User talk:Liz/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"

Wikidata weekly summary #124

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 00:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

Greetings Liz. You were mentioned in arbitration: Liz, and consequently, may wish to make an opening statement. Ignocrates (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014


WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello Liz/Archive 8! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Wikidata weekly summary #125

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 18:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

This Month in Education: September 2014

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

Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe · MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #126

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 12:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #127

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • [[:d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/User conduct policies|Closed RfC: User conduct policies]
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Wikidata Toolkit 0.3.0 released - Wikidata Toolkit
    • ProteinBoxBot is making Wikidata the canonical resource for referencing and translating identifiers for genes and proteins from different species
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Investigated and fixed issues with time values
    • Investigated issues with coordinate value precision
    • Fixed a number of issues related to HHVM
    • Further work on usage tracking
    • Created smoke tests for items and properties
    • Created a widget to edit badges directly on the item without going through the special page
    • Prepared for a week of work with the WMF multimedia team and volunteers next week to get more planning done for structured data support for Commons
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 21:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #128

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Art+Feminism | Train the Trainers

Art+Feminism | Train the Trainers

Art+Feminism is pleased to announce Train the Trainers, a series of workshops in advance of the second annual international Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. We will provide tutorials for both the beginner Wikipedian and the more experienced editor. Learn the best practices on writing entries that stick and how to facilitate the empowerment of your community. The first workshop will take place on October 27, 2014 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at The Graduate Center of The City University of New York. Women, women-identified and male allies welcomed. Experienced editors please talk on the meet up page to help co-facilitate. Light refreshments will be served.

Hope to see you there! --Failedprojects (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #129

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • The Wikidata Game now has a 'Commons Categories' game
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Made significant performance improvements (to be rolled out next week)
    • Worked on usability improvements to the editing of sitelinks
    • When you link to an image on Wikimedia Commons in a statement it will now show up in “global usage” there.
    • Made the phpunit tests for Wikibase much faster
    • Wikibase phpunit tests on travis pass with hhvm now
    • Fixed label/description uniqueness constraint checks
    • Work on entity usage tracking
    • Year formatter now shows the year instead of the unformatted ISO string in case of a precision mismatch
    • Diff and old revision pages don’t run the JavaScript UI any more, should be much faster now
    • Introduced a Changers concept to the JavaScript frontend, wrapping the API and entityStore functionality
    • Identified issue causing content in the old serialization format to be included in XML dumps
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 20:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

inquiring mind
Thank you, busy reading editor with a pumpkin, for gnomish work sorting categories and rescuing articles, for inquiring about the work of admins and arbitrators (you would be good at it!), for missing people, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

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

A year ago, you were the 650th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Minor Note

Hello, Liz. Just a minor note that I've commented at User talk:Ploreky on the AfD thread you previously started (after I encountered them voting for an AfD I nominated). Of course, my thoughts are subjective (one sentence might be a bit confrontational- I striked it), if this notification is biased or inaccurate please let me know. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, VickKiang,
I'll take a look at it. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Losliya Mariyanesan

When I saw this re-created I thought no not again, when I logged back I saw you'd taken care of it - nice to know your set of eyes are everywhere... Dan arndt (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When I G4ed this I didn't know if it's sufficiently identical, but anyways it's still almost entirely unsourced and has no improvement whatsoever, nor are the AfD concerns addressed. VickKiang (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Hello, Dan arndt,
Well, some folks, like you, have excellent memories of articles that have been deleted. Other editors seem to have remarkable memories about sockpuppets from long ago and what their habits were. I just check out the CSD categories throughout the day and see what's been tagged. CSD G4s can sometimes be tricky but not in this case! It was only a two sentence article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging it, Vicki. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
There are just some repeat offenders, who are so persistent, that they just stick in your mind (apparently forever). :) Dan arndt (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Also Dan arndt participated in every single deletion discussion about this... must have been frustrating, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (3rd nomination). One time it was apparently deleted under A7, and another version stated apparently rose to fame- maybe that qualified for G11... VickKiang (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.Skynxnex (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Spam Barnstar
For salting notorious spam articles. Liliana (UwU) 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Liz, what do my deleted edits say. Can you check my deleted edits please. Bassie f (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
Well, I've been regularly editing here for 9 years and this is the first time I've encountered this question. Let me try to sum them up. You don't have many deleted edits, only 13 (I have thousands of deleted edits) and they are edits from January 2020, January 2022 and August 2022. They were to the pages User:Bassie f, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bassie f (which wasn't actually an RFA but just a page that had some content about the role of administrators), you moved page Prime Media Group and its talk page to PRT Company Limited, and User:Bassie f/SBS Radio 3 and Draft:SBS Radio 4 which both were later moved to other titles. None of the edits were deleted because of their content, it looks like you either requested page deletion or, in the case of the redirects, if a page gets moved back to its original location, the previous edits to the page (like an old redirect) are normally deleted in that moving process. You can get more information about the circumstances of page deletion if you look into the page log (which would look something like this). You can access it from the page history through a link that says "View logs for this page" at the top of the page.
So, all very innocent and understandable deleted edits. One thing it shows me though is that you don't tag pages for deletion, that's what most of my deleted edits are from, when I've tagged a page that later gets deleted. If I was a benign, all-powerful ruler of Wikipedia, one thing I would change is that I would somehow enable extended confirmed editors to see their deleted edits...often pages get deleted without the page creator ever receiving a notification and I wonder how they can possibly remember pages that they might have created and stopped editing years ago if they don't get a talk page notice about them. The ability to see ones deleted edits or deleted pages that one edited or created, while there are some disadvantages and risks to this ability, is a privilege I wish we could extend to experienced editors and it is the one privilege of adminship that I value the most and use frequently. It's how we compare different versions of articles if they get recreated and we can often spot sockpuppets by looking at deleted edits to see who has edited a page months or years ago.
But I digress, you asked me a simple question and I hope I gave you enough information. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering why Captain Underpants: The Real Life Movie was converted into a draft. Parts of the article, such as Captain Underpants: The Real Life Movie premiered on May 21, 2023, at the Andrew Cinemas in Simi Valley, and was released in the YouTube on June 2. The film received generally positive reviews, with critics praising the animation, humor, faithfulness and references to its source material, and voice acting, particularly from Helms are obviously inaccurate IMHO and likely a hoax. The creator also has a COI, so I'm unsure that this has some potential merit. Therefore, could you explain your rationale? Many thanks for your time, help, and work on AfDs and CSDs! Also pinging User:Ovinus. VickKiang (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. I believe this to be a hoax as well. A Dreamworks film that's been released for several months shouldn't have 0 hits in google. Also the page appears to be a copyright violation of DeviantArt.com. I would encourage deleting Draft:Captain Underpants: The Real Life Movie. Looking at the author's user talk page, this is not their first hoax creation either. May be worth a look at their deleted contribs to see if there's enough here to block. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, VickKiang and Novem Linguae,
Thank you for looking at this page more closely than I did. I deleted Draft:Captain Underpants: The Real Life Movie as an obvious hoax. I appreciate you following up on this one. I'll check out the contributions for this editor, too. Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I see that I gave Andrew Olague a talk page warning about creating hoax articles back in August which I would have seen if I had visited their user talk page! I should have taken more time looking over this article. Liz Read! Talk! 18:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MaxnaCarta. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Health Liberation Now!, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaxnaCarta,
I'm not sure what this is about. This article has been nominated at AFD and then moved to Draft space so I moved it back to main space. I didn't review or create it. Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz I’m as surprised as you are to see this! It’s an automated message sent by the page curation tool. The reason I unreviewed is because according to my review log I am the person who reviewed it. Yet I never meant to, I simply tagged it for notability. Not sure how this happened but no harm done. Have a lovely day! MaxnaCarta (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello. Could these two edits be revdelled? [1][2] Based on the editor's username, it looks like they're writing about themselves. If so, the birth year they gave makes these look like something we shouldn't keep around. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Egsan Bacon,
 Done Thanks for alerting me. This editor and accompanying IPs might in for a short block if their edits continue like this. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for taking care of it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hello Liz, I noticed some new editors create pages that looks like a testing page on the mainspace. How do I move that page back to draft leaving a notification on the editors talk page. Does twinkle does that, or theirs a different tool for that, or is being done manually?. I just did a move on Draft:Ek Duje Ke Liye 2 (2021 film) but I don’t think I did it correctly. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabriel601,
I'm not sure that you have enough editing experience to know when an article should be moved from main space to Draft space. Please review Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving articles to draft space and get back to me when you think you understand in what situations draftification is appropriate, when it is NOT appropriate and what steps need to be taken and then I'll provide you with more information. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
“The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace.” Similar to what I did on the article Draft:Ek Duje Ke Liye 2 (2021 film), to the editor who created it on the mainspace. The page doesn’t seems like it’s ready because it doesn’t look a proper article. The infobox is also well not drafted as well. “It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion.” I won’t want to be rude to new editors by tagging their unfinished article to mainspace for speedy deletion or AFD when not necessary except they keep pushing it back to mainspace without a review which can result to AFD. I well fully understand the scenario of moving a mainspace article to draft space and I mostly focus on the new editors and unexperienced editor who ain’t also familiar with the Wikipedia general notability guidelines.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:North Weber Street-Wahsatch Avenue

Thanks on the clean up. One day I'll figure out which script catches all the redirects! Star Mississippi 00:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Star Mississippi,
Well, I rely on User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects' list. But I just found Draft:North Weber Street-Wahsatch Avenue v1 existed, which was a redirect to that draft...it probably would have been on AnomieBOT III's next report. The list updates every 6 hours throughout the day and night. It mostly contains redirects that don't get caught in PROD deletions or copyright violation pages because some of the admins don't use Twinkle to delete them. Twinkle usually takes care of any redirects but, for some reason, doesn't delete redirect talk pages (despite my pleas on WT:TWINKLE). Oh, well, all you can do is try...and complain politely. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh that draft was a bunny in a past life with all the hopping it was doing. Didn't know about that list, super helpful.
I understand Twinkle just enough to use it, but not enough to fully understand it. It's one of many pages where Novem translates what I'm saying into actionable steps for the folks fixing it.
Hope you had a good day! Star Mississippi 01:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I use Twinkle throughout the day, for almost all of my page deletions. I'm kind of a Twinkle cheerleader, I think it's so handy. It also remembers so many templates so I don't have to search for them. I'm just unhappy with it recently because it removed my favorite Welcome template from its list of frequently used Welcome templates so I have to use the "Cookie" one, a template which I find rather childish that doesn't tell new editors much about what they should know about editing on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
You can always add it back as a custom template though. – robertsky (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, – robertsky,
I've heard that's possible, I just need to learn how to do that. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#welcome, click on the Edit items button for the Custom welcome templates to display and a overlay form will appear. Then add the template name and a brief description. Then click on Save changes to close the popup. You might want to click on Save changes at the bottom of the Preferences page again to be doubly sure that the updated settings have been saved. – robertsky (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Some unresourced Dogme 95 movies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outcome I proposed this page for deletion. Also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_Another_Time_(film) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_Days Fortunewriter (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fortunewriter,
They look okay. However, you should probably use Twinkle for your deletion tagging. Once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post a notification on the talk page of the article creator which you didn't do. In the first two instances, the article creator is blocked and in the last case Gaudio isn't blocked but hasn't been active for other a year. So, the notifications are less important. But try to make it a part of any deletion tagging (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.) you do in the future. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Patient Guidance
Thank you for all your generous help, week in and week out, and for your patient, polite correction of my many errors and daft misjudgments. The gratitude is invisible on my user talk page, but it's there. Storchy (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In need of a jugement

Hello.

Two days ago, I openen an ANI here. So far, no admin has commented on it. Could you have a look? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Veverve,
I'm not surprised that no admin has commented yet as this appears to be a content dispute and it doesn't seem to be an urgent issue. ANI is really for intractible problems or emergency situations that need swift attention. I left a comment but didn't investigate your claims. Have you considered other dispute resolution forums like Third opinion or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? 20:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits and baseless claims

Hello again Liz, there's an editor Blazin777 (talk · contribs) who seems to be just doing unconstructive edits and misleading other editors when I had asked for a third opinion here, User talk:MPGuy2824. The page Venkatesh Desai was created by me which was nominated by Blazin777 for speedy deletion which was later declined.

They seemed to be rather delusional and can't accept the fact that the page is absolutely not promotional whatsoever. I tried warning them on their talk page too which they deleted it saying "personal attack".  Rejoy2003  10:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Replied here. Blazin777 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Rejoy2003 and Blazin777,
You are both guilty of edit-warring on this article and could have received blocks. Rejoy2003, calling another editor "delusional" IS a personal attack and you left a non-neutral message on their talk page which they have the right to remove. This is a collaborative editing project, you're going to run into conflicts with other editors and you have to find a better way of dealing with disputes than attacking other editors, edit-warring your edits into an article or going to an admin or a senior editor over every dispute. You both have to learn to communicate better about your disagreements because on Wikipedia, editors disagree with other editors every day! You look over my own talk page and you can find example after example of people who have found fault over something I've done. It's the nature of working with other people from all over the world who have different opinions than your own.
You are both very new editors and there is a learning curve to working here but if you don't find a way to deal with this calmly by going to the article talk page and talking your differences out, admins here will take action. I recommend that you both review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to find out different forums you can take your disputes to to get disagreements resolved. Don't let this escalate into a feud because that won't end well for either of you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Liz, I hope you've seen the article talk page too. From what I could see, Blazin777 is inexperienced and passed remarks without making any proper judgements. You should look the article contested deletion he cleared. Yet he kept on pressing about claims which make no sense. And also talking about "delusional", I only said it here. Blazin777 warned for a personal attack way before that when there's no such thing said by me. Looks like Lugnuts was right about deletionists.  Rejoy2003  02:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted?

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Popular_Culture_articles_by_quality_statistics. There is now a red-link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus,
Well, first, I restored this page for you. Secondly, when WikiProjects become inactive or defunct, eventually all of the categories regarding article assessment are emptied by some process on the project. I'm not sure what bot is responsible for this, I just know that about a year or more after a WikiProject's status is marked as inactive or defunct, their assessment categories are emptied and we are left with dozens of empty categories. Sometimes there are hundreds or thousands of categories that have been emptied by some bot, I can't tell you which one is responsible.
In this case, all of the categories in Category:Popular Culture articles by quality were empty and so they were deleted. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Popular Culture articles by quality statistics was contained in this category so it was deleted along with the empty categories. This is how we have handled thousands of emptied WikiProject categories for the past 3 or 4 years. I guess the thinking is, if the WikiProject ever becomes reactivated, we can easily restore these categories. But I've been working with UnitedStatesian on handling this for at least 3 years working with hundreds of WikiProjects and we have yet to see an inactive WikiProject revived. But I understand it could happen.
If this is a concern for you and you escalate it to some other forum to discuss, please let me know. I hope this answers your question. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining (I'll also @UnitedStatesian and see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Popular_Culture#Is_this_project_inactive?_I_dispute_this). I think we very much needs a policy change, as what you describe seems like make-up work that's not just unnecessary but disruptive (although I am sure there are good intentions somewhere). I come from this from the perspective of someone interested in these statistics (in this case, for my research). I see zero compelling reasons why this statistics should be hidden - it denies a resource that is useful to people like me, and it creates unecessary work for you and others. I can see zero benefit to the project, and only harm in information loss and volunteer time wasted. Any suggestions on how we can reform this process would be appreciated.
To be clear: even if a project becomes inactive, there is no good reason to cripple its former assessment structure. This also affects the entire assessment structure - I've seen, in the past, articles which had assessment by a wikiproject declared as inactive, and then the article became classified as "unassessed" for the entire assessment structure, even through it was (and still is) de facto assessed. Here's an example: Marquis de Sade in popular culture. This article has been assessed as start, but only by this WikiProject. As the infrastructure has been, for lack of better term, gutted, this article is now classified as "unassessed", as far as I know (since Category:Start-Class Popular Culture articles is now gone from the Category:Start-Class articles).
On a minor note, but with practical implications to me (and my research), I'd love to hear how we can restore the WPPOCULT assessment infrastructure (I wanted to see the list of articles categorized as GA and Start/Stub for it and while I was able to do it few months ago, now all of this is gone, or at least hidden in a way that I cannot untangle). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
All good questions, Piotrus. I think we first have to find out why the assessments are removed from the talk pages of articles once a WikiProject becomes defunct or inactive. What policy came up with that as a solution? Secondly, what bot is responsibe for changing all of those article assessments which results in emptying out the assessment categories? I'm guessing that it is User:WP 1.0 bot but we could ask the bot operators about this. From my perspective, I was just dealing with hundreds of empty categories but we need to figure out why those categories get emptied in the first place.
This process has probably been going on for a long time but it only really got attention from both UnitedStatesian and I about 3 years ago when we started cleaning up all of these empty categories. Of course, empty categories can easily be recreated but I think we both accepted the fact that the categories WERE empty as the way things were done without asking why they were emptied in the first place. I see now that the emptying out of these categories was preceded by a few years when both UnitedStatesian and I started marking a WikiProject's status as "inactive" if it hadn't had any activity on the main WikiProject page or the WikiProject Talk page for a few years. And I have to say that it is only recently (by that I mean in the past month) that I connected the fact that this status change on the WikiProject's main page seemed to result in the assessment on articles to change. I wasn't aware that the status change would have any effect at all except for putting the WikiProject in Category:Inactive WikiProjects. I don't think the assessment changes happen immediately, but they happen over the next 1-2 years after a WikiProject's status is marked as "inactive" or "defunct". This is just an observation, the bot folks would be able to tell us how things actually work. The only good thing here is that if the bot is responsible, I think it would be fairly straight-forward to undo the assessment changes, once there is a clear decision that this is what should happen.
And I have no clue who came up with this process of removing assessments from article talk pages once a WikiProject becomes inactive.. I just checked Wikipedia:WikiProject#Inactive projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects, Wikipedia:Content assessment and Wikipedia:Assessing articles and they don't seem to have any information about article assessments being altered, changed or removed when the WikiProject's status changes. It's stunning to think that something so fundamental as this could have been going on for years without a discussion about it. I'll check the Village Pump later today to see if there was any debate about this in the past. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Just to clarify, the assessment templates for inactive projects are not removed from the talk pages when the project is inactivated, nor are the project's specific quality and importance parameters for the article removed (though they of course become stale if the project is no longer reviewing articles). It is only the assessment categories that are no longer populated when the project is inactive, and are deleted when no longer populated. This means if the project ever returns to being a center of multiple-user collaborative activity, all of the talkpages will automatically repopulate the assessment categories re-created by the project participants. You can easily see which talkpages belonged to a now-inactive project by navigating to the Project's Template and then clicking on "What Links here", under Tools on the left side of the page.
In terms of your policy question, I suggest you raise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, where many editors who are very experienced in this area can be found.
Hope the above helps, and thanks for all your good work on the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for weighing in, UnitedStatesian, but I'm not sure I understand your first statement. When I look at an article that was assessed by a particular WikiProject, the assessment no longer appears on the talk page, just a banner that states that the WikiProject is inactive. I understand that the assessment isn't technically removed from the page, just what is visible changes. But it seems like it takes a while (like a year or so) from the time the status of the WikiProject is changed to inactive until the banners on the article are changed and the articles removed from the categories. And do you know, is it User:WP 1.0 bot that is responsible for these changes? Thank you for any insight you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: You are correct, the assessments are not visible, but they are still there, in the source code for the talk page: no edits are made to the page, and nothing has been "removed", only its visibility changed: an important distinction, I think. (and of course the page is still associated with the inactive project). To your question about the delay: there is no set time. I wait a year between tagging a project as inactive and changing the template, because if I am "judge and jury" I want to give project members a long time to visit the project page and say "hey, we are not inactive." Since I think I do most of the work in this area, that is probably why it seems the year lag is standard. But other editors could make a different choice, like marking the project and template inactive close to simultaneously, or with a shorter lag. It is not handled by a bot, thus the lack of a standard. Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Quick ping to the bot operators: @Kelson, @Audiodude and I'll link our discussion here from Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index (no prejudice to someone copying it all there and locking this section; arguably a WikiProject talk page may be a better venue for this discussion to be continued than here). I also linked the latter discussion from the Council page.
I think we need to revert the untintentional but problematic infrastructure destruction (i.e. restore the categories). I understand the reason for marking some projects as defunct and I appreciate your maintance job here, but I believe we are finding out that at some stage, a bad practice has developed, one that negatively and pointlessly affects the assessment scheme (this table). I could be wrong, but going back to the Marquis de Sade in popular culture article, I think that due to this practice, articles that are assessed only within the scope of now-defunct project are showing as unassed in the top assessment statistics. See for example the categories at any article's with active project's talk page (ex. Talk:Popular culture), and note no categories at all exist at the talk of "Marquis de Sade in popular culture". Since the categories are gone, even though the article has been assessed as start and the assessment template wasn't fortunately removed, the category link is broken and the article likely shows as not assessed anymore. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian and Liz: Just checking if this has stalled, or did the discussion move somewhere? My goal is to restore the deleted infrastructure, do we need a Village Pump discussion after all? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Piotrus, well, I found the WikiProject inactive template, saw that you had asked a couple of questions on the talk page that never got answers and so I went directly to an editor I'm friendly with who works with templates on their talk page. They couldn't give me any satisfying answers but that's okay, we all have areas we focus in on. Can you think of an editor/admin who works with templates who could be of some assistance? I'd rather understand the mechanism first for the article talk page template change before going to the Village Pump where my ignorance would quickly become evident. Any ideas? Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Liz I do appreciate you following up with this, but sadly I am about as ignorant here as you. I don't think it's bad form to ask, I pinged some folks above, left messages at some places, and al we get is either silence (nobody replied here) or "I don't know" (see the discussion here which got a few people talking but I think it's either "dunno" or "hmm, not good"). IF there is a good explanation for this (which I doubt) it's hidden so well it's a problem in itself. So if we are drawing blanks after a week, I can't think of what to do outside going to VP, where I'd be happy to support you and declare my ignorance as to why we do the things the way we do, which don't appear to be the smart way of doing them :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Rathwa hut closure

Good morning! Thank you for fixing that. I searched all over the place to find out how to "close" an AfD. (Maybe I missed something) but I could not find anything that said: do this, this, and this to close an AfD. So, I found the code (obviously wrong lol). Can you tell me how to properly close an AfD? Thanks! It's me... Sallicio! 11:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sallicio Wikipedia:XFDC is your best bet if the manual changes required to close a AfD overwhelms you. – robertsky (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Robertsky: Thanks! It's me... Sallicio! 11:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Sallicio, XFDcloser is the tool that admins or non-admin closers use. It's very tricky closing an AFD and putting the right templates in the right places. I probably fix formatting on 4 or 5 AFDs a week that were not done according to our typical standards so, don't feel bad, it is often done incorrectly if you are just pasting in some code. So, you're not alone. What frequently happens is that the title of the article is left above the top code or the bottom code is forgotten entirely which leaves the daily AFD log looking confused, like it is just one very, very long AFD. No worries.
But be careful when deciding which AFDs you feel equipped to close, it wouldn't hurt to talk to some other NAC editors who close AFDs and ask for their advice. We've got a good group of very experienced NAC closers who know what they are doing and in whom I have confidence. My only complaint is that they sometimes close AFDs a little too early but in most cases, they are unanimous discussions and a few hours doesn't really matter. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: Thanks for your help... yeah, I don't ever do it for that exact reason. This was the first time (obviously lol). Another admin deleted the article, but apparently neglected to close out the AfD after he/she deleted the article. Thanks again! :) It's me... Sallicio! 03:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:2409:4071:xxxx

Hi, Liz. I started removing the deletion tags from those pages, but managed to do only a couple before you did the rest. Are you just far quicker on the draw than I am, or do you have some script or something for doing them all in one go? JBW (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, would you consider archiving this page far more often? For people like me, who do most of our editing on phones, such a long talk page is really inconvenient to deal with. JBW (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

... and another thought. I see that the IP range has been blocked, either totally or partially, six times over the last year, by several administrators, including you and me. In that situation I feel it's time for a much longer block, a year or more. Any opinion? JBW (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JBW,
What a headache that was! First, they were tagging dozens of articles for deletion but those talk pages...we had to do each of those individually. There is a rollback script that I used for the regular article deletion tagging. It's powerful and I've probably only used it 7 or 8 times as an admin. But it's a script and when you go on to the Contributions page, there is an option in the drop down menu to rollback all of an account's edits. It only really works if they made the last edit on a page, if the edit is buried in a page history, it will have no effect. Any way, admins have gotten in trouble for misusing that mass rollback tools so it's really only appropriate for mass vandalism like this.
The talk pages were another matter. The latest range the vandal was on was so large that Wikipedia would not show Contributions for the entire range so removal of those deletion notices had to be done, page by page. Whpq was handling those as well.
But I checked in with Tamzin because I am very reluctant to do range blocks. All of the ranges this latest vandal was working from already had partial blocks so I just extended them. But I worry about collateral damage. At the time though, I just was thinking, what can we do to stop them!
And, yes, I meant to archive one month's worth of messages yesterday and will get to it today. I usually leave two month's worth of messages but this has just gotten too large. Sorry about that. Kudos to working on your phone...I haven't mastered that very well. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I've seen range blocks or individual IP blocks that were extended to 2 or 3 years...I've even seen one that was for 10 years. But I don't really do much blocking. I usually leave those long-term blocks to admins who are active with vandalism or work with sockpuppets. I think the only ones I'd feel comfortable imposing are school blocks when I can see that they've already had some longterm blocks in the past. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
You can probably find the rollback script I use at Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Rollback/reverting but I don't recall which one I installed. I've added so many scripts to my .js pages over the years that I'm hard-pressed to locate an individual one. I think that Checkusers are probably most familiar with mass rollback or mass deletion tools so you might ask an admin like Ponyo if you want specific advice. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the answers, to several points. I use the "rollback all" facility (whether it's a script, or a preferences setting, or whatever, I don't remember). That would be fine for the tagging of dozens of articles that you mention, but it doesn't work if the page was newly created by the user in question, as in the case of these talk pages ready made with deletion tags, which are the ones I was wondering about. As for range blocks, or in fact any kind of IP blocks, I never make them unless I have checked the editing history over a substantially longer time than that for which I am considering blocking, and determined that the risk of collateral damage is tiny compared to the likely gain. On this occasion I have done only a fairly minimal amount of checking, simply because doing it on a phone is too much trouble, and I wouldn't actually block without doing a more thorough check on a computer. I have certainly never done such a block for as long as 10 years, and I doubt that I've ever done anything other than a school block for even a few years, though if you have nothing better to do with your time you can search through my logs and see if you can prove me wrong by finding one seven years ago or something like that.
A few thoughts on the subject of editing on a phone, just in case you may wish to do it some time.
  1. Don't even think about doing it on the "mobile" interface, as it's horrendously difficult and frustrating. In fact the "desktop" interface is much better even for reading Wikipedia, in my opinion, and there's no competition at all as far as editing is concerned.
  2. Provided you switch to "desktop", I don't find editing from a phone particularly more difficult than from a computer, except in the following three situations (a) Anything that involves checking through loads of pages, as for example checking extensive editing history over a long period; (b) anything which involves writing a very large amount of text; (c) anything which involves very long pages, most often unarchived user talk pages. 🤨
And my very last thought... (at least for now) Why don't you set up automatic archiving,so you can just forget about it and it happens for you? JBW (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad I wrote "at least for now" in my last comment, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this thought. I am now on a computer, and have done some extensive checking of the history of the IP range in question, and here are my conclusions, for what they are worth to you. The substantial majority of editing from the rage, over a very long time has varied along the spectrum from outright vandalism to just useless, so a block would gain much more than it would lose. However, the benefit:loss ratio, although high, is not high enough for me to be comfortable with a very long block on the whole range. Unfortunately, our reluctance to block is exactly playing into the troll's hand, as shown by various posts, of which this is the most direct and explicit that I have seen. Looking only at user talk page posts, I find that almost all of them, over a long time, have been trolling, vandalism, etc, so that the benefit:loss ratio of a partial block on that namespace would be far better; however, the editing history suggests that the effect of that would be just to get the troll to move on to other namespaces. JBW (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Liz and @JBW, this is the work of OpIndia trolls [3]. Regardless of that XRV brought by an LTA, the mass rollback did cause some damage. I just spent an hour reviewing and restoring legitimate edits [4]. There were some non constructive edits by others that were not deletion tagging that I have ignored. I don't think mass rollback over such a broad range was needed here since CSD tagged pages would have appeared in a category and reverted from there. Mass adding {{db}} to pages like this registered (+7) bytes difference in the IP range contribs page and only those could have been rolled back. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ,
I'm sorry for the extra work this caused you but the situation was completely out-of-control. There were probably 70 or 80 pages tagged for deletion over the course of an hour and the IP vandal kept hopping around from one IP number to another. I'm used to handling vandals that either stick with a registered account (until it gets blocked and they create another) or are on a narrow IP range. I think there were 3 or 4 different range blocks involved with this person from Mumbai. You'd issue a block, untag a few pages and then he would fill the CSD categories up from a different IP range. I was just focusing in on removing the deletion tags from articles that shouldn't be deleted.
But thank you for telling me about the collateral damage, if I ever encounter this type of vandalism, that spread like a virus, I will take a few deep breaths before taking any drastic actions. But I hope they have found a different way to amuse themselves for a while. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand, these people have caused a lot of damage to Wikipedia in the last 2-3 years. They have driven away long term Indian Wikipedians like DBigXray and Winged Blades of Godric and harassed several others. You may know about WP:LTA/Grawp, these are like an Indian version of him. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Registered editor has not edited yet

It matters naught, but they never will! [5] [6] – Fayenatic London 21:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fayenatic london,
I noticed that the editor hadn't edited yet but did not know that they were blocked on another project. I think I've just got a habit of removing CSD tags from User talk pages. Years ago, I did delete a User talk page, got called out for doing so and then became a stickler for never deleting a User talk page. That's how many of my habits have been created and hardened into absolutes that probably should be a bit more flexible. But it also has kept me from repeating mistakes I made as a new administrator.
But I also wondered why you didn't delete it yourself. When I tag a page and let another admin review it, it's usually because I have a question on whether deletion is the appropriate action to take...I think it is, but I want a second opinion to confirm it. I think I might have thought that's why you didn't delete the page yourself. Any way, thanks for filling me in on the situation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
When I find a vanity page I normally tag it {{db-u5}} rather than delete it, just because two heads are better than one, and to keep myself accountable in use of admin powers. In this case it was more that I expected {{db-u2}} to generate a similar warning which I could copy and paste onto the anon editor's talk page... but it doesn't! Also, because of the admin discussion, I intended to initiate deletion but not delete it immediately, in case the other participants wanted to see it. – Fayenatic London 07:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: & Liz: (talk page stalker) I completely understand the point about tagging for another administrator to review, but I normally do that only if I have some doubt and think I need a second opinion. In cases where deletion seems to me to be obviously right, I feel that the advantages of having a second opinion are outweighed by the consideration that there are always more problems that need dealing with, such as more vandals, vanity pages, etc etc, and taking up time of two administrators instead of one means one less of those problems will be addressed. Obviously there's a judgement as to when to seek a second opinion and when not to, and of course I sometimes get it wrong, but whatever we do won't always be perfect, and it's a matter of doing what is likely to be benefical most often, over many occasions. JBW (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that, JBW. I do delete blatant cases myself, but beyond those it's a matter of judgment, and occasionally a second admin has blanked the page or reverted me instead of deleting. Some admins regularly patrol those pages, so they have more experience with precedents, and I don't think it takes them long. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion request for the 2WL redirect page

Hey Liz, I know you deleted the 2WL redirect page, because it’s target 96.5 Wave FM was deleted, but it has since been recreated, so can you please restore this redirect page Liz. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
 Done That was an easy request to handle! Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

All India Youth League

Hi. I noticed you deleted the article All India Youth League. It was prodded during a period that I was disconnected from Wikipedia. I'd ask that it be undeleted, since it is easily verifiable and notable. Take for example From Movement To Government: The Congress in the United Provinces, 1937-42 "By the end of 1929 the youth movement was at its zenith and government reporters were weary with listing the new branches of the All India Youth League which were springing up almost everywhere in the country...", Politics of Congress Factionalism in Kerala Since 1982 "As a result , a strong youth movement emerged and a number of organisations such as All India Youth League , the Swadeshi Bharat Sangh and the All India Youth Congress were formed." -- Soman (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Soman,
 Done PRODs can restored upon editor request so I have done so. Good luck improving the article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Anti-Spam Barnstar
For salting notorious spam articles. Einahr (Talk) 13:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Einahr (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_8&oldid=1122313035"