User talk:Liz/Archive 16

Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

By the way, did you know that this edit was the last edit made in 2015, and this is the first edit of 2016? (Times in UTC, of course). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I did NOT know that! I wonder how you can be sure...I hope it didn't take a lot of time to track down that information, K6ka. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really. All I had to do was "hack the URL"; go through the revision IDs of recent edits until I found the last edit of 2015. Add 1 to the ID number, and there you have it! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Special:Permalink/697661396, the last edit of 2015. Special:Permalink/697661397, the first of 2016. Cyber's bot was the first of course. Special:Permalink/697661487, my edit, was only the 91st edit of the first minute of the new year. What can I say, I'm not a bot. That's edit number 697,661,487 since they started counting. Wonder if there will be a celebration for the 700 millionth edit. You can keep track by watching the "magic word" {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}: We're up to 1,216,651,457! Oh well, I missed the celebration. I don't know how we can have over 100 million edits than the counter is at, maybe it has something to do with deleted edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Best of luck in your admin work for the coming year; you've already done great these past months. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes and the vote of confidence, Ratatosk Jones. It's been a bumpy ride but not quite the supernova my detractors expected. ;-) Have a wonderful 2016! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Liz: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. North America1000 03:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

It makes my problem of on-and-off wifi networks seem like no big deal! ;-) Have a great new year, North America! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and happy New Year! Do you know what this was about? A little odd, I thought... Thanks, GAB^Hello! 05:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That is truly bizarre, GAB. I wasn't taunting anyone, I was just offering good wishes to everyone who supported me during my RfA, no matter what their status is on Wikipedia, blocked or unblocked. It was an overdue thank you but the RfA was so divisive, I didn't want to post anything immediately after it was over. I'm not sure why any editor thought I had bad intentions. But if it did cause stress, I'm glad it was removed. Happy New Year to you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Davey2010! I hope 2016 brings you health and prosperity! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fireworks

The sound of the new year. 00:23(mm:ss)

---

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a great New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Etamni! Happy editing to you in 2016! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you have a fantastic year Jim! I have doubts about the future, but I'll admit that this is my normal frame of mind. But best to be optimistic at this time of year....the election is still far away! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Only Pollyanna lacks doubts about the future, Liz. And I deny the rumors that I am actually Pollyanna. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Miniapolis 21:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Thank you, Miniapolis....I'm so glad you joined the clerks team. You are doing a great job and I hope your upcoming year on Wikipedia is enjoyable and without hiccups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Liz, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Thank you, Sam Sailor! I also wish you a happy and healthy 2016! Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz.  I don't believe we've ever crossed paths before. But I'm writing to you because I see you've recently left a Happy New Year message on DESiegel's talk page, so I assume you have some familiarity with him. He doesn't seem to have done anything on Wikipedia since Dec 21, 2015. And I was just wondering if you knew if he was on a wiki-break or something. (I checked his User and User talk pages, and they say nothing about any plans to be away or anything.). Thanks for any information you can provide.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am mainly familiar with him because he's been active at The Teahouse. If you look at his edit history, you can see that DES has taken several leaves of absences from Wikipedia but usually returns and 2015 was a year when he was more active that usual here. I assume like many people, he is busy with work or family business but will return when times allow. It wouldn't hurt though to leave a note on his talk page saying he is missed! I think that is a sentiment anyone would appreciate seeing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz.  Thank you for your reply and your suggestion.  It sounds like a good idea and I'm going to do it.
Richard27182 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, if a user has recreated a redirect which was recently deleted as from an implausible typo, what do you think should be done? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 15:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rubbish computer: Was there a discussion at WP:RFD? If so, {{db-repost}} --Redrose64 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The two were WP:R3 deleted before, so I tagged them as the same again, but since seeking those I found close to 10 more implausible redirects (e.g. Cities Kosovo) from the same user on the same day. How do you respond if somebody keeps making bad redirects? The user is MilanKovacevic, and I think I'll just leave a talk page message for now. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 22:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think a talk page message is a good idea. Given some recent incidents last autumn, people are more on the lookout for inappropriate and abundant redirects but it sounds like it's just something to keep an eye on. Right now, my time on Wikipedia is limited but I should be back at regular editing and responding levels mid-week. Thanks for helping out, Redrose64! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2016 from England! Keep up the good work. Best wishes --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Mrjulesd! I hope 2016 brings you and yours many blessings and good health! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2016

peace bell

Thank you for your good wishes and for interesting comments last year. 2016 had a good start, with a Bach cantata (a day late) and an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) Miss Yunshui (among others) and his harmonious editing. We can only try to follow the models of those who left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time looking at Wikipedia's internal history, Gerda Arendt and it seems typical for many editors to devote 2-5 years to editing Wikipedia and then move on to other interests or obligations. What is really remarkable, and atypical, are those folks who stick around a long time (like 8+ years), who don't seem to lose their enthusiasm for the project. When I look at old talk pages or noticeboard archives even from 2005, there are editors lamenting someone's departure so I think we have to accept that we are all indeed fortunate for the years that an editor has given to improve the project, whether that is 1 year or 5 years or 12 years. There are so many other ways they could have chosen to spend their time and the fact that they gave hours to improving articles or fighting vandalism or mediating conflicts was fortunate indeed. There will always be editors who lose interest or whose lives get busy which is why it is so important to support new editors just discovering the project. Of course, it is absolutely lovely when an experienced editor returns from an extended absence away but, unfortunately, that doesn't happen as often as we might wish it to. Have a great new year, Gerda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I spent good time with editors I miss now, but try to look at the positive side: those who returned, especially when I had given up hope (Khazar, Boing). There are editors who loose interest, but there are also those who were treated unfairly, most recently Alakzi and Black Kite. For some reason you can perhaps explain, the arbitrators I like best don't stay long: 28bytes, Floquenbeam, now Yunshui. Let's see what the new group will do, - five for whom I voted made it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, Gerda Arendt. I haven't been on Wikipedia much when I was staying with family.

As for your question, I think 28bytes had a unique situation and I wish he had not chosen to resign. Maybe he will run another year. I think it is helpful to read over the reflections of former arbitrators like Risker and NYBrad on the challenges of working with a committee. Personally, I think it is remarkable when an assortment of 15 editors can reach agreement on any sensitive subject since they all have their own opinions and life and editing experiences that color their views. Decisions would probably be reached faster with a committee of just 3 or 5 arbitrators but the committee would be less representative of the Wikipedia community and undoubtedly less diverse. It also would concentrate decision-making power in a smaller number of individuals. Larger committee=more discussion=more distributed authority=longer times to settle a case.

I don't know much about the internal workings of the committee but I imagine to a large degree it involves a few arbitrators with strong, differing opinions about a particular case trying to persuade, cajole or agitate for other arbitrators to agree with their point of view. Especially for new arbitrators, I bet it can feel like being pulled in different directions and can lead to tense discussions. It also can be exhausting to go against the tide. And if the issues weren't complicated and messy, they wouldn't have made it to the arbitration case stage at all! I know there seems to be an endless critique of the arbitration committee but I think it is really a thankless job and we are lucky so many editors are interested in serving on the committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

ice-breaking
a political statement, DYK?

I don't know anything about arbitration except what I saw in the limited area I watched, and that was absurd. But let's try peace and not think much of the past ;) (It's more than a year that I wrote "best remembered as a farce", - I archived the whole thing, - have no idea how a committee of so many bright minds can miss looking the way they did.) - 28bytes was the first whose RfA I supported, so the first admin to help me, so missed especially when he left two years ago. I know that he would still help me if I needed help (as you would also), but I try not to need. I write GAs and avoid noticeboards, that helps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Wikipedia history, have you seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles? Following up on my last comment above, Wikipedia's oldest surviving edit from 20:08, 16 January 2001, has ID #291430, while the first in the index, special:diff/1, is from 14:25, 26 January 2002. SO the early edits got shuffled around some when they updated to newer wiki-software. I know, you're probably more interested in the history of the people than the tech stuff, but thought I'd mention it anyway. :) Wbm1058 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the early edits were lost, mainly because in the early days it was not considered necessary to keep the full page history, meaning that early edits for most pages were physically deleted from the databases. Some have been recovered (a number of them by Graham87 (talk · contribs)), but when they were restored they had to take revision numbers that were higher than they would have been if they had not been physically deleted in the first place. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Phase II software, Magnus Manske and replaced the UseModWiki engine on the English Wikipedia on 25 January 2002. From that I assume the counter was first implemented in Phase II, and every edit added retroactively from Phase I must have had a higher number assigned. The original text was stored in files rather than in a database, so there were no IDs in Phase I. I wonder if there is a figure for number of Phase I edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So my general impression is that Phase I did not save historical edits, and the "edit history" of Phase I was constructed from a set of backup tapes, i.e. if an article changed from one backup to the next, then that was considered to be a single edit. So any multiple edits between saved backups were lost. Do I have this right? Obviously just a question for Liz' 200+ page watchers ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It did save historical edits, but these were periodically deleted. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the surviving edits made before the introduction of Phase II software were restored from a backup in September 2002 (see Wikipedia:Usemod article histories). These edits go from revision numbers 233181 to [301520; I'm not sure if all of the edits in between were part of the mass-import, but if they are, that means there were about 69,000 edits imported during that time. Graham87 06:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I must be a nerd because I find this a fascinating discussion, Wbm1058, Redrose64 and Graham. Are these details included in any of the books about Wikipedia? I know very little of actions taken before 2004-2005 because there isn't much of a record of how decisions about Wikipedia structure and organization were made or the discussions surrounding them. I assumed the first four years was a period when the email lists and IRC was more important than it is now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. The mailing lists were especially important in those days; I'm not very familiar with the IRC side. Graham87 10:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is still appropriate to wish you a (belated) Happy New Year and to thank you for the New Year's greeting. Sorry I am a little late. Best wishes for the New Year. Donner60 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the good wishes, Donner60! I hope your coming year is a happy one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And a happy new year to you too! Apologies for delay, I have been busy with eating leftovers and watching terrible films. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is never a bad time to wish someone well, Only in death does duty end. I hope you have a wonderful 2016, full of health and prosperity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Have to say Liz. This post was rather ironic to see. Also your semi-protect for your talk page is past its expiration date (expires 12:20, 16 December 2015). Noticed that while making this. GamerPro64 03:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

GamerPro64, I was posting New Year's greetings to every editor who supported me in my RfA. That's about all of the edits I made on December 31st and January 1st. I was unaware of the developments in TDA's situation on Wikipedia and am bothered by editors who thought I was "taunting" him. I sincerely wish him well in 2016 and I don't know anything about his recent site ban. But, in hindsight, I can see that it was an ironic combination of events. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the New Year wishes, Liz -- right back at you (albeit quite late)! Mizike (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Good wishes are always appreciated, Mizike! Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The reverts you have made don't seem very helpful. Government departments and agencies of Denmark‎ is where all the other relevant articles are. Similarly the only entry in Category:Merseyside society was the subcategory Category:Merseyside in the arts and media which had, I think, only two entries. I am doing my best to tidy up the organisation categories. Rathfelder (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Parent categories are not removed from empty categories so that editors that are questioning whether to tag or delete them can see where they reside in the category structure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that Community groups - however defined - come within the category "advocacy groups". And of the six articles in community groups four were Australian astronomical organisations.Rathfelder (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edit you are referring to. Can you provide a link? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am not user:Olivia Barratier, however, I do know the person in question and made what I thought were helpful modifications to her page to update links and what not. If you do reply, please do so on my talk page. Thanks.

Diane Langlumé 09:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know what is happening. I spent a lot of hours working on the categories, and missed a lot f sleep, trying to get this project done. I would therefore appreciate it if the information contained in the various categories can be merged into the Category:The Man from Snowy River. Would I be able to fix up the categories, on the various Wikipedia article pages which contain the categories, so that this can be done - or will I have to leave be until a decision is made whether to delete or merge the information contained in the various categories? If I am allowed to do so, I would like to start on re-categorising the information on the various Wikipedia article pages as soon as possible. Could you please let me know if this is possible. Thank you. All the best. Figaro (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Figaro, for your work on this subject. The issue with three of your categories is they just aren't appropriately titled in that Wikipedia prefers parenthesis over dashes. Please make your opinion known at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 8. Unlike AfDs, CfDs are usually open for more than one week in order to get more participation and hear from more editors. Since you created the categories, it's important that your voice be heard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now participated in the discussion. Hopefully the work which has been done can remain as either renaming the categories for the films, soundtrack and musical, or merging them with Category:The Man from Snowy River. Also, I hope that the names of the performers in the films, television series and musical - as well as the people involved in the creative work for the musical - can remain by being merged with Category:The Man from Snowy River. This has been done with performers who have taken part in the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. Thank you. Figaro (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The author doesn't seem to "get it". The draft that they put in the sandbox is probably the same article as you speedied from mainspace. At least, it would have qualified for the same speedy-deletion criteria if it had been in mainspace. In draft space, I just declined it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The sad thing, Robert, is that Wikipedia could probably use an article on this festival. But the article that gets posted looks like a copyright violation taken from a website and is overly promotional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Good evening, Mr. Adam Bishop, I wanted to ask you to help me in trouble Lithuanian Wikipedia. Behold, I got a little sick Tourette's syndrome, and sometimes I get angry and not in control of the words, and it happened there. I wrote a considerable criticism, and I told them back, "Bounce," and I was banned for 1 day. But then I was very curious, and I asked for all the details on Wikipedia, etc. And took me away, and to extend the blocking 8 months in. Then I began creating clones. But I continue to "excellent" edited by Wikipedia, in the articles, but then again I saw blocking the message, and angry. And I created the clone, created before 11, but anyway I edited, created 2 articles. (Because then I paid them not to develop). And then extend the blocking period of 3 years. And I very much want there the Wikipedia edited, so in every possible way I wanted to unlock. And I wrote in the e-mail, and everywhere, and tried to IRC, but not switched on, so in one word remained this situation. Then I created the English Wikipedia, and everything went well for me, I was invited to the "Teahouse" be paradise! And here all the other people do not like the Lithuanians, they are stubborn and wrong. And here I created, I do not remember any of their regions, many villages, perhaps 5 villages, 2 rivers, 1 lake. Maybe you can help in any way? Plus I created yesterday again Lithuanian Wikipedia account, I wrote what I do is, I opened my heart, and today still went and blocked User: Homo ergaster. And I do not know what to do. And I want and there and then edit the articles, maybe here I will become administrator ever. So HERE is hopeful. Thank you. P.S if you look at those who blocked me:Homo ergaster. And my account:Lukas_GamingLT. And my talk page:Lukas_GamingLT --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 18:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

I have removed the help template as this is a specific user's talkpage it isn't needed they will get notified about a message for them.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

First, Lukaslt13, I'm not Mr. Adam Bishop, you probably are looking for User talk:Adam Bishop. Secondly, English administrators and editors have no control over activities on other language Wikipedias so you will have to speak with or email someone at the Lithuanian Wikipedia to help you with your problems there. Finally, McMatter, thank you for removing the Help Me template from my talk page, it is appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I too wrote Adam Bishop, and copy for you. Thank you --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 12:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

But, I wrote him, but not replying, and I not know how to do next! Well, I working this project, my liked this Wikipedia, and I be this :) --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 12:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Hi,I would like to have Sidewalk Labs undeleted, and will then fill out with new info. the company is now a significant subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., has taken over two companies that had wikipedia pages, and is producing outcomes of note. Tim bates (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tim bates, there wasn't much of an article written but I have restored it and you can find it at Draft:Sidewalk Labs. Once you think it has enough substantial content with verifiable sources to warrant a main space article, submit it to Articles for Creation where it can be reviewed by an experienced editor. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that... Indeed... it was not much :-( I'll flesh out a full article T. Tim bates (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi more time! I create an article about their school and want to upload the pictures, but somehow they are not commons. I copy the image location and the way to your article, but as there are no pictures, so do not. What to do? --L.ukas lt 13 --TalkLukaslt13

I have no idea what you are talking about. What is "your article"? Try reading Wikipedia:Uploading images. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, hope you are well and had nice hollydays. Sorry to bother you with this, but few hours ago you deleted an article Vladimir Zelenbaba which was wrongly tagged for speedy deletion as not meating notabilty creterium. I know the editor who created the article and he is aware about the criteriums, I checked the article and added info and reliable source in the article that confirm the main notability criterium for footbalers which is that they played in a fully profesional league. I also mentioned it at the talk-page, where another editor had also pointed out and brought a rs confirming him passing notability. The footballer in question played in the Ukrainian Premier League which is listed at the WP:FPL. This source which is the source of the Premier League confirm it. It was a mistake when the article was nominated for deletion. FkpCascais (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, FkpCascais, I've restored Vladimir Zelenbaba. But improve it as much as you can because it always can get tagged again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. But I think there is some missunderstanding here. Why would the article get tagged again? The article as it stands now passes notablity, has a reliable source confirming it, and is just another ammong many footballer stubs. It could obviously be expanded but it is not a requirement needed for him to stay or otherwise get deleted. FkpCascais (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FkpCascais, all I meant is that although I restored the article, other editors might tag the article if the concerns of the original tagger are not addressed. If you believe that the article is satisfactory as it is and meets notability standards for football players, then retagging probably will not occur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The main criterium for notability for footballers is that they played in a professional league, and in my last edit that was exactly what I added along a reliable source confirming it. So the article should not have any problems. Thank you Liz, best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Re this user, the autobiography is still hosted here. It should probably be blanked or at least have a sandbox tag on it to take it out of the search engines. I hesitate though because they've had an awfully bumpy start and the embarrassment of finding the autobiography complete with speedy deletion tag on Google search results. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore, I'm aware that they have a copy of the article in their sandbox. I'd prefer to leave it there right now unless the editor uses it to recreate the article about themselves. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was my view too. I'll leave in your hands, Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you deleted the article "Arnold Magcale" that I created. The reason you gave for deleting it was that it seemed to be advertising for a company. I'd like to notify you that it is actually not advertising for a company, but just an article on a notable person in the tech industry. Why did you think it was advertising? Was it the external link? The press releases that I used as references? I'd like to re-create the article, but I want to know what I did wrong to cause you to delete it so that I won't make that same mistake again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diracleo (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Diracleo, I have restored the article as a draft, see Draft:Arnold Magcale. It needs a lot of work. It is promotional to call the subject of an encyclopedia article a "visionary" and other peacock language. It is written like a biography on a personal website, it is not encyclopedic which necessitates maintaining a neutral point of view. To be honest, it looks like an article that a paid editor or an employee at his company would write which means there could be a conflict-of-interest. But you can continue to work on it, in draft form and when you think it is ready, submit to Articles for Creation where it can be reviewed by an experienced editor. If you recreate this article in what we call "main space" of Wikipedia, I'm 100% sure it will be deleted, not by me but by another administrator. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, please could you confirm why you undid my edit? Thanks! Thehelpfulone 02:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I thought that removing "http:" from the link would prevent it from being an active link. I don't know why you removed it. If I was incorrect, you have my apologies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing http: makes it protocol-relative. To deactivate a link, you need to remove the // as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Redrose64:. Liz I did state in my edit summary 'protocol rel link' and the page already has a protocol relative link, [https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User:Jimbo_Wales&action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers Over 3,000]. I also noticed in your contribs that you tag pages for speedy deletion rather than delete them yourself (from User:Liz/CSD log), I just wanted to check if you intended to do this? Else there should be a configuration option in Twinkle that allows you to delete rather than tag. Thehelpfulone 11:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If a page has no speedy deletion tag, and I feel that it meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, I also tend to tag pages for speedy deletion rather than delete them myself: that way it puts a second admin in the loop and reduces the risk that somebody might call "admin abuse". But if I find a page that's already tagged, I often delete it myself, after checking that the chosen speedy deletion criterion is valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I've discovered a possible new sock puppet of Martimc123: Lovelucha (talk · contribs). The editor creates and edits the same articles, writing in similarly limited English. Also, the account name is similar to some of his earlier puppets. I also presume that the IP 193.236.57.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) belongs to him. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 21:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon Salminen, I encourage you to file a WP:SPI if you believe that there is sock puppetry is going on. If there is already an existing case, you can add new information to it. Or you can contact a checkuser or SPI clerk and alert them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Argentine emigrants to Scotland, for example. These categories have been upmerged to the corresponding United Kingdom categories and wiped by @Mannerheimo:. I don't see a discussion about this particular category, there may be a general discussion somewhere.All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

I'd be curious to see that discussion, Rich. I usually go through Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories each night and tag those that aren't under discussion (there are a few areas--Youth, Wealth, Death--that are being worked on) and these fell into that group. It is not unusual for a category to be temporarily empty while an editor is working something out and since empty categories sit for 4 days before deletion, if articles/pages are later added to the category, the CSD tag is removed. Except for G13s, I don't know of any other CSD criteria that includes a waiting period and I think it is wise regarding empty categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that is why I pinged the user in question. Depopulating categories without discussion is something generally frowned upon. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

There is a lot more emptying of categories out of process than is acknowledged, Rich. Unfortunately, it is not an activity done by trolls but by productive editors who believe that they have a system of categorizing that is superior to the one that currently exists. The CfD process can be laborious and emptying out categories is one shortcut that is taken. I still am not sure how to tackle this problem especially when some of the editors have more seniority and experience than I do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just do your best. It's unusual but not unknown that a category empties through "natural causes". For example Category:Districts of the Acomayo Province was emptied when someone redirected Template:Districts of Acomayo Province to Template:Districts of Cusco Region. Both contained categories - which is a Bad Idea for content categories.

And no-one has seniority on Wikipedia. Or so I keep telling myself.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

Hi Liz! Can I ask you to take a look at Vanessa Ferlito? An editor there keeps adding an image to this BLP, despite the fact that it's been deleted multiple times on Commons for copyrights issues. I just warned the user, and reverted his addition of the image to the article, but the editor has just re-reverted me. And this editor is definitely an WP:SPA on this score, with edits to no other articles... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, rather than get into an edit war that could lead to a block, I've tagged the image with a CSD tag as it is unlicensed. He/She has additional warnings about this on their talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. But assuming it happens again (which I'm relatively sure it will), should I just take it directly to WP:AIV next time? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see if/how the editor responds to the talk page messages first. The problem is uploading images without licensing or source information and I don't think that qualifies as vandalism which is the the deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering this editor has to be aware that their uploaded image has been removed before, and why it was removed, continuing to add it back to the article and to Commons at least qualifies as "disrputive editing" if not "vandalism" per se. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh oh – this would seem to show this editor has a COI (which I've been suspecting all along...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is my approach, trying to inform the editor what they are doing incorrectly. To me, this doesn't seem like an urgent matter and I'll keep tabs on the editor to see how they respond. You are free to bring this issue to the attention of another admin if you care to. Have a good week! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If the editor does represent her management, they can release the rights to this photo if they choose to go through the process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this editor before: User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 3#Vanessa Ferlito's date of birth. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Liz, I put a CSD on this because the page was moved by me with a typo (the page is actually at Talk:New Model Army (band)/Archive1 (I put the closing bracket in the wrong place). So I was wondering why you didn't delete it (I know it's not doing any harm but it's completely useless). Let me know if I've missed something obvious! Thanks, Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted it now but it didn't seem like an obvious R3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted The Devil You Know (2015 TV series) which is good because there is no such 2015 TV series. But then you deleted Talk:The Devil You Know (TV pilot) instead of Talk:The Devil You Know (2015 TV series) as G8.Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was following the redirect and ended up on the wrong page. The page is restored, thank you for alerting me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you'd care to explain exactly where the personal attacks were in this statement? I think you are seeing what you want to see and taking offence on behalf of others. I would therefore ask you not to be so overly-delicate and leave others to have their say. You were lucky I didn't revert you, which I was going to do. Cassianto^Talk 13:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To be consistent, you will also redact Kww's personal attacks please. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, I was not acting on my overly-delicate feelings, I was acting instructions given by the arbitrators on the clerks-l email list. I also redacted KWW's comments, again, on request of the arbitrators. The vast majority of time, clerks are acting on behalf of a request from the arbitration committee. We open a case when they say a case should be opened, remove comments that are seen as personal attacks when they are identified and archive requests when instructed to do so. The main time that clerks act independently is when warnings are given because case request statements are overly long and in particular volatile arbitration cases when more time is spent arguing with other editors than in presenting evidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If TRM's comments were declared uncivil by ArbCom then they are even more absurd than I first thought. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, given your negative view on the arbitration committee, I doubt your opinion could be any lower than it already is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) @Cassianto: I'm puzzled by your link in your initial post here. It's an edit screen, and above that it tells me that "the edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually". I have no idea what "the edit" might be. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And I have no idea what has happened to the original link. When I linked to it earlier it was the "uncivil" post by TRM, but this has now since disappeared. I suspect this has been redacted so no sod can see it anyway. Cassianto^Talk 00:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto and Redrose64: Nothing's been redacted; the URL looks like the result of clicking the "undo" instead of the "diff" link in the page history. The intended diff, I think, was Liz's clerk action here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how this has happened, it worked earlier. Ok, the link is here. Thanks Opabinia regalis. Cassianto^Talk 00:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that calling someone an idiot might be construed as a personal attack, but by what logic is saying that someone is not an idiot a personal attack?—Kww(talk) 15:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

All I can say, Kww, is that it wasn't my call. I don't mean to invoke the "good soldier" excuse but I was following repeated instructions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, Drmies says I have to talk to you, you say you were following instructions. Whose instructions? Who thought saying someone wasn't stupid was an attack?—Kww(talk) 21:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We have an email list, clerks-l, whose subscribers are clerks, clerk trainees, arbitrators and some former arbitrators. The request to remove content (and not just yours) was made by an arbitrator on the email list and I don't think it is relevant which arbitrator(s) made the request. Your comments were among several that we were requested to remove. My mistake was that I should have come to you first and ask you to "refactor" your remarks so that they did not contain any personal attacks which I neglected to do. My apologies to you for my failure to alert you to the situation first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll just say that I personally didn't have a problem with y'all's exhange, as tasteless as it was. But do we have to spell out the obvious? that you clearly imply malice on TRM's part? We're not idiots either, Kww. Not total idiots anyway. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, Liz, thanks for doing this thankless job. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If saying someone party to an Arbcom complaint misbehaved is a personal attack, I don't understand how misbehaviour can be discussed.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't highly publicized except via a Geonotice (MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js) to editors whose IP addresses geolocated to the San Francisco area, but I think you'll be interested in it:

Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Wikipedia Day 2016, particularly the "Stories from the weird old days"

Wbm1058 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Wbm1058. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, when you moved Crelan–Euphony to Landbouwkrediet–Colnago, because no redirect was left a bunch of redirects that that then redirected to a deleted article and were duly deleted. Please could you restore these?

• Landbouwkrediet-Euphony
• Landbouwkrediet (cycling team)
• Tönissteiner-Colnago
• Tönissteiner-Saxon
• Saxon-Selle Italia
• Saxon-Breitex
• Saxon (cycling team)
• Landbouwkrediet-Toenissteiner
• Landbouwkrediet - Toenissteiner
• Landbouwkrediet - Tonissteiner
• Landbouwkrediet - Colnago
• Landbouwkrediet - Tönissteiner
• Landbouwkrediet-Tonissteiner
• Langbouwkrediet-Colnago

I also recreated Crelan–Euphony - I'm not sure if there should have been some restoring here for a history merge as well?

I hope not too many links haven't been lost in the process.

Thanks, Severo (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Severo, I don't know why I checked the box not to leave a redirect and I'm sorry for the cascading effect of this article move. I'm not sure I'm clear on exactly what occurred with these deletions but I'll look into the ones listed. Thank you for bringing my mistake to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Severo, I restored them all and they are now redirected to Landbouwkrediet–Colnago. Let me know if there is any other way I can help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:AnomieBOT III deleted them when they pointed to a deleted article (presumably part of the work of the bot is to delete redirects of recently deleted articles). I'm not sure if any bot removes links to recently removed articles - I found one user had removed some but I was able to revert them. Severo (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My only question is Talk:Landbouwkrediet–Colnago which was a redirect to Talk:Crelan–Euphony which redirected back to it in a loop. There wasn't any content on that talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Talk:Landbouwkrediet–Colnago should be deleted and Talk:Crelan–Euphony moved to it (leaving redirect!) as Talk:Crelan–Euphony is the only one with any content not just a redirect. Severo (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I checked the deletion log for the past 24 hours and I think you identified all of the deleted redirects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A procedural error. You speedy deleted a film article AFTER it was brought to AFD. The editor tagging it for speedy did not understand the process and tagged it for G-11 AFTER he had sent itto AFD for discussion. While almost any article may be called promotional, this one was sourced and was under deletion discussion. G-11 was too severe. Shall I revert, or will you? Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I'll restore the article, Michael. I didn't notice the AfD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let the tagging editor know that we have a process that must not be subverted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why he first tagged it as an AfD and made an argument there and THEN tagged it for speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

An ongoing AFD does not prevent speedy deletion, particularly in cases like WP:G5, WP:G9, WP:G10 or WP:G12. This is WP:G11 though, which is more subjective. If it was "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", G11 applies, unless the "subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view" or the article already "describes its subject from a neutral point of view". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.

What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?

I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?

What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?

I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?

I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I'm not sure who "you guys" are but I think the editors and admins participating in the discussion would have a variety of answers for you. I didn't take a strong stand in the discussion so I'm not the best person to ask. My only advice is to stop this strategizing about how you should or should approach your topic ban or an appeal. The admins who imposed it view your editing in this area as problematic. The best, in fact, the only solution, is to move on an edit in another area of the encyclopedia. There are areas like AFC that have backlogs that could use your help. Or you could review some GA candidates. Create new articles or work with the guild of copyeditors to help out editors who are looking for assistance with proofreading.

Bottom line, if you don't accept your topic ban and move away from the MOS field, you are very, very likely to find yourself violating your topic ban which I would guess would result in a complete ban of one week or one month. Don't test to see where the edges of your topic ban are and just start working in another area of the project. It won't be me but there will be editors who will be following your edits to see that you are abiding by the topic ban and you shouldn't give them any chance to bring you back to a noticeboard. There are 5+ million articles, most of which could be improved so find a subject that interests you and dive in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems we have a misunderstanding. I am not talking about how to deal with WP:LQ now. I fully understand that I'm not allowed to discuss or deal with the matter while topic-banned. But whether in six months or later than that, it will eventually be lifted. I'm asking about what to do about it after the ban is over, and input on the past if you have any. Of course I'd be editing elsewhere while it is in force. I don't want to successfully appeal this thing and then end up right back at AE. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a discussion that is best to have in six months, not now. You could have lost interest in the subject by July. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the third time you have proposed speedy deletion for this category. There are two contested deletion sections on its talk page. Should be submitted at categories for discussion, based on the scale of opposition alone. Jolly Ω Janner 19:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's an empty category and therefore qualifies for deletion under CSD C1. Empty categories are deleted unless they are maintenance categories or soft-redirects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the above, and I think all editors involved are aware of this too. What is not understood is why you are tagging the article without engaging in talk page discussion. Jolly Ω Janner 20:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

First, the category is no longer empty so the CSD C1 criteria doesn't apply. Second, I don't see what discussion is necessary. Unless they are maintenance categories, soft-redirects or have been emptied out of process, empty categories are tagged for speedy deletion. I don't know how you can argue that an empty category isn't empty which is the only important criteria here. It doesn't matter if an editor thinks a category will be important in the future, if there are no articles/pages assigned to a category, it is subject to deletion. But now an article has been assigned to this category, it is no longer empty and the discussion is moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

re: [1] .. :-D — Ched :  ?  16:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched. I'm glad to see you still bouncing around this place after turning in your bit. Hopefully, editing will be more fun and less of a chore. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No matter what .. you are a very sweet woman. — Ched :  ?  02:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I try, I really do. Thanks for seeing it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Liz. Would you tell me about the training program for clerking? In my quest to learn more about WP's many phases, I thought, for a moment, that this might be a good thing to try. But perhaps not. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 02:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Caballero1967, there is currently no training program for arbitration clerks. There is a page describing how arbitration procedures are done and then trainee clerks are thrown into the deep end of the pool and learn by doing. Luckily, our current trainee clerks have been excellent at dealing with closures, notifications and archiving, even in complex situations.

If are interested in being considered as a trainee clerk, please read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Mailing list and send the clerks-l list an email message. The email list is the primary means of communicating with the clerks team and taking on new trainees is a team decision that arbitrators participate in as well. I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You have. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 00:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Shouldn't "Nick Flora" be removed from "notable people" of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, as the Wiki page on him was deleted 18 January 2016, and there is also no supporting citation on Nick Flora? Thank you. Arkoutdoors (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Since he is a red link, feel free to remove him from the list of notable people, Arkoutdoors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia celebrates 15 years of free knowledge
• Fifteen years ago, Wikipedia was a very different place: Magnus Manske
• Making our pageview data easily accessible
• In brief

I would have removed the prod if I was aware of it, sadly I only noticed just after it was deleted. Would you object to me restoring it? The prod rationale seems better suited to an AfD anyway as it's merely an opinion. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is an objection that it was based on original research but if you want to restore the article and its talk page, Xezbeth, go ahead. It can always go through the AfD process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you undelete Arteezy and move it to draft or my userspace? I feel like A7 is a bit controversial per me finding additional sources that were on the articles' talk page, however I didn't come here for DRV (just want to keep it hear but it sounded bad-faithed). Also, your talk page is still semi-protected even though it was said to expire on December 16. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I left a message on Jasperflint's talk page offering to do this. It'll go into Draft space.

I hadn't noticed about the semi-protection as it was applied by another admin without a request being made. I'll change that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring questions directed at you in the future, with regard to Arbcom cases, it would benefit both you and Arbcom immeasurably if you had the courtesy to respond with facts rather than just ignore messages. It is of note that your selected censorship of the FPAS case was as a result of direct instruction from some/all Arbcom members, whereby you censored some personal attacks but left others, despite being requested to remove them. It's very sad indeed that Arbcom has slumped to this position of favouring certain editors and allowing them to use personal attacks during their statements. But I suppose you have no choice unless you're told what to do. It certainly came as a surprise to me that you acted entirely and 100% under the direction of a mailing list of a handful of hapless individuals. I hope you can recover from this in due course, but my recommendation would be to turn it in, being the "public face" of a shambolic, incompetent secret sect must be not worth the salary. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I don't see how you can see this discussion as ignoring questions. Can you provide a link to where I ignored you? To be frank, clerks are given license to remove any comments on arbitration pages that they believe could be viewed as a personal attack but I err towards caution and normally only remove statements on request from members of the arbitration committee.

Whether I should rely on my own opinion or not, is a debatable question but I lean towards letting editors/admins hash it out rather than "censor" a discussion. But given that I'm an arbitration clerk, when an arbitrator asks us to remove some comment(s), it's my job to make that happen, regardless of my personal point of view. In cases like this, if I hadn't been the first clerk to see the message, another clerk would have been responsible for the content removal.

Clerks are bashed for removing content and then they are bashed for not being proactive and for failing to remove content so it's a no-win situation. When you agree with the decision to remove content, editors think we are doing a good job, and when they disagree, well then we are seen as "incompetent." So, I can live with your scorn, it comes with the job. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My scorn or otherwise is really not that important, as you note. The competence of both clerks in this case has to be called into question when personal attacks were allowed to persist on the page for the entire duration of the case, despite a number of editors pointing it out to you both. Frankly, if you believe that being accused of not having a brain or having no human decency to not be a personal attack, you should seriously reconsider your "job". I should also note that I will be ensuring that such overt abuses will not be overlooked again, from now on all such cases will be subject to independent scrutiny, including any kind of deliberate negligence from all of the Arbcom members and their clerks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like, contrary to the language in the motion that passed, that you are not retired at all and, as the arbitrators said, your return is welcomed.

If you see a comment that strikes you as a personal attack (and not just the expression of disagreement), I'd appreciate it if you would either email the arbitration committee (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) or the clerks (clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org) to bring it to our attention. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Welcome back! 86.154.83.95 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.211.30 (talk)

The personal attack was brought to your attention by other editors as well as myself. You chose to ignore it, and let it stand. I guess, because you are not allowed to act at all on your own then this is to be expected. You failed wholesale to even read and respond to the request by Dweller to redact the overt personal attack on me where I was accused of having no brain and no human decency. You failed to act in good faith, or worse, you acted in bad faith. Either way, you failed to do the job correctly. If you don't actually bother to read the case statements, then I'm not sure what your job really is other than act as a flunky, particularly as you were so keen to remove items that I (and Kww) had added. I guess you just do as you're told and absolutely nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And I guess you are not actually reading my responses to you where I explained that my own approach (other clerks might act differently) was to not use my personal opinion and to remove content on request of the arbitration committee. No one clerk is assigned to case requests and is in charge of monitoring content and statements, we act as a team.

Since you continue to lob insults at me and berate me, please take your future complaints to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks or directly to the arbitration committee. I don't appreciate your accusations and ask you not to post again on my talk page unless the dispute process requires you to. Being a clerk is a voluntary position and doesn't require me to be your punching bag. Good day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Sorry to bug you -- I don't like posting this on a cat-talk-page because editors read them only randomly. Anyway I have noticed for a while a big gaping whitespace in all cleanup cats such as Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup from January 2016. I have no idea what is causing it or how it can be fixed. Do you? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech:, I don't see any extra white space in the category you linked to. Where do you see it on the page? You might need to refresh your screen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the unnecessary white space in cats, Liz. Can you also fix Page view statistics? :-) 13:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech:, I'm not sure what I fixed! It looks like you were directed to post to User talk:Henrik but he last edited in August 2014 so he's not exactly around to help. It looks like there might be a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit count lnk broken you might join in on. I probably have as much technical knowledge as I do and WP:VPT is the best place to go to with technical questions because the editors there might have answers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Liz,

I had an article that taken down by you. I just wanted to retrieve the information on there for school purposes. Very new to this btw.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Case1414 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Liz,

I posted this article this morning and it was taken down. This was a class assignment and I didn't look over the guidelines properly. May I retrieve what was written in the article so I don't have to re-write it. I have a deadline for this assignment. Thank you for your time.https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Spirts_Behind_an_Addictive_Ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Case1414 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Case1414, please do not do class assignments by writing fake articles in Wikipedia Main space. Every new article is evaluated and you can expect similar articles to be critiqued. I have restored your article and moved it into Draft space, you can find it at Draft:Spirts Behind an Addictive Ad. More allowance is given to editors to work on articles in Draft space but it will be deleted if there are copyright violations, BLP violations or if becomes too promotional or an attack page. If you need help, bring your questions to the Teahouse. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz: Excellent summary in your close at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ooops.2C_I_goofed.21. Would you be interested in also closing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dennis_Bratland_reported_by_User:Skyring_.28Result:_.29, one way or another. It's a lot of the same participants in the winningest debate, and it's been languishing for days. I fear that editors will pick up activity there now that the AN thread is closed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm not a regular admin at 3RR and am not up-to-date on the dynamics of this 4 (or 5) way conflict which seems like it is pretty intractable. I'll give it a look but I'd rather have more experience in this area before making a judgment on who has erred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you won't need to get into the details too much, but will leave it to your best judgement and best use of your time. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As a new admin, I've been concentrating on pretty obvious tasks like deleting expired PRODs and spam articles, protecting pages that are subject to edit warring and disruptive edits. Unless the editor is an obvious vandal, weighing whether blocks are warranted and how long they should be, should be decided by admins with experience and good instincts. I'm working up to that. But given how this dispute has traveled over a variety of noticeboards, article talk pages and user talk pages, I'm sure that whatever decision I might make would be seen as the wrong one. I don't mind making tough decisions but only in cases where I'm sure of the dynamics of a situation which is far from clear here.

As an aside, maybe this report has remained unresolved for so long because other admins are unsure of what the correct decision is, too. Since blocks deprive an editor of the ability to work on the project, admins will at times make no decision rather than make the wrong decision until the situation becomes more easily defined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on the new tools, didn't realize it was recent. BTW, I am an admin, so I'm aware of the many reasons why it's still open (TLDR being one of them). I'm indirectly involved, so have stayed away from closing it. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, now I feel like a right idiot, Bagumba! I usually check the user page of an editor I'm talking with and I didn't in this case or I would have seen you were an admin. Everything I said about admin behavior? Forget it! I was preaching to the choir. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Being that Drmies was just mentioned on that thread, I've invite him to take a look. Don't ring me up for FORUMSHOPPING.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba:, are you kidding? No, I've never brought a complaint about an editor to ANI or AE. I was wondering if you had any advice to a new admin? I mean, besides have body armor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, my biggest adjustment was (and probably still is) resisting the urge to automatically step into content disputes as an editor (e.g. state an opinion, revert or edit someone's change, etc.) because I'd be WP:INVOLVED, and have to make one of those dreaded noticeboard reports with enough detail for an outsider to understand if action was needed. Depending on the issue, I found it easier for other editors to step in and for me to observe from afar if needed for disruptive editors. There aren't many active admins in areas I edit, so I found it more beneficial to the WikiProject to step back as a editor. Nobody likes making those reports, and a lot of frustration builds when rogue editors go unchecked because there's no accountability. If you have a specific dilemma, you're more than welcome to bounce it off me, now or in the future.—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems like some editors like bringing cases to noticeboard and seem to hold the point of view that their own behavior won't be subject to scrutiny as well. I guess they figure that if they bring an editor to ANI enough times, they will get blocked.

Thanks for the offer of being a sounding board, I might take you up on that one day soon. 01:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"... point of view that their own behavior won't be subject to scrutiny as well": But obviously they are right and the other person is wrong.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Bagumba, I see that I was lower on the list than Liz. Should I be grateful? Or should I feel misunderestimated? Drmies (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Half full or half empty?—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, you speedy deleted this as A10, but in fact this is a subgenus while Uranotaenia is the parent genus, not the same topic. Could you please undelete it? I imagine it's as poor a stub as the parallel Pseudoficalbia was, but it ought to exist. I pinged you at User_talk:Dsuhrbur, but trying here too. PamD 23:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, PamD, I didn't get your ping. I restored the article upon request but it is in very bad shape so I moved it into Draft space so it can be worked on and improved. You can find it at Draft:Uranotaenia (subgenus). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I know I left an all too brief reply to you, but I have not forgotten. I would like to talk, and explain my choices and all. I see you have email enabled, so I'll try to get it all typed out over the next couple days.

OH - one thing I'll say here on wiki - if I had it to do over again, I think I would have strongly supported your RfA. Anyway - I didn't forget, and apologies for such a brief reply before. I'm workin on it. :-) — Ched :  ?  07:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep a look out for it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Ched :  ?  17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete Lin Woon Fui. This is a clearly relevant person, to be checked with What links here: She is an Asian Games medailist and a national champion in Malaysia. --Florentyna (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that nishidani put victim in quotes because the kid said it was consensual. That might be where the nambla statement came from. There is no such thing as consensual sex with a minor.

Hi, you have deleted the article on ZedGraph for speedy deletion. The reason stated in nomination for speedy deletion indicates misunderstanding of the subject (refer to the Talk page where arguments were given). Can you please revert the action so that the article is available for improvement?Thanks, Ajgorhoe (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ajgorhoe, the entire article consisted of "ZedGraph' is a .NET 2D charting library for drawing Line, Bar, and Pie Charts." I think you can use this one sentence to recreate the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Liz, this is not about what the article consisted of and whether I can use this sentence. It's about the fact that the article has been deleted and it is difficult to restore it and even to find its contents (under Special:Undelete/ZedGraph, I get permission error and can't even view the previous contents). Which means that if I planned a larger set of connected articles, it will just be too difficult to start the work again, and I might have no choice but to drop it altogether, especially if there is a constant threat that all the work can be destroyed as I go along. Due to my time limitations and complexity of the subject, I can not make it all at once to enough elaborate state that everybody would be satisfied with contents. All I can do is to start with a series of stubs that are then gradually elaborated, hopefully with help of many other contributors that would notice that a lot is missing in this area and would be willing to improve.

In the specific case, I intended to create a series of related articles about .NET libraries, with a humble wish that at some stage in the future the topic is covered enough to create a list. Programming libraries are a rather badly covered field in Wikipedia. If in some short time I could produce enough material to be reasonable to start a list about .NET libraries, then other contributors from the community would more easily spot the topics that would be worth to elaborate and the whole field would progress more rapidly. To start something like this is not an easy task, however. The topic is very technical and in order to provide correct and accurate information, it is not just to write what is cited in other sources. In the particular case (Zedgraph) I have first thoroughly verified the state and went as far as to download the library, compilled it on two different platforms, read the license, and checked its dependencies. This is not research, it is just verification that what is written corresponds to the fact, and I consider this responsible and constructive way of adding contents to Wikipedia. The specific article would need much more work - adding more useful fact about the library stated in clear way, gathering external references (which should be done systematically), etc. But I don't think that all this should be done at once or that I shoulld do it all. Wkipedia is a collaborative project and articles develop much better if they evolve and when more people get involved in the earliest stage, and for this to be possible, things must be started at some point.

If you can not help me improve the article itself, could you please give me some advise on how I can efficiently approach the broader task I intended to perform?

In particular, what is the normal procedure to delete an article? I remember that sometimes in the past there was a discussion first where people could express arguments for or against inclusion of a given article. With such arbitrary deletion procedure, it is very difficult to start any article whose subject is not immediately familiar to majority of people (e.g. because of its technical specificity).

Regards, Ajgorhoe (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ajgorhoe, I don't follow your explanation at all. There is nothing that is preventing you for cutting and pasting that sentence on to the page and recreating that article. Although, if you did so without improving the article, it would again be tagged for speedy deletion. So, I have restored the article and moved it into your userspace at User:Ajgorhoe/ZedGraph. In general, unless you have a written an article, fully referenced, in a word processing program and moved it to Wikipedia, it is better to work on articles in User space or Draft space or they will be subject to being evaluated for speedy deletion. The main space of Wikipedia is not a good place to put articles which are a work-in-progress.

If you want help with writing an article, I encourage you to using Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. If you want to understand Wikipedia's process of deletion, read over Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There are three processes of deletion at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion, proposed deletion and deletion discussions. ZedGraph was deleted by speedy deletion, which does not involve a discussion, because it was tagged CSD #A7 which means this applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. You can read more about this deletion criteria on the link I provided. If you have general questions about editing, you can ask them at the Teahouse which is staffed by experienced editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I'm not interesting in repeatedly writing something that will be deleted over and over again, so the first part of advice was not very useful.

One point I tried to make is that the reason for deletion was not specified correctly (more precisely, something that didn't have a true connection with contents of the article was stated) and nobody had a chance to contest this or improve anything because the deletion was just executed before any response could be made (deletion was done by somebody else than the person who proposed deletion, but still without leaving a meaningful argument).

I went through links that you provided and I didn't see anything that would justify deleting more than helping to improve. Actually, I spent quite some time to understand how things are now supposed to work (my information may be outdated after a period off lesser activity), and I came to the conclusion that it may currently be more sensible to encourage people to reconsider their way of operation than to try to improve contents. In my opinion, we would first need to create an ecosystem where adding contents and collaboration is easier, otherwise the whole project may stall in the areas that are not as popular as, for example, TV series.

Thank you for restoring contents in my user space. It seems to me that the whole deletion process appeared between I was saving two parts of the text, that's really fast and efficient. It was of course my fault that I didn't add the second part immediately. I was sure that I've put more in it and I would probably soon notice my mistake if I had some time. In this respect the idea to first work in user space is reasonable.

I have however some thoughts about your statement regarding work in progress. I see the whole Wikipedia as work in progress and that has always been the way how articles were created here. All edits should obviously lead to consistent states with accurate contents as much as possible, but involving many people from early stages is only beneficial for article quality (especially to avoid bias, plurality may be much more efficient here than any set of bureaucratic rules, no matter how elaborate and well thought). Just see the history of Graz, for example). It started with two sentences, it's a rather good article today and it involved tens of people since the very beginning. If the two or three (or five or twenty) sentences were repeatedly engaged with keen finger-on-trigger deletionists, many of article's contributors would maybe not get involved at all.

…yes, you did have a bit of a baptism by fire 8-) -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I expected there to be Opposes but I didn't expect who they would come from or how many there would be, Avi. But it was six months ago so I've tried to put it in the past and try to change perceptions of me by helping with the admin backlogs and staying away from controversy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, could I ask for your help regarding this. I think it's obvious who the puppet master behind all the disruptions are, as we laid out in the discussion, but I have no idea about how to file an SPI in a case like this. Don't think I've ever filed one, and certainly not one that involved a puppet master operating more than 50 different IPs for the sole purpose of harassing a large number of users. Jeppiz (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, Jeppiz, CUers are not going to link one user account with a lot of IPs because of privacy concerns. They tend to compare user accounts with each other. Wikipedia also doesn't have data that is older than 3 months. I'm not sure whether they will check this many IP addresses and it would help if you could specify a "master" account, I suppose the one account that edited the most, that they can compare the others to.

Filing an SPI is pretty straight-forward but you need to select diffs that show that the IPs were editing the same article(s) or making the same edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Liz, did you check back at ANI for the developments? We've identified the master account beyond all reasonable doubt. Jeppiz (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the CUers and, as I said, they are unlikely to link one user account with an assortment of IPs. But you can give it a try. The editor you are accusing of being the master account is currently blocked and I'm not going to impose an indefinite block based on WP:DUCK. You should file a case at SPI and see what the CUers and admins who patrol SPI can do for you. They are specialists in tracking socks which I am not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit discouraging. So the user will be able to continue to edit using his main account while simultaneously using dynamic IPs to harass all those who disagree with his main account? Jeppiz (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I didn't mean to be discouraging. The message that I wanted to send you was that I have been an admin for six months with limited experience in sockpuppet investigations. The CUers at SPI have been dealing with socks for years. If I were you, I would file an SPI and see how they can help you. They are the experts and would know if a range block is possible or if there are some other solutions that can be tried. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I filed an SPI. Would you mind taking a look at Punjab, Pakistan? Jeppiz (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, it looks like Bbb23 has already protected that article. I hope you get some results from your SPI. I'll look it over and see if there is anything I might add to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your request for a Checkuser was declined on the grounds I mentioned above, the refusal of CUers to tie the identity of a user account with an IP address. But hopefully a behavioral analysis will bear some fruit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about User talk:Gerua18 [4]? And how come nobody thought blocking 5.107.112.47 was a good idea after this [5], [6]? Jeppiz (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 blocked that IP account. I left his comments on the SPI page because I think he was proving your point, that there is a serial harasser who is bothering you and other editors. His comments on the SPI served as evidence against him. And if by chance he pops up again at this SPI with another IP account, that will be further evidence that this is a problem that needs a solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Liz, I see you deleted the prod-tagged Woodstock Raceway. If it is this one in Canada, would you be so kind as to userfy it for me in my user space? We do like to have articles on these defunct old racetracks, and this one probably meets the criteria. (That said, if it was about something else, never mind...) I'd like to see if it can be salvaged for WP Horse racing. Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Montanabw, I'll do so. When I just looked at the edits, the article is only one sentence but I'll restore all of the previous edits and perhaps there was more content there that got pruned. You can find it at User:Montanabw/Woodstock Raceway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, oh great one! Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is your message to me: Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 1 February 2016

Just to refresh some people memories about collaboration. In 1930-1940 the USA collaborated with the Soviet Union by building around 1500 factories in the USSR and with German Nazi - by supplying them strategic resources. As a result, the USA covered up genocide of East Ukraine in 1932-1933, that killed between 4 to 6 millions of Ukrainians and in the midst of it established diplomatic relationship with the USSR. It's also ignored persecutions of Jews in Nazi Germany until 1938. And even then refused to accept Jewish refuges to the USA until the end of war. Without this collaboration II World War would never happened. However, the USA made a lot of money from it and even took as a payment grains confiscated from Ukrainian farmers who where left to starve to death. And now the USA helps Putin regime by allowing Russian propaganda TV channel RT to broadcast in the US and by creating several American TV series on ABC and CBS networks where Ukrainians portrayed as terrorists. Viva to collaboration! For those don't know much about the world - Ukraine is fighting a hybrid war with Russia since March 2014.

To be clear, I don't assume that people have a good faith. At least a majority of them. Otherwise we would see both Clintons, GWB and B.H.O'Bama and several hundreds more serving a life sentence. You, for example, found to be uncivil my respond to a post of individual who vandalized several times my edit about Criticism on "Quantico". Here what is about:

Quantico in the series premiere «Run» mentioned on 34:44 min that the CIA think that the terrorist act on Grand Central Station is tied to Ukrainian nationalists. This part has really offended Ukrainian people who are fighting a proxy war in the East Ukraine with Russia. [39]By a strange coincidence, 2 other American TV series from CBS - Elementary[40] and Madam Secretary[41] also portrait Ukrainian nationalist as terrorists. It raised questions about the reasons behind it - to portrait people who are fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine as terrorists.

However, you have no issue with civility of my opponent who posted crap like this: "So, you're a troll. Grow up, guy-who-won't-share-his-own-name. Alex|The|Whovian?" Who are you Liz and why are you afraid to state your real full name? 03:22 UTC, February 1, 2016 Socrat1

So Liz, it's been a week since you deleted my post from My Talk page playing a god who know all better. And again playing a god claiming to be too busy to answer. Maybe it's time for you to quit working for a government? It may get you finally some time to do good for people - not for Evil... 05:02 UTC, February 9, 2016 Socrat1

I thought not acknowledging your ranting about evil government conspiracy theories was preferable to blocking you as a troll. Try focusing on improving articles rather than posting on my talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Miss Civil calling me a troll. I guess that is the level of a wiki. What if I'm a whistleblower in the case involving the state police contractor and the cover-up of this case by the state and federal law-enforcement agency like the FBI, IG, DoJ, AG and US congressman and US senators, including but limited to SA Chris Cieplik, SA Ron Offutt (FBI), John Larson, Richard Blumenthal, Joe Lieberman, the state Auditors of Public Accounts (whistleblower office), the office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (at the time) and his right hand assistant in the whistleblower department multimillionaire Stephen R. Park and by mr. Blumenthal friend's company from the city of Omaha, where mr. Dick spent so much time since his childhood and who Dick helped to secure state contract back in 1995, while working as the AG? And of course it doesn't matter that I brought to the USA the military technology that is worth trillions of dollars where the US was decades behind the USSR. But I'm guessing I will still be a troll for a government servants. That is the reality and explains why people killed Jesus. It always been smarter and beneficial to serve a government, than the country and the people. And to your little knowledge, if you had read something before deleting my addition, I was adding a part to the Quantico TV series page. 03:49 UTC, February 10, 2016 Socrat1

Please stop posting on my talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Liz, you asked me to do so by leaving a message on my page. Here is a part of your message: ...If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz. Were you dishonest then? How about restoring my post on my page, and removing your dishonest message from my page? Can you do this? 04:14 UTC, February 10, 2016 Socrat1

You have more than had your say, Socrat1. Enough. Stay off this talk page and do some productive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us and the AfroCROWD initiative at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign. Saturday February 6 Black Life Matters Editathon (RSVP). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (Bonus upcoming event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednesday, February 17)

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

Liz-

Can we have a discussion on why my page was deleted? This was a long process to even get it setup and approved by Wiki to be on. It she my work and career very seriously and had plenty of references and external links to support this page. I'm not sure why it was deleted without a proper discussion or notification.

I'd love to have a conversation about it in hopes of reinstatement.

Thank you.

Scott Paskoff

That process would be made easier if you created an account. That helps communication rather than conversing with an IP address. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You zapped this as an unsourced BLP, but just before that I had added a source and removed the BLP-prod. It's thin, but a vice-chancellor is presumably notable, and it seems to be a real university, with an article. Actually, Dweller had already deleted it while I was organizing the cite-web, so the Swami has had rather an up-and-down morning! JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, JohnCD, it looks like the article has been recreated so good luck with improving it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I restored it, because that's the version you deleted, though no doubt the cache was showing you the unsourced version. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Weird that I deleted the article that had been prodded for so long (since 24 January) at exactly the same time as you were adding a citeweb! Sorry if you were confused by whatever weird error message the software gave you. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow that article was deleted 3 times in 8 minutes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Liz I made a Wikipedia of the person above and it has been deleted by you. It mentioned that the reference that was given did not mention the person and that the person may not even exist. I recently got another reference from a news media site talking about this person showing that he exist but you have already deleted the wiki. Can you please check this ^[1] as it mentions Abdullatif Ghazi Abdullah. You may need to translate it as it is in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetsimeta (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wetsimeta, I can restore this as a draft page but it still needs additional references. But you would get additional time to work on the article. Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes please if can do that then that will be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetsimeta (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Wetsimeta, you can find the article now at Draft:Abdullatif Ghazi Abdullah. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

DanWOrr has asked for a deletion review of Ashley Renee Jones. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Cryptic. I regularly check the deletion log for articles that are immediately recreated after being deleted and this was one of them today. The recreated article was identical to the original article that had been deleted so I deleted it with the same A7 rationale.

I made an error though with this article though because I normally tag questionable articles and then have a different admin choose to delete it or not. But I neglected to check the box on the Twinkle interface that places a tag only and so I inadvertently deleted it myself. This has happened to me a few times and it's something that I try to avoid. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Liz,

could you please delete the page Akana, I need it for the Article SOA Software, because the company was renamed in March 2015 to Akana. Thank you in advance!

Best regards.--MainFrame (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you need to make a proposal at WP:RFD since this involves deleting a redirect or go to WP:RM since it involves an article move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your help mopping up the "minor spill" my boldness in userifying that article caused. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, I want something else. :) Could you also move talk:Qubic to talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe? (Should I have requested that as a separate operation? I kinda thought they'd be done together. ) Jeh (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The talk page should have moved as well, Jeh, I know I had that box checked when I moved the page. Since there is content on both Talk:Qubic and Talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe pages, a merge would be more appropriate than a page deletion but I don't know how to do a page merge. I think you should go to ask another admin who has more page moving experience or go to WP:RM and ask for help there. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no content at talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe. It just appears that there is because that page is a redirect to talk:3-D Tic-Tac-Toe (Atari console game). That redirect was created when I moved the original 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe to 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe (Atari console game). So it redirects to the talk page that belongs to the Atari article. If you will look at https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Talk:3-D_Tic-Tac-Toe&redirect=no you will see it. I"d think that a "move over redirect" would work for the talk page just as it did for the article page. Meanwhile I will put a CSD tag on the talk page, for documentation if nothing else. Thank you for your help and consideration! Jeh (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Another admin got to it. Thanks again! Jeh (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how this PROD got by me; subject is clearly notable as producer of multiple notable films, and only legit question is whether there should be an independent article or merger to its principal, the very notable Clive Barker. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Consider it done! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, last year you added a category tag to a talk page archive[7]. We don't normally categorize talk pages/archives in that way (and most of the archives of that particular talk page are not categorized). I think (e.g. for consistency and to make it easier to detect those talk pages that have been inadvertently categorized by an editor omitting the extra ":") that talk pages/archives should not be categorized like that. Do you agree? DexDor ^(talk) 07:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tags from a couple of talk page archive pages. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Liz, hi. Just FYI, Vote X has made some very uncomplimentary remarks about FPaS in their edit summaries during their recent postings to the Reference Desks - you can check the page history if you want to see the details. I'm not replying on the main talk page to prevent further inflammation of the situation there. Tevildo (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Tevildo, the danger of weighing in an opinion on an area of Wikipedia that one doesn't frequent is that one is unaware of all of the circumstances that editors are referring to. Thanks for filling me in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, also regarding WP:RD and about your comment here: [8] - my intent was not to critique any user, my intent was to notify. There have already been several thousands of words spent over the last month or so discussing this long-term semi-protection, and even a loose consensus against the move in my assessment, but nothing has changed. If someone unilaterally makes a move that affects the entire ref desk, then they can be named. I linked those users only out of clarity and politeness. I am mostly active at the ref desks, so I don't know as much about WP culture and what goes where, but I thought the ref-desk talk page was as good a place as any for such a notice. I am in the process of crafting a post for AN to draw more admin attention to what I see as a problem at the ref desk that needs more admin involvement to be resolved. If you like, I can notify you if/when I post it there. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SemanticMantis, it seems like there is more history to this discussion than I was aware of. It would be great if you could notify me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I wish you luck. While I could easily be wrong, I think a problem you'll find is that your views on how to deal with problematic editors may not be the same as those who frequent AN. For example, you may consider [9] an example of a good way to engage with an obvious troll, but I'm not sure AN will see it the same way. P.S. To be clear I'm talking about the whole thread not just Wnt's response. I actually saw the thread before the editor started talking about banning blacks from voting and it was fairly obvious what was going. Actually even from the first post although I only saw it after replies hence why I didn't delete it. P.P.S. That's if you get much response. Unfortunately from what I've seen while AN is a bit better than AN//I, it still becoming increasingly common that you get one or two editors saying stuff but nothing really happens, even in cases where IMO it's clearer there's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Liz and @Nil Einne:. Actually, since I won't get around to pushing this to AN until at least next week (real paid work calls:), either of you may like to look at or possibly contribute to my very rough draft in my sandbox here [10]. Maybe this a bad idea, I don't want it to turn into some huge referendum on trolling policy or specific users, I just want more admins to weigh in on the long-term semi-protection. Indeed it might not get much attention or resolve anything, but I feel like I have to try something, or accept defeat by a few users who seem to not respect our principles of openness. I'll accept consensus for closing the ref desks to the public if I see it. Right now it seem to me that FPAS is really dug in, and no other admins feel like fighting with him. I don't like that because it's not how we're supposed to operate, but if enough admins can agree that this is the way it has to be, I'll concede the point. The short version of my discontent is that I see WP:RD as a public service, and it really bugs me when another user disrupts that service, apparently without consensus. I know it doesn't make it count any more, but I'm one of the desk's more active users who provides many many RS references per week, I almost always AGF and use civil tone, and I've never been reprimanded for anything. The same cannot be said for some of the most vocal proponents of closed ref desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tuesday February 16, 5:30pm: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim
You are invited to join us for an evening of social Wikipedia training and editing at the Guggenheim, with a workshop given by the Art+Feminism project to prepare for next month's major campaign, and a tour and edit-a-thon of Photo-Poetics: An Anthology. Tuesday, February 16 Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim (RSVP at Eventbrite - Participants have to bring their own laptops and power cords). 5:30pm - 8:30pm at Sackler Center Media Lab, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1071 Fifth Avenue; enter through 89th Street staff entrance
Wednesday February 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, and welcome input from community members on the sorts of projects the chapter should support through both volunteer and budgetary efforts. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday December 17 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One talk this month will be on use of Wikipedia press passes for photographers.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Please block user:86.134.166.234 before my WP:AIV report turns stale. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5D4A:3D80:F3:91B (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz.  (For the sake of full disclosure, I just want to mention that I'm asking one or two other administrators this same question.)  In a Wikipedia article about a motion picture, how closely can the plot summary duplicate the plot summary from the Turner Classic Movies website.  Is it OK if it reads basically the same with some words changed here and there?  Or would that be a copyright violation?  I'm asking because I noticed that (as of this writing [11:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)]) the Plot section of the Wake of the Red Witch article is extremely similar to the plot summary for that film on the website TCM.COM (click READ THE FULL SYNOPSIS).  (There is actually a reference to the TCM website at the end of the Plot section.)   I doubt that it's a problem, because the Wikipedia article has been that way since December of 2008; and I imagine that if there were a problem it would have been detected and corrected by now.  Nevertheless, I'm curious.  Thanks; I appreciate your time.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard27182, I'd go to Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations for guidance. It looks like the first step is bring up the issue on the article talk page, add a copyright tag (with corresponding URL) if the situation isn't resolved quickly and consider going to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems where there are editors and admins more experienced in copyright issues than I am. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz.  Thank you for your reply and your very good suggestions.  They are very much appreciated.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Heyo!I was reading old RFA's when i came across you. Wanted to wave hi to another Jersey person~! Wintery Time on the Grassland (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Winterysteppe! I'm not from the East Coast but I have called it home for quite a few years now. I guess at some point, I'll think of myself as a native. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Just looking through Rudeboy789's contribs when tagging his article for deletion and...wow.

Fascinating contrast with his message on my page... (I've never declared my gender on Wikipedia.) Reported to RVAN, in case you hadn't already. Blythwood (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I just took it as trolling. I don't know why he picked me as I don't think we'd had any prior contact on Wikipedia. He must have had other user accounts. I just delete and move on unless these kinds of posts continue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

He was (when not being creepy) spamming with articles for a removal company - one, according to Google, not notable apart from one of its former employees murdering someone. Blocked now. Blythwood (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Can I recreate the page for Charles Hurt (journalist)? He is quite notable:-former D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post, covered Biden, Clinton, Obama campagins in 2008-Drudge Report staffer-Washington Times columnist-New York Post columnist-Fox News guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Marquis de Faux, I'm just seeing your message now. You can recreate the article but this time save it in draft space Draft:Charles Hurt where it won't be subject to speedy deletion. Also, try to address the concerns that caused the original version to be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to hear your explanation for removing sourced content here. Curro2 (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It was an additional statement, added later and not included in the reference. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw your talk page and maybe it needs archiving. Winterysteppe (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I always keep the current month and the previous month. You should go talk to some editors/admins who keep YEARS worth of talk page messages, sometimes going back to 2012. I don't think having January and February is a great deal-breaker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. haha. And also Years? dang. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I just came across a user talk page that has posts from 2008! Seven years worth of messages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

For example, Winterysteppe, check out User talk:Medeis. This isn't rare. And I get more annoyed with editors who blank their talk page every time a message is posted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well... thats is cool. and yeah, blanking is annoying. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Content Translation tool has now been used for 50,000 articles
• Who edits Wikipedia?
• “Wikipedia is a testament to what we can create together as a global community”: Sara Mörtsell
• In brief

Wikidata weekly summary #186

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

• Events/Blogs/Press
  • Paper; From Freebase to Wikidata: The Great Migration
  • Podcast: Leetkultur: Datenbanken kuratieren
  • Upcoming: Ateliers Wikidata
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • In order to deploy the ORES extension on Wikidata we need a few more people to help with a labeling campaign. ORES will help us a lot with anti-vandalism fighting.
  • Timeline of Zika papers
  • A Wikidata/DBpedia Geography of Violence
  • The museum map now works for all countries
  • Biblioteca Nacional de España has been added to Mix'n'match
  • Wikidata BEACON has been switched to use SPARQL
  • Nice Wikidata-filled infobox used across different Wikipedias
  • Reasonator has been switched to SPARQL and got new examples
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Strand orientation, perimeter, sidekick of, bowling style, acceptable daily intake, operating area, Aarne–Thompson–Uther Tale Type Index, Nationalmuseum Sweden artwork ID, Nationalmuseum Sweden artist ID, Free Software Directory entry, Sandbox-External identifier
  • Newest WikiProjects: Religions, Award
  • Query example: natural numbers
• Development
  • The in other projects sidebar has graduated from beta features and is now turned on on all projects except Dutch Wikipedia. (They have their own hack.) This closes a wish that has been around since 2004 \o/ (phabricator:T2708)
  • The new datatype for external identifiers is available and we are converting existing identifiers
  • Input needed on caching for the query service
  • Added a new identifiers section in items. Everything with datatype external identifier goes there now. Once we have all identifiers converted items should be easier to scan and understand because of the clearer structure.
  • We have a patch upcoming that should reduce loading time of items with a lot of sitelinks by 25%
  • Fixed a bug where you could not add statements with external identifier or mathematical expression datatype (phabricator:T127095)
  • More groundwork for Commons (making it possible to have more entities than just items and properties)
  • Wikidata Query Service now supports all commonly used prefixes by default, without explicit declaration.
  • wikidata-sdk ships with a #SPARQL query url generator
• Monthly Tasks
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item
  • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
  • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 22:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz-

I'm curious as to why you believe this page is an attack? All information provided has been accurately sourced from legitimate news sources. The events that occurred in Ohio and Florida were notable news events in their local communities and have affected how other cities determine if they will engage with new election systems or not.

Thank you for your time.

Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was CSD tagged as an attack page and when I looked at the content, it seemed focused only on criticism of the company. An article can not solely be criticism, there can only be a section concerning criticism, legal problems or other controversy. If you want me to userfy the article so you can work on creating a balanced article, I can do that. But attack pages aren't allowed in user space either so I might have to delete some content if it is entirely negative. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that WP:CSD#G10 did not apply to this page. There may have been NPOV issues but that is not a reason to delete without discussion. G10 is primarily about BLPs and it was reliably sourced which also means G10 does not apply. I had started on balancing out the article removing alot of the undue weight on the issues but I am not sure if it was reverted after I left it for the night. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, McMatter, as long as you are not the creator of the article, you can remove a CSD notice that you believe is not applied correctly. I'm pretty sure that if I just restore the article, it will get tagged again but, like I said to Steven, I'd be willing to userfy it or move it into Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I had removed the CSD tag earlier, did you look into the history? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

McMatter, I did look at the edit history and your tag removal wasn't mentioned in the edit summary. I have restored the article at Draft:Tenex Software Solutions and I hope you and Stevenjohnson14 can work on making the article more balanced (see WP:NPOV) and not just an articled detailing complaints with the company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What does (Reverted 1 edit by Ravikallem (talk): Not an Attack page. (TW)) [11] mean to you? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want at this point. I restored a completely negative article so you could continue to work on it to make it more balanced which I believed was the reason why you came to my talk page. I think our business is done here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This month:

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Lilou Mace, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Just remmeber that User:Serendipodous/Top25 isn't an actual page; it's basically a sandbox. Nothing you see on it has any relevance. Serendi^podous 09:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381111/

Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Plus, the movie can be found at Brooklyn (film) which a more likely search term than Brooklyn (2015). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The test is not "reliable source" but "plausible source". These are not implausible, terms that readers are unlikely to search for, these are actual terms that one reader, me, has actually searched for. Brooklyn (2015) is, by a country mile the most common disambiguator used on the internet. You make implausible assumptions of readers. I just typed Brooklyn into Google - top of search = Brooklyn (2015) - IMDb. From here the most plausible cut and paste to avoid the faff of Brooklyn (disambiguation) is Brooklyn (2015). What exactly is the sake of making redirects if not to facilitate access to knowledge? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

On behalf of my fellow new page patrollers I thank you. For claiming I have created valid articles, I thank you and now I'm going to run away and create hoaxes and empty pages mwahahaha...um. no- Sorry, the excitement is going to my head. I do thank you. It is nice not to have to sit and wait to see the article get patrolled. I'm the impatient kind and hate waiting...And the New page list doesn't need to be longer. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 00:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It was an easy call, Antiqueight. As another rather new admin once said to me, "I pick the low-hanging fruit!" Meaning, at this point, I'm leaving the difficult requests to admins who frequent WP:PERM and other noticeboards. Once I am weathered and experienced, I'll make more of the tough decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"community"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. I thought it was the simplest way of pointing to what I meant. But I see now it could easily be confusing. You typed "committee"; I replaced it with "community" then reverted myself. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I did intend to type community but things get dicey when one thinks about editing another editor's comments. I appreciate you pointing out my error on my talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but as you can see I'm being bullied by the majority into submission.What do I do?Any advice or help will be appreciatedThanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 06:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your post [12]. Sorry, this rule had escaped my attention - I've cut my statement down a bit and will cut more to make it under 500 words. But are you able to clarify the "statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words" guidance? Does this mean that the word count of all the statements (including responses) made when added together must be shorter than 500 words? Or can a main statement be up to 500 words, and responses to other statements be up to 500 words. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, many editors are unaware of the case request word limits so please don't take the notice personally. In fact, it was just publicized that there is a 500 word limit to statements on Arbitration Enforcement which has never really been imposed until now. Most admins were unaware of it.

Right now, the clerks and arbitrators are discussing whether or not to include "hatted" comments towards the 500 word limit. The limit DOES cover responses to other editors. As a rule of thumb, as long as the statements (and responses) is between 500 and 600 words, you'll have no problem. It's just some folks post 2000 words (or more) so we are starting to pay more attention. It was also brought to our attention that if a case is accepted, there is a word limit to evidence and if someone has a preliminary statement of 2000 words, they have an unfair advantage over other editors who only get another 500 words in the evidence phase. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll merge my responses into my statement and cut things down more, so everything should be about 600-650 words max. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)