universe, one in which magic works. So please don't be so dismissive of magic solutions. At least they may be the stuff of movies. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the solution that was being proposed whose proponent thought it was so obvious that he didn't even repost it, so that an opponent had to repost it, isn't a solution to any problems of which I am aware. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this has to do with your comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales in response to an absurdly complicated reform proposal. You said that there was no magic solution. It is a magic solution in search of a problem in an alternate universe. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]