Jump to content

User talk:Liz/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2014

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #116

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

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Judeo-Christian topics II

Dear Liz, the CfD about Judeo-Christian topics has been closed with a decision to keep the category. Apart from that, what is your opinion about my statement in this discussion that the category has been polluted with many articles that do not seem to belong there? Very specifically, would you mind if I would try a cleanup - or do you just entirely disagree with this statement? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #117

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

This Month in Education: July 2014



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed in the archives.

14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Intro to tools for wiki-research

Hi Liz! Prompted in part by your question on Siko's talk page a while back, I'm going to be doing a series of webinars about getting started with wiki research. They're geared towards helping folks without previous experience with APIs, databases, programming languages, etc. learn the ropes of gathering and analyzing Wikimedia data. The first one is tomorrow at 1500 UTC (8am PDT). If you can't make it to that, the video will be posted on the Wikimedia Program Evaluation channel on YouTube as well. Hope to see you there! Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #118

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

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #119

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

Hi, Liz. You have a link at User:Liz/Whiteboard3 for Toolserver replacements. That link is to User:Anna Frodesiak/Grey sandbox, which, as you can see, is now deleted. The new link is Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops. A thousand pardons. I see the link to that sandbox was just from a userpage paste. Please disregard. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014


Wikidata weekly summary #120

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Blogs/Press
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Created CLI script to import entities into the QueryEngine store (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Querycli.jpg)
    • More work on redirects (should be good to deploy on August 19th)
    • More work on the monolingual datatype
    • Started work on rewriting the sitelinks part of the user interface (that’s the first coding steps of getting us a new user interface design)
    • Final touches on badges (should be good to deploy on August 19th)
  • Monthly Tasks

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

WikiProject Optare tagged as inactive

Hi Liz, I just noticed that in March you tagged WP Optare as inactive, although your edit summary only stated that you were adding a Defaultsort parameter. [1] Can you remember whether you intentionally tagged it as inactive? If so, should we ask WP Buses to take it over, and redirect {{WikiProject Optare}} accordingly? – Fayenatic London 16:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I redirected the template and left a note on both project talk pages. – Fayenatic London 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #121

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

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #122

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Finished a large number of new features and got them ready for roll-out. More in this email.
    • Wikibase made a big step forward to finally switch to DataModel 1.0.
    • Improved support for entity IDs bigger than 2 billion (32 bit integer).
    • We had to adapt Wikibase to some major changes (more major than usual, partly caused by discussions at Wikimania) in MediaWiki core: The default Vector skin became it’s own component and the ResourceLoader got some small but important updates.
    • Continued work on refactoring code of the user interface to make it ready for new design
    • Wrote a script to get number of users having wikidata in their recent changes/watchlist from the database
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
    • Help develop the next summary here

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

This Month in Education: August 2014

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

Discussion at Talk:September_11_attacks#RfC:_Are_conspiracy_theories_relevant_to_the_effects_chapter.3F

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:September_11_attacks#RfC:_Are_conspiracy_theories_relevant_to_the_effects_chapter.3F. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #123

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

Everything OK?

Hi Liz. I see you haven't edited for almost two months. I hope you are well and look forward to seeing you back on WP soon. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD for 2C2P article

Hi Liz, I'm Kate from the 2C2P team. I'm reaching out because you'd recently closed the deletion discussion for 2C2P's article here.

The final decision was to merge with Alipay, but we would like to contest this as 2C2P's solutions are not being folded into the Alipay platform, nor is the 2C2P company itself being folded into Alipay. The Alipay+ cross-border wallet (a different service) will be linked more closely with 2C2P's existing payment gateway to expand the gateway's range of supported payment methods. (This is also what's actually mentioned in the source used for the mention of Alipay integration in the 2C2P article.)

We've also taken note of the original reason noted for nominating the article for deletion as well, which was the need for more substantial coverage, and would also like a chance to edit the article to adhere to Wiki policies better, rather than it being deleted.

We're new to Wikipedia so not quite sure how to proceed, but would the following steps be alright?

  • Reopen the deletion discussion so we can clarify the above point about Alipay integration (if needed); and
  • Suspend the deletion process for the article and allow us to edit with more substantial information/sourcing so that the article can be retained

Apologies if this might not be the right space to raise this -- I'm still getting my bearings around here / familiarising myself with the processes around deletion, and we didn't have time to respond in the deletion discussion as it had already been closed when we saw it. Kateat2C2P (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz sorry, just following up on this. Would it be possible to halt the merger of the 2C2P page with the Alipay page? And what are the proper steps we can take to edit the 2C2P page and have it retained as a separate article?
I've also been to the Talk:Alipay page but not quite sure how to go about discussing the merger there. Would be grateful for your response and guidance on this. Kateat2C2P (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Kateat2C2P I had done the merge regardless. Moving forward, the 2C2P article can still be revived, but should not be just tweaking from its previous form. Although the closure can be challenged at the deletion review venue (if you want to take that step), I suggest otherwise. At least, not immediately. Many long-time editors here don't take promotional articles in a good light, and a deletion review without alternatives presented beforehand (especially if you are paid on the clock to push the agenda, thank you for your upfront disclosure of WP:COI) may likely be summarily dismissed. One advantage of merging over deletion is that the previous revisions are still available for us all to see. You can use the last revision before the merge as a reference point. I suggest recreating a better (version of the) article in your userspace first, i.e. at User:Kateat2C2P/sandbox before putting it through the paces through WP:AFC, where there are experienced editors giving you feedback on how to improve the article.
The issue with the current, or rather, the now redirected article is that it lacked sources that are of significant coverage and depth from reliable, independent news media/sources. The coverage should be ideally independent as well, in addition to indepedent sources. i.e. no press releases, or articles that regurgitate/dressing up press releases. The only noteworthy item for Wikipedia is the upcoming integration with Alipay, even then, news about it is bare, with nothing much beyond the initial news of the acquisition. Yes, you can try clarifying, but it should be back by independent sources, and not from the company.
Hope the above helps. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Robertsky thanks, really appreciate the detailed and helpful response, especially about what changes can be made for the article. Will follow your recommendations and work on a new version, and hopefully we can work with feedback from WP:AFC to get a separate 2C2P article up that meets Wiki notability standards better.
Hi @Liz thanks as well for kindly lending us this space for discussion! Kateat2C2P (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy, Hanbonjovi had modified the archived discussion. Special:Diff/1118652841 with a similar question. Pinging them here for awareness. – robertsky (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Hanbonjovi (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Relgion/bagzzohchip

So we still have Ancient Egyptian Relgion/bagzzohchip in mainspace, but there's a draft in the userpage? Over to you, this one's beyond me... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,
Okay, well, I posted a notice on the editor's talk page saying that if they moved User pages into main space of the project, they were likely to be deleted. But this one was moved before I left my message. So, I moved it back to User space. I just think if we are told to give vandals 2 or 3 warnings before they are blocked, we should give new editors at least 1 warning before deleting their page creations. If I can be blunt, not all admins examine CSD-tagged pages very carefully and just delete them so I told the editor if they did this again, the pages might very well be deleted the next time.
You know, we go through this every semester with a few student editors who seem to think their coursework is good enough for main space. I'm just afraid that they will need their articles in order to get a grade for their course so I might go to extra lengths not to delete them before the semester is over. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I tried to move it to userspace but it wouldn't budge! As I said over on my talk, I'd not seen this sort of thing before so just read it as a page creation disaster. Which it sort of is, but with reason I can now see! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Alexandermcnabb,
I don't understand why you would have a problem, you have the page mover right. I would think you could move a page back to its original location over a redirect. Is this not so? Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that should be the way it works. Dunno. Like so many things, it passeth understanding. But fixed now, so... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
(I did try taking a look back but between Bag0hchipz, bagzzohchip and Bagohchipzz and 'religion' and 'relgion' I got brain skitter and decided to go do something more productive!) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
As for giving vandals two or three warnings, I routinely indefinitely block obvious vandalism only accounts on sight without any warnings. I feel the same way about utterly inappropriate crap in draft and sandbox space and especially in mainspace. The community entrusted us with the power and authority to take out the trash promptly. That is what I do when I see garbage. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Cullen328, I believe that this was a student editor in a course tied with Wikipedia and every semester, a few editors think their school projects are good enough to be put into main space (and they aren't). The WMF helpers like Ian catch most of them and move them back to User space but we go to these first this time. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Over a decade ago, I served as a Wikipedia Ambassador to several university classes and actually visited a classroom at my alma mater, the University of San Francisco, to introduce the students to Wikipedia's policies. procedures and social norms. I believed then what I believe now: students are welcome to edit Wikipedia in compliance with our policies and guidelines, but they are entitled to exactly zero exemptions or leniency from enforcement of our policies and guidelines. They are not "special" in any way whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A bold move!

I appreciate the help (and am looking for more help); I am sort of new at this and I did take a bold step in trying something new; I hope I am not causing too much chaos with a "bold move" of an article on my part The new user tool suggested I edit NVK Sakha and it did not look right to me having a long standing "multiple issues" tag, a dead link leading to the station (with little support to be found other than a listing of the broadcaster) a more inclusive article (reading the docs in WP:RM the terminology might be "primary topic.") from the same author existed; I liked the CSD tag because it allowed for easy reversion (simply by someone removing the tag). this way I would not be doing any harm as there was a process for evaluating something I considered to be radical.

Removing CSD tag, this doesn't look like a good move to make. Have an article talk page discussion or go to WP:RM

I could start a talk page section or "subst:requested move|NewName|reason"

If I ask for a WP:RM what is the process?

I would guess the talk page is the easier path; with the move tag also driving a discussion? (If I go the RM path I will be flopping around a bit with the learning curve, but that is not a bad thing)

What would you do? I am leaning to notes in the talk page? I am just working my way through the complexity.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Flibbertigibbets,
First, please slow down. You are throwing a lot of questions at me, I look at hundreds of pages a day and I had to go back to figure out what you were talking about.
I untagged NVK Sakha because we don't move long-standing articles like Sakha, which has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, to a different page title through a CSD speedy deletion request. If you want to move this article to a different title, you better have a very convincing reason to do so. Start a discussion on Talk:Sakha or make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. But you are going to have to persuade other editors that this is a good idea we don't randomly move a long-standing article to a different title because of one editor's opinion.
But I really think you need to bring your questions about editing policy and page moves to the Teahouse. This is a forum for new editors to ask experienced editor their opinion and for advice. It's a friendly place and instead of just hearing my opinion, you would receive advice from a larger group of Teahouse hosts. I highly recommend it. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Let us break bread together

The article on Let us break bread together is back.

dino (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, dino,
What a lovely hymn from my childhood. Nice job! Was this article previously deleted? I looked through the AFD archives and couldn't find a previous deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sindel

Hey there. I think this should have been relisted, as no one else has !voted since my evidence of notability. All there was was the opener of the AFD voicing their disagreement. More time should have been given to see if consensus would turn around after the sources I provided. MoonJet (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MoonJet,
I think the outcome will be the same but I'll relist it for another week. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of April 8

Hi Liz. Thanks for the welcome. I see you deleted the Talk page for the non-existent article Solar eclipse of April 8, which I'm sure was a reasonable decision based on some policy somewhere. I have to ask, though, whether you actually read the talk before deleting it? It consisted of a polite request for someone to create a redirect from the non-existent article page to the actual article: Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024. Even if you were 100% sure that such a redirect was a terrible idea, and 100% sure that the wiki shouldn't have such requests "littering" its Talk pages, it would have been more polite to leave a little note on the Talk page explaining your viewpoint, then waiting a few days to see if anyone disagreed. Could you please reconsider the request to add a redirect, since (as I explained on the Talk page) some software can't correctly parse URLs with commas in, and I think that a lot of people will be searching for "solar eclipse of april 8" next year, so this will help them find the right article. If you're happy to implement that redirect, then I'm happy for the Talk page to stay deleted. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.245.56 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 51.6.245.56,
Yes, I read your question on Talk:Solar eclipse of April 8 before deleting the page. But "orphaned talk pages" are deleted as CSD G8. Creating a talk page where there is no article is not a place to get a question answered because no one will ever see your question except for the admin who is there to delete the page. Try asking at a regular, related article talk page or on a WikiProject talk page, where there are editors who have the page on their Watchlists who can answer your question. Or try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science where there are editors available who can either answer your question or point you in the right direction. There are plenty of forums here where your question might receive some response but creating a random Talk page where there is no article is not an effective way at finding an answer because the editors who might know will not even see that page.
If you ever have questions about editing on Wikipedia, where you can find resources or anything else, I recommend you bring them to the Teahouse which is yet another noticeboard where there are experienced editors who can offer you advice and support. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Liz. Obviously I'm not familiar with all these policies and processes, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me and give me some options. It sounds like what I should have done is make my suggestion on the page I wanted the redirect to point to rather than from. I'm not sure why the UI offers a Talk page for non-existent pages, if the talk is just going to get deleted, and I think it's a little sad that people have the motivation and ability to delete requests without either acting on them or moving them to somewhere more appropriate, but I understand that we're all just volunteers trying to do our best, and Wikipedia wasn't built in a day.  :-) Thanks again for the guidance. 51.6.245.56 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Flip Mark

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2022 October 28; I moved the Hathorn version to a temp page, and then moved a rewrite into place from the temp page and requested for the copyvio version to be deleted. I also have no idea where the rewrite went, so I ask for that to be restored. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sennecaster,
I'll admit, I might have messed things up there as I was trying to figure out what was going on with these two pages. In general, I think that, unless it is an obvious copyright violation, marked CSD G12, admins who regularly handle copyright problems, like Mer-C, should handle these pages rather than tagging them as CSD G6s. For admins, like myself, who patrol CSD categories, it's confusing to figure out what is going on and G6s are supposed to be for Uncontroversial cleanup and I couldn't figure out why the pages had been moved to Temp or Talk pages and why a User page was in there when the original article had existed there for so long. Sometimes, pages with copyright problems are cleaned up rather than deleted. So, I might have made a mistake moving everything back to it's original location. But CSD is meant for obvious problems and this was far from obvious to me.
In hindsight, I should have left it all for another admin to sort out. But with tricky cases like this, it might be better to approach admins who are familiar with these kinds of problems rather than tagging them for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, CSD G6 is kind of a generic, ambiguous deletion category so a lot of pages get tagged with this criteria that should be better handled with a more specific criteria or by contacting an admin who understands the issues. Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I would honestly leave it to other admins, but considering that MER-C is the only admin that regularly checks WP:CP, I tend to try to handle as much as possible by myself since I'm one of the clerks at CPN. This time, I think I messed up by putting it on a different temp page of the talk; I've previously left the rewrite on Draft:Move/ or even on the temp page, and most of the admins that have handled my taggings afterwards saw what was going on and acted on it. I've also been told off for tagging G12 on the presumptive deletions even for rewrites, so I really don't know what to do here except "leave it for an admin" when I could easily fix it myself save for the final deletion. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Promising draft

I'm about to REFUND Draft:Daniel Spellbound. I noticed it has a "promising draft" request that it not be G13 deleted, but that you had deleted it anyway. Was this intentional or accidental? (I'm fine either way... I'm more asking if I happen to come across this later on another article.) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, UtherSRG,
Oh, that was accidental! There is really no policy about Promising Drafts that I know of but my habit is to postpone CSD G13 deletion once. After going 12 months without any editing activity, I assume that no one is interested in improving these drafts. You would think that the editors who tag a draft as "promising" would come back and work on those drafts but they don't. We have a category that just contains promising drafts but I've found no evidence that any content creators/developers check it out and work on drafts that have been tagged as promising which is a pity. But judging what is "promising" is also highly subjective and I've found some of the drafts with that label are not well-written but happen to be on a subject of interest to the page tagger.
But, yes, it was an accident. In the end, whether you are an inclusionist or deletionist, I think what we all want is more high-quality articles so I am in favor of restoring drafts whenever there is an editor who wants to work on one, as long as it doesn't contain advertising, or BLP or copyright violations. But thanks for checking with me. The other admin who deletes a lot of expiring drafts is Explicit and I've seen that he postpones deletion for promising drafts at least one time, I'm not sure if he does this repeatedly. There are a couple of editors who tag expiring drafts and now that I think of it, I should really check in with them about delaying promising drafts. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Cool. I was hoping it was something along these lines. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up on my talk page. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Comte0,
No problem! Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your work in draft space. I moved Jane-Baptiste Monnot to article space because there is enough referenced content for an article. I'm glad that you postponed the G13 deletion. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

NLT issue

Howdy! Please take a look at the first "October 2022" heading (started by Qzd) at [2], in which a patently COI user is threatening to start suing for libel. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Julietdeltalima,
Thank you for catching this and alerting me. It looks like Bbb23 got to them before I did. I believe that she made a lot of claims in her edits that are false but the legal threats are crossing a line into block territory. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ⓒ (technical rename)

Could you explain what's plausible about including the phrase "(technical rename)" in a redirect title? * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, * Pppery *,
To be honest, I don't know what it means. But I do know that we have redirects that have (technical rename) in their page titles. I saw some others come up for deletion the other day. I think they are used for redirects that are symbols and are non-alphabetic characters. I think this might warrant a quick discussion with the page creator who probably knows more about this than I do so I'll ping MB and see what he can add to this discussion and let us know the purpose of "technical rename" in the page title. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
What they normally are is leftovers from the Unicode 11 case map migration. But I thought all of them except for User talk:Dzoo (technical rename) (which I moved to the correct place manually and CSD tagged a leftover redirect) were cleaned up beforehand, and I have no idea why someone would recreate a page with that title several days after the migration was complete. That page and its talk page are currently the only pages with that phrase in the title.
I see the creator explained on the talk page of the redirect that this is mentioned in the hatnote at Enclosed C and has been so. I was fixing errors detected by Category:Missing redirects - but it isn't - the hatnote on Enclosed C has never mentioned the term anywhere. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I really don't know what is going on here. Enclosed C has two characters in the hatnote (the upper case and lower case versions). I didn't see any recent edits to the hatnote, but the article appeared in Category:Missing redirects. If I remember right, I created the missing redirect using just the symbol as it appears in the hatnote. There seemed to be no more missing redirect. Now I don't see any evidence in the log that I created that redirect as I remember it, and I can't get to it because when I click on ⓒ, it redirects but clicking on the redirected from link takes me to the upper case redirect. I'm not sure why the log shows I created Ⓒ (technical rename) on 10/27 because I think I created ⓒ. I did recreate Ⓒ (technical rename) today only because I saw it got deleted. If there are no hatnote errors without it, it can be deleted. MB 04:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
MB, what is the purpose of the "technical rename" in the page title. I've seen that term in other redirects recently, but I believe it was that term that caused Pppery to tag the page for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Pppery knows more about that than I do. As I said, I thought I created ⓒ. I'm a bit confused here. Sorry I can't be of more help. MB 05:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Liz, if you look at the deleted history, it should fill things in a bit: This page's title was previously ⓒ—that title is now identical to Ⓒ, much as c is identical to C, but Wikimedia's implementation of MediaWiki treated them as the same until the 27th. Tim Starling deleted the lowercase title as invalid, and then MB recreated it before things were finalized, so the Maintenance script moved the redirect to its current title and deleted it (as it's programmed to do when the "(technical rename)" title and title proper are the same). Then MB created it again, creating this situation. I'm not sure what happened that led to MB creating that page when he was apparently trying to create something else, but if he's saying he didn't mean to, it seems to me that this is valid to delete as any of R3, G6, or G7. I'll note that last time we had a bunch like this, Legoktm G6'd all of them, but for one that needed RfD for reasons not applicable here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The redirect has now been sent to RfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a G6 case. "(technical rename)" is a placeholder, those pages need to be reconciled or deleted, they should not exist long-term. Legoktm (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

greetings to the Kittenmaster --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How to make article?

Help me through this. 37.252.89.119 (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of ProShare page

Good afternoon.

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Would you please review the decision to delete this article (08:38, 27 October 2022). ProShare is a highly respected UK membership organisation, which lobbies the UK Government to foster Employee Share Ownership. Had I seen the proposal to delete this page in time I would have commented accordingly - it was only when I sought to refer to it today that I noticed the deletion. Sir Lunchalot (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Pontevedra Viva

Hello Liz,

As the paragraphs based on primary sources have been removed in the article Pontevedra Viva, and the two remaining sources cited in the References are secondary, could the tag

be removed ?

Thank you and best regards--MJSB73MP (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Sdkb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

  • added
  • readded
  • removed

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Liz. I’d appreciate it if you reached out to my on my talk page or by email to ask about my intentions before stating in an AFD that I went to Discord in an attempt to bypass AFD. You see my name there regularly. You know or ought to know by now that I am respectful and behave in a way that shows I follow rules or at least do my best. I’ve only been a patroller for two months. If I drafted incorrectly it was due to error, not attempting to go around protocols. I’ve demonstrated nothing but politeness and the ability to take your quite regular feedback onboard, and will continue to do so. I do expect that you will assume I tried to do the right thing. “Bypassing” AFD is not the right thing. I would not do that intentionally. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)v

Hello, MaxnaCarta,
I appreciate the work you do on the project and I'm sorry if I used incorrect language to make my point. But I don't understand why you did what you did. A few hours after a bundled nomination of articles is made at AFD, you move most of the pages to Draft space? Were these articles not tagged with AFD tags? Did you not see the tags? If you review Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, you'll see it states that an article can be improved during an AFD discussion but it shouldn't be moved/draftified, turned into a redirect or merged during an AFD discussion, before the closure decision. At least one editor in that AFD discussion wants to Keep these articles so do we undo all of your draftifications? Can you see that by you taking action, you are ignoring the opinions of other discussion participants and imposing your own opinion on what should happen? Since you and the nominator discussed this nomination on Discord, I could only conclude that this was some action you undertook after that discussion. Can you give me a better understanding of why you moved these articles to Draft space during an AFD discussion and when it occurred to you that this would be an okay action to take?
While I'm upset, because it ties my hands as an AFD closer, I think that this is a mistake that an editor only makes once. I believe you have good intentions in your work here and you are open to criticism and are eager to learn how to edit more effectively so I hope this can be a learning experience for us both. I will go look at the statement I made in the discussion relisting and alter it if it seems unfair. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
TLDR: I stuffed up, and in future if I stuff up again, please just undo my error and let me know. See me do something weird - it was an accident, not intentionally trying to break rules
------
At the thread, you will see that I admit to definitely, 100% screwing up. I do screw up. While I indeed hope not to make the same mistake again, I probably will make an error again in the future and I take absolutely zero issue at all in being corrected, just so long as you assume incompetence and do not think I intended to bypass. The first is fine. I'm an NPP noob. but rest assured, if I do something that makes you scratch your head I am just temporarily clueless and not trying to be sneaky.
I rushed and should not have. The problem was that the new editor made so many codes in one go I lost count as to how many there were. The ones I drafted did not have AFD tags on them because the nominator had only nommed one article, and then just listed the others as a multiple afd nom. This is of course procedurally fine, but it doesn't add tags to the article. Anyway, I just panic because I hate the idea of getting negative attention or stepping on anyone's toes. I get anxious, but never angry. I'm happy to make errors and be corrected because it's a learning thing - but I just wanted to make clear to you I definitely did not mean to just take matters into my own hands, that is all. I know there are certain areas where there is a black and white rule - and during an AFD the article I know we do not draft or redirect it.
What I thought had happened was:
1. Mass list of codes made.
2. I initially approve one, then see how many there are and discuss in Discord. Perhaps people have in the past turned to others to try and drum up support for a nefarious plan. I was just wandering what to do and go about it.
3. I drafted some of them.
4. AFD was made. One particular code got tagged with AFD template, the rest did not because they were just added as a list.
5. I have voted to draft everything nommed.
6. I have then gone through the NPP feed and started drafting anything in there without an AFD tag, not bothering to check if the article was one of those listed in the AFD. This is where I went wrong and my attention to detail lacked there.
7. Quite some time has gone by, and I have woken up, seen your mention of me at the AFD, and panicked thinking I was perceived as just idk...going rogue and trying to do things off book. 🤪
I hope you notice I do not and will not make the same mistake twice. I have to press buttons more slowly. I think I got caught up in the race of the backlog drive.
"Can you see that by you taking action, you are ignoring the opinions of other discussion participants and imposing your own opinion on what should happen?"
Yes - and while what has happened is not ideal, most of the votes have been for drafting, so hopefully no harm done. Otherwise, I am very happy to go undo all my drafts. You undid one of my closes the other day, and I took no issue. I misapplied policy. But you just fixed my mistake and let me know. I'd have been very happy if I'd woken up to "MC, no idea what you did, but you drafted after they were nominated, so I have undone, thnx".
If there is one thing I dislike about Wikipedia is that there is no private forum to have a chat, that's all I meant when I posted here today.
Thanks Liz, have a blessed day and hopefully this is the last stuff up I have for a while. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@Liz I didn’t hear back from you further. I hope it’s all good now. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy rename/merge category

Please see my proposal to speedy rename Category: Aluminum smelters (which you edited) to Category: Aluminium smelters Hugo999 (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hugo999,
I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. These are two existing categories. I can't change the name of a category to one that already exists. That name is already taken. Plus they both have pages in these categories, who will recategorize them and are you thinking about combining the categories? I think what you are proposing is actually a category merge which should go through WP:CFD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amal Frah (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
asilvering (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nihad Ibrahim (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Refund request: Salal Credit Union

Would you kindly userfy Draft:Salal Credit Union? I was waiting for more media sources, I'd like to keep it around. Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bri,
 Done I just restored it to Draft space, if you would like it in your own User space, I think you can move it yourself and select an appropriate page title. If you don't expect to be submitting it to AFC for review again, then remove the AFC tags and place a {{user sandbox}} tag on the page and you don't have to worry about it coming up for deletion in another 6 months. If you are planning to submit it for review, then I think it's safe in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_7&oldid=1143137426"