and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:
- Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
- Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
- Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
- Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.
So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
- A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
- Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
I NEVER write messages to myself on my own talk page but I just saw https://xtools.wmflabs.org/adminstats on the Admin Report and it's an interesting resource if any talk page stalkers don't check User:JamesR/Adminstats to look at admin stats. Psst! The admins you see the most on Wikipedia are not exactly the most active admins by stats counter. People get a niche area and work in it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Aircraft decade categories should be speedy renamed instead of deletedEdit
FYI categories like Category:Dutch civil aircraft 2000–2009 have been put up recently for speedy rename @ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Current requests. ~300 cats weren't found until after the original successful CfD, so some empty categories have appeared b/c all of their contents, but not the parent, were in the CfD. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- I saw your message, Tom.Reding, in the edit summary but when I went to speedy renames at CFD, I didn't see these aircraft categories listed. I even posted a message at Military History WikiProject to try to find out what was up with these empty aircraft categories (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories for the dozens of ones listed). Thanks for filling me in. I'll stop tagging them for CSD C1 deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version".
- A redirect is nothing similar an article.
- Similar is a synonym for identical.
Ergo, can you check if someone "restored" the page between the time I made the redirect and the time you deleted it?
- I don't know about a redirect, I deleted the recreation of an article. And you're right, the two version were not 100% identical but almost the same. In face, I think the first version of the article was stronger than the second. I don't see that either version established the kind of notability that Wikipedia requires but read the remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny Castro for other opinions. The references/citations were not very strong at all in either version and you need to establish that Castro is notable in several, NON-TRIVIAL, reliable sources that focus upon him (not just a passing mention).
- Do you have any interviews, feature articles or reviews from Billboard or Guitar Player or other respected magazines or trade journals that focus upon him? Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think FoxyGrampa75 was just wondering what happened to the redirect they created at Lenny Castro on April 1 (see ). They appear unaware that their redirect was overwritten on April 9th in order to recreate a full article. I don't think their intent is to write or maintain an article on the subject.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- (just ninja'd) That's my point. He is not standalone notable outside of Toto (band), so I wanted to create a redirect to the aforementioned page to defer people from recreating the article and getting it salted. Once I recreate the redirect, I would like a hard protection placed at said redirect to stop people from overwriting it. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!Edit
- Thanks, Thegooduser. I'll check my email later tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Restoration of article "Steven Paul Whitsitt"Edit
Hello. I am requesting the restoration from deletion of the article "Steven Paul Whitsitt" created by me.
Please let me know if there's anything more you need from me to have the article restored. Thank you.
- Hey, Aerlenbach! There isn't an article by that name but there is a draft page, Draft:Steven Paul Whitsitt. Draftspace is an area of Wikipedia where articles are worked on until they are in good enough shape for the main encyclopedia space. There are some editors that will move new articles into Draftspace from the encyclopedia if they think the articles don't have sufficient references or if there are other problems. This is perfectly normal, Draftspace (along with a user's sandbox) is where we work on articles and the page has not been deleted. Let me know if you have other questions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Did you read my message, Aerlenbach? As I said, there is no article by that name, it was not deleted so nothing needs "undeletion". It was moved to draft space. You can find it at Draft:Steven Paul Whitsitt. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Why should Category:Fictional bisexuals be deleted as opposed to deleting the new Category:Fictional bisexual and polysexual characters? From what I can see, what the new category holds is what the old category should hold. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Flyer22 Reborn: I simply tag empty categories that appear on the Wikipedia Database list. Then they sit for 7 days. If someone assigns an article/page to the category (as in this case) during that week, the deletion tag is removed. If it remains empty for 7 days, the category is deleted.
- BUT unless the category has gone through CfD, it can always be recreated if needed! My goal has always been to have a healthy category system that is logical and follows Wikipedia guidelines (and is USED!). Category:Fictional bisexuals was empty (and there are a lot of reasons why this could happen) but now it is not empty and I've removed the tag. If you think Category:Fictional bisexual and polysexual characters is not needed, propose deletion or merging at CfD and there is a good chance your proposal will be approved. Be well, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Liz, I just meant that something was off about Category:Fictional bisexuals being empty while the new Category:Fictional bisexual and polysexual characters held material that the previous category should be holding. I knew it had something to do with the creation of the latter category. I was also thinking that, although the previous one might be recreated, it's best that it doesn't lose its edit history. Anyway, looking here and here, I see that Timrollpickering took care of the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 33Edit
Regarding deletion of Wagyu (comedy duo) - May 2019Edit
Hello, this is in regards to the deletion of the page Wagyu (comedy duo). It was marked for speedy deletion because it was potentially advertisement and promotional. I am somewhat confused by this because there is no intention to intentionally promote anything, if I have written in a way that seems so, I apologize. The subject in question is a famous comedy duo from Japan that have several television appearances and certainly fit the notability guidelines and if you go on their Japanese Wikipedia page or any other research on them, you'd agree that it is deserving of an encyclopedic article. If possible, can you please revert the deletion so I can make appropriate changes or at least be given a chance to contest the speedy deletion? Thanks
- Hello, FreshUdon,
- I have restored the article and moved it to Draft:Wagyu (comedy duo) where you can continue to work on it. While it is not mandatory, it would really help the article avoid deletion if you could find some reliable sources in English or if you could translate the Japanese names for the newspapers/magazines/websites with English equivalents so that reviewers can see what they are. I think the article might be tagged because editors on New Page Patrol could not evaluate the quality of the sources because they were in Japanese. And, even if you are a fan of the duo, avoid overly complimentary language and try to write about this team in an even-handed, objective way. You might include any criticism or controversy involving Wagyu in order to be seen as less promotional. Let me know if you have other questions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you delete the page =Title=?Edit
- Hello, 99721829Max,
- If you look at =Title=, you'll see that I was the third administrator to delete this page. Admin EncMstr deleted it on May 25th (it was tagged CSD G14: Unnecessary disambiguation page: nonsense link unlikely to be referred to) and admin SlimVirgin deleted it the day before (it was tagged CSD R3: Recently created, implausible redirect). The page also was tagged CSD R3 when I deleted it. So you have THREE editors who tagged it for deletion and then THREE admins who later deleted the page vs. you, who want to keep the page. You can see explanations of all of the criteria for speedy deletion (like G14 and R3) at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. You also see further information about deleting redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#When should we delete a redirect?.
- I think the better question is why on Earth you thought anyone would be looking for "=Title=" on Wikipedia! What page would they be looking for? I think R3 was appropriate, it is an implausible redirect that no reader would ever type in the search field. And since you were so persistent, the page is now protected to prevent future recreations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion of Petroteq Energy Inc.Edit
I would love your help understanding why my article was deleted again and how I can make the necessary changes? You declined my article for the below reason - Declining; "draft reads like placed PR, and the "Patented Clean oil Recovery Technology" subheading is blatant advertising. Possibly a WP:NCORP failure as well." However, this company has a patented process called C.O.R.T. and it stands for Clean Oil Recovery Technology. I am not attempting to advertise and am not affiliated with this company in any way. I am simply a writer and activist who wants to write more articles on clean energy. I looked directly at the source page from a similar company on wikipedia when creating this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anadarko_Petroleum&action=edit). Can you please tell me what I am doing wrong and allow me to finish this article?
- Hello, Nikko,
- Can you give me the exact name of the page? Was it a draft? I didn't tag your article for deletion but I guess I checked it out and followed through on the deletion. But I edit a lot of articles and it would be helpful if you gave me a link to where your deleted article page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Liz, you may or may not already know this, but I'm guessing Tashi was blocked for that struck and suppressed comment at
20:26, 21 May 2019 in that ANI discussion (they apologized at the end). On that guess, I've copied and pasted some advice on their talk page on how to appeal a block. starship.paint (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- If it is suppressed, I can't see the comment but I trust in the decisions of our oversighters. As a principle, I think there should always be a way for blocked editors to appeal their block, even if it unlikely to have their unblock request be granted. Thanks for letting me know Starship.paint. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019Edit
- From the editors: Picture that
- News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections
- In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball
- Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey
- Technology report: Lots of Bots
- Essay: Paid editing
Deleted page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roger_BooreEdit
Could you please reverse the deletion of this draft page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roger_Boore
I am planning on working on this page.
- Hello, LeadRoleInACage,
- I'm sorry to just be seeing your message. You did the absolutely correct process, to restore an expired draft, you need to either contact the deleting administrator or go to WP:REFUND. The draft is back and can be found at Draft:Roger Boore. Again, my apology for the delay. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Der Alkoholismus: Einführung in ein soziales Problem has been acceptedEdit
Did I hurt some feelings?Edit
I'm sorry, it's just the admins around here don't ban editors that are solely here to insert their nationalist bias across wikipedia. I'm sure accounts which make ten of thousands of edits each to support extremist ideologies are a positive effect on wikipedia, really they must be why else would they keep being allowed to edit after a dozen blockings, topic bans, and even "permanent" bans. Thanks for the warning, I'm sure you won't do anything to stop editors with an agenda as long as they are half-civil during their attacks on wikipedia.
- Gee, I don't think of it as passive aggressive, it's just a photo of a little kitty! It sure is not meant to be intimidating, it's just asking you to remember there is a person here (as are you) and to not post when one is angry.
- As for my message to you, I meant it as a warning because I don't like to see thoughtful editors blocked because they have gotten upset and lashed out. It happens every day here on Wikipedia. It is easy to get unnerved by other editors, especially when one is reverted. Collaboration is much harder than most people think because we all come to Wikipedia with our attitudes, life experiences and biases (which we all have). Unless one is a fervent neo-Nazi, no one is blocked on Wikipedia for what they believe but for how they behave. There are many editors and admins here whom I disagree with but we need to coexist.
- You didn't ask me for my opinion, but I think a) every person has an "agenda" if you mean preconceived political opinions and b) there is the expectation that editors can objectively edit despite their own personal views. And yes, I wouldn't block an editor because of their "agenda" as long as they worked collaborative, were civil and not disruptive.
- If you only want to work with editors who share your own point of view, there are quite a lot of other wikis online where you might be more comfortable. Being an editor on Wikipedia involves working with people you don't agree with (especially if you choose to work on political articles). It's the nature of work here and if that is unacceptable to you, there are dozens of other sites who would probably welcome you and your efforts. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted my Page Helianthus and Its HistoryEdit
Hello, I am writing to you because you have deleted my page. I would like to ask you, if you could be so kind and have me retrieve it so I can make the changes based on the wonderful feedback that you have given me. I'd really appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayrahdez15 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Mayrahdez15,
- Can you give me the exact name of the page? I handle a lot of pages and deletions and so if you could give me the exact page name, I can check and see why it was deleted. Thanks.
- P.S. If you end your message with four tildes (~~~~), it will sign your name to your posts. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, first, Mayrahdez15, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). It is customary for editors to sign their posts so other people know who they are talking to. A bot signed your post for you but you can't depend on bots to do things for you.
- Second, this page has a complicated history. First, there was User:Mayrahdez15/sandbox which was a redirect to a deleted page. This is the page that I deleted because it was an unneeded redirect. It served no purpose and it will not be restored.
- But, in the meantime, on May 15th, you moved User:Mayrahdez15/sandbox to Mayrahdez15/Helianthus and its History
- Then, on May 16th, NessieVL moved Mayrahdez15/Helianthus and its History to Draft:Helianthus and its history
- Then, on May 31st, you moved Draft:Helianthus and its history to The History and Benefits of Helianthus
- Then on June 1st, RHaworth deleted The History and Benefits of Helianthus because it was a duplicate article of Helianthus annuus.
- So, your option at this point is to approach RHaworth and see if he would undelete it. You can give it a shot but RHaworth doesn't restore many pages that he deletes. But you can try. After you try this, if it is unsuccessful, I can see if I can move the content back to your sandbox. But please know that if you decide to move this draft, unchanged, back to the main space of the encyclopedia, it WILL get deleted again because we already have an article on that subject.
- So, I highly recommend you go to Helianthus annuus and work on improving the existing article rather than trying to supplant the existing article with one of your own making. This article has existed since June 16, 2002 and has an incredible 3,139 edits to the page so it is the work of many editors. It will not be replaced by your own article. I hope I was able to address your questions and concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Liz, this page is ridiculously large. I have asked MiszaBot to do something about it.
- Mayra, I wrote on your talk page: "Wikipedia is not a free host for student essays. Please get your supervisor to explain here how they allowed you to create the page." I am still waiting for a reply from you or your supervisor. It is a weakness of a badly-designed student project that they expect essays because marking an essay is the only way they can think of to assess your work. Can you imagine your average university lecturer wrestling with diff reports to judge what improvements you had made to the Helianthus annuus article? I am perfectly willing to send you your text so that you can post it on the university's internal wiki for your supervisor to mark. read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
what was going on?Edit
- If you edit Wikipedia for any long period, you will be threatened, Jack90s15. I see editors complaining about "personal attacks" on wP:ANI and I say to myself, "I don't think you have really seen a nasty personal attack!" Any way, some new editors think that it gives their opinion extra weight if they say that they have the police investigating "slander" or a lawyer looking into someone's conduct. It is almost always false, it's just bluster. In this situation, the editor will either a) drop it and continue as an editor or b) be serious about it and then they will be blocked. Wikipedia doesn't tolerate genuine legal threats. It's usually used to intimidate other editors which is not acceptable.
- Please do not worry about this. I know MelanieN received notice about this and I'll be checking their user talk page. I know of only one incident that resulted in actual legal action and that is when an editor posted false, inflammatory information about a living person that was an obvious lie. That happened years ago and it is not what is happening here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for this you are right I Just got this on my talk page (A page you just reverted an edit to that I made (you rightfully educated me on the edit summary) really needs protection from someone trying to make false edits. I requested full protection for 6 months while a lawsuit pends but is there any way you can assist.)
- and on the history of the page they say this
- (My changes are being made because the claims that were listed here were unfounded and false. There is an ongoing investigation and the information that MonaBacon aka Mary Ellen Cagnassola supplied is completely untrue. We have evidence to show that her claims are false and unfounded. We ask that her content be removed before it further escalates the situation with police and lawyers)
- and on the history of the page they say this
You recently commented on my talk page and I wanted to ask why is it that you all can't seem to understand that all I wanted to do is remove the bias from the section of acting I was editing. I originally deleted the entire thing but then changed it so instead I decided to remove any biased opinion so the only thing I changed was to put theory in front of pay equity because it after all isn't factual but rather a theory so I believe personally that it has to be changed some form or another but I will refrain from deleting the entire post. Thank you TheHunter100 (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, TheHunter100,
- First, you can delete anything you want from your talk page except for unblock requests (which doesn't count for you since you are not blocked).
- Second, Wikipedia tries to eliminate the bias that all editors have by not relying on my point of view or yours but what reliable sources say, that is reputable publications (newspapers, magazines, books, some websites) that are known for their truthfulness, fact-checking and editorial oversight. If you have questions about what sources are reliable (or you'd like to challenge a source you see as unreliable) there is a noticeboard for that: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia doesn't care what you or I consider to be "the Truth" but information that is Verifiable. If you are concerned about bias, you might read Wikipedia:Truth which is NOT policy but is a user essay.
- Finally, there are points of view on Wikipedia that I don't agree with as it seems like there are ones you don't. The correct response is either to challenge the sources (and it helps if you have alternative reliable sources to back you up) or, what I've chosen to do which is edit other articles. There are almost 6 million articles on Wikipedia so there are plenty of ways to contribute instead focusing upon the half dozen articles which strike me as inaccurate. Obsessing on differences of opinion can drive you crazy and lead you into edit wars which are best to avoid at all costs.
- Happy editing, whatever you choose to do, Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted empty categoriesEdit
Hi Liz, I see you deleted Category:Israeli bank robbers and Category:Israeli kidnappers yesterday because they were empty. And the reason they were empty is because on May 29, SPA BneiBrakPhone (talk · contribs) deleted the first one from Ronnie Leibowitz and the second one from Aharon Goldberg (along with many others). I have reverted the vandalism, but I am calling today about the deleted categories. StonyBrook (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, StonyBrook,
- After empty categories are tagged for deletion, they sit for 7 days in case they were emptied "out of process". That is usually enough time to catch these kinds of errors. Every week, I pull categories out of Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion that were empty but later have some pages assigned to them.
- Unless a category has been deleted through the CfD process, there is no problem recreating these categories once they are again deemed to be necessary. I'll restore these two categories. Thanks for letting me know! Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
- Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
- An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
- An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
- An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.
- The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
- Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedians who use ChromebookEdit
Category:Wikipedians who use Chromebook has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. —andrybak (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
"a world unto itself"Edit
You've Got MailEdit
|Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below.
Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.
March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles.
May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, , , and .
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
- Thank you, Calliopejen1. I didn't mean to ping you but I guess you got the alert. I had written out a response to post to the discussion, then realized I was out of my depth. But I didn't want to completely erase my thoughts. Right now, it's not a welcoming environment for opinions that are contrary to the prevailing mood and I understand, people are upset. I'll check out Cryptic's page. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello there, regarding the message you've left on my talk page, I believe the draft should be deleted right away as you said there's an article of the same name exists already. It's fine with me, I could just edit there instead. Cheers! :-) VictorTorres2002 (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Aircraft list maintenance categoriesEdit
Please do not tag a category for SPEEDY if it has been empty for less than a week. Also, these are maintenance categories, one was only created yesterday, and it is reasonable to suppose that the editor who created it the day before will object. Your action was therefore in violation of WP:SPEEDY. Finally, I am disappointed that you did not have the courtesy to ask me what I was up to first, as being told that one's work is up for SPEEDY requires prompt action which may inconvenience and is certainly impolite. Thank you for your proper respect for our policies and guidelines from here on in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Steelpillow,
- Unlike other categories of speedy deletion, CSD C1, the tag for empty categories, just tags the categories, they are not deleted. Then, the tagged categories sit for 7 days in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. If after a week they are still empty, then they are deleted. But as long as a category hasn't been deleted in a Categories for Discussion case, any empty category that is deleted can be recreated at any time. A month later, a year later, no problem!
- It sometimes happens that over the course of this 7 day waiting period, a page or article will be assigned to a category and it is no longer empty. In that case we simply remove it from the Empty Categories category and take off the CSD tag. In your case, I thought that over 7 days, the two categories might very well have an article or two assigned to them and then we could remove them from the Empty Categories category.
- Since you are so sure these two categories will be used, I'll remove the CSD tags now. In spite of this, they will continue to appear every night in the Empty Categories list (that is generated daily by BernsteinBot) as long as they are empty. Any editor can choose to retag them and there are other editors who regularly check this page. In a week, if they are still empty, then I am going to retag them. That gives you two weeks to find at least 1 article that is appropriate for each of these categories. I think that should be sufficient time for you.
- Ultimately though, whether it is me or another admin, empty categories that are not
...disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help).
- are tagged and will be deleted after 7 days as that is what Wikipedia policy guides us to do. Let me know if you have other questions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Opt-out of empty categories notificationsEdit
Hi Liz, please leave me off the list of notifications of empty categories I created; possibly there was an article in the category which I can't find now (and won't argue about). Thank you. Hugo999 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely, Hugo999. I've been notifying editors who do a lot of category creation about this. I was brought to ANI for NOT notifying category creators about CSD C1 tagging so now it is the default. But I can omit your creation notices easily. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)