This is an archive of past discussions with User:Liz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The draft article creator was Jimmysonoma, GSS. They blanked the draft back in August 2018 and it had reached the six month period without any edits. Would you like the draft restored? LizRead!Talk!17:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
I'm sorry, I posted on mobile as I was in a rush, which gave the weird positioning. There was event near you yesterday, should have given you more notice. I can help you if you'd like to follow up with the event organizers and other local Wikipedians.--Pharos (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Just pushing this up because i kind of would like to know how the bug reports should be done or even more how you expect them to be ever fixed if methods how to replicate them are deleted. --Zache (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I missed your message when you first posted it, Zache. Are you asking me to restore this template? I can but I think that it will just be tagged for speedy deletion again. It looks like a broken template and although there is a note about the bug on the page, it's easy to miss the explanation for why this template exists. LizRead!Talk!22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.
We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.
We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.
Perhaps you should consider closing the clear consensus discussions instead of destroying the work put into getting ready to action the discussion. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
That redirect didn't lead to any section of the target page. I didn't know the redirect was being discussed, there was no tag on the page stating that it was the subject of any discussion. I'm not sure why the redirect page was created before the CSD criteria was approved which it was meant to post to. That was premature. LizRead!Talk!23:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles.
March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!
Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 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.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
In your statement re the Portal issues Arbitration request, you comment "They are not akin to Nellie's thousands of ill-thought-out redirects.". The redirects were created by user:Nelix not Nellie.
If you have not done so already (I haven't looked), you may wish to opine on the proposed temporary speedy deletion criterion discussion at WP:AN and/or the prosed expansion of P2 at WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Empty categories sit for 7 days in case there has been an out-of-process emptying, Mitchumch. Is there a reason you didn't move the discussion to CfD yourself during those 7 days? LizRead!Talk!05:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Because I didn't initiate the delete discussion. deletion of category. I requested Le Deluge to do so less than two hours before you deleted the category. That request also represented an ongoing discussion. I thought that ongoing discussion would merit a postponement of the deletion. Categories that are proposed for deletion that have ongoing discussions beyond 7 days routinely remain undeleted until discussion is complete. Mitchumch (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The "discussion" was you saying the category should not be deleted and Le Deluge saying that it should. There would not have been any resolution of this one-one-one conversation because you asked Le Deluge to post a request to discuss the category at CfD at the last minute. He legitimately tagged the category for CSD C1 deletion so why would he be arguing for the category to exist when it was empty? I'll restore the category but it is up to you, Mitchumch, to make a case at CfD for why it should not be deleted (which will be tricky since discussions there are usually about merging or deleting not saving). Since it usually takes 7 days to close a non-unanimous CfD discussion, that should take the a week as well. And, it would help your case at CfD if you assigned some parent categories to the page as right now as it is an orphan category.
I hope you understand that deleting empty categories that are not a) part of a CfD discussion, b) redirects or c) are tracking categories that are occasionally empty, is simply policy. We don't keep empty categories that aren't being utilized no matter what subject they cover. LizRead!Talk!05:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for overlooking the talk page, Mitchumch, I'll take care of that. By the way, there were only two edits to the category, one edit to create it and one edit to tag it for deletion. I assume you didn't want the tag reinstated but as long as it is empty, it will likely be tagged again soon. LizRead!Talk!01:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I was just archiving old cases, Huldra. You reverted your revert so it's all good. Thanks for letting me know though, I don't check my notifications often enough. LizRead!Talk!01:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure I'm not the first either, just the one that keeps raising it in the current set of threads. There isn't really a WikiProject Council; it's just a page that some people watch and offer opinions on. If more people would comment on the proposal on the portal guidelines talk page, then perhaps it can gain consensus support. isaacl (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't realize there wasn't an actual council. I'll have to alter my post there. Thanks for informing me. I think the proposal discussion is so massive, that it is intimidating to take on. LizRead!Talk!01:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean there's a page called that, but it's essentially just a talk page for people interested in WikiProjects. (I didn't follow it during its heyday, so maybe it was different before, but it certainly has been like that for long time now.) Other people commenting on the case have said similar things about the size of the discussion, but there aren't really a lot of alternatives with English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions. Discussions are open to everyone and they all get to have their say. I could be misremembering, but as far as I recall, the conversation has been relatively calm compared with many others I've seen in the past. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, it hasn't been so nice on ANI and the arbitration case has its share of division but that is not unusual for arbitration case requests. If a problem was easily solved amicably, editors wouldn't need to go to arbitration. LizRead!Talk!02:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Liz! I hope that you're having a great day and that life is treating you well! I just wanted to let you know that I set Marshmallow123321's block duration to be indefinite. There's no doubt that the purpose of this account is only for engaging in vandalism. Given the total edits made by this account, as well as the severity of some of them (I had to rev del a few), a VOA block felt necessary to me. If you have objections or issues with my extension of the block you initially placed, please let me know. You're welcome to modify the changes I made to the block and without my prior input or approval. Just let me know that you did so and your thoughts and reasons behind the change. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)01:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It's very thoughtful for you to let me know, Oshwah. I have no problem with you extending the block on this editor given their vandalism. LizRead!Talk!01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
I noticed that you nominated my category for speedy deletion. Thank you for reminding me! I created that category and put my user page in it because of a userbox there was there that is not a template. Since I moved all my userboxes to a separate subpage, I removed that template from my user page, but forgot to put it into my userbox subpage, leaving the category empty. Although, the template can be deleted now because I don't feel I need it. Thank you! Catinthedogs (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Although, when you nominate a page for speedy deletion, I suggest that you notify the creator on their talk page, as it says on the notice. Catinthedogs (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Which category are you talking about? I tag hundreds of empty categories every week. If I reminded you, I'm not sure how I erred. LizRead!Talk!23:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I am talking about Wikipedian Michael Jackson fans. Catinthedogs (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
My user talk page redirects to my user page, but all the content of my talk page was put there, so someone could easily leave me a talk page message from that section of my user page. Catinthedogs (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Possible Future GA Article
Hey I have been editing George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign for the past few months and taken it from a list with just his platform to what it is now. I am not nominating it for GA yet, but can you read over it and give me your opinion on whether or not it could be a GA once it is complete? Jon698 (talk) 3:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note about revision delete
Hi Liz!
I just wanted to let you know that some of these revdels weren't strictly necessary. Only theseones were required. When you revdel the content of a revision, that means that version of the page won't ever be shown to non-admins. It effectively hides both the diff from the previous revision to the revision you delete, as well as the diff from the revision you delete to the next revision. For example, this diff is now hidden because you hid DannyS712's edit, even though there's nothing objectionable in that diff. This one would have been hidden either way, because SineBot's revision was already deleted.
I don't think this is a big deal at all, but I thought I'd just let you know: As I understand it, with revdel, you don't have to delete the revert to a clean state, only the dirty edits. ST47 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
We're really not supposed to do this sort of thing. I don't know anything about disabling the autoblock but I will block you for 25 minutes. Consider this an exception. LizRead!Talk!01:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Need your advice
Hi Liz, thanks to invite me on my user. I'm new user on Wikipedia, I have a problem when I make edits to all the articles I've done, I have made a mistake that has violated Wikipedia's rules because I cannot quickly learn because I have a learning disability since childhood. So, I need your advice. Thank you for your time.
What is your specific question, Alif Fizol? There should be links in your welcoming message to different pages with Wikipedia policies. If you have questions, you might try the Teahouse which is ready with editors to answer your editing questions. LizRead!Talk!00:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm flattered, Fyunck(click), but this is a very lengthy discussion with complex arguments and I have minimal experience closing discussions like this. I think you should ask an admin with more experience than I in closing RMs or RfCs. I'll read it over tomorrow to see if I can offer anything. LizRead!Talk!03:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I actually wasn't asking you to close it. You had participated in prior moves of this page (multiple years ago) and I let all the prior participants know that we are discussing it again. Someone mentioned we need more eyes and thoughts on the discussion and yours are as good as anyone elses. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Bermicourt, I don't know if I can help you understand but you could have just asked me to undelete Portal:Bahn/Template/Tab1 which is what I did. It was tagged for deletion by UnitedStatesian and the only page that uses it is Portal:Thuringia which was also tagged for deletion but I removed the speedy. The portal should be nominated for a MfD if editors want it deleted rather than speedied. The subpage deletion was an oversight on my part as I didn't see the connection so thank you for bringing this to my attention. Let me know if Portal:Thuringia page is disrupted. LizRead!Talk!23:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Be aware that there is some over-zealous deletion of auto-portals going on that is resulting in collateral damage to manually-curated portals as well. Bermicourt (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Team: I fixed all the links and was able to re-delete the 2 (now unused) subpages that have no parent page. Sorry for the inconvenience. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted the grand slam of figure skating page. It was a very good resource for noting historical accomplishments of contemporary figure skaters and was actually used by a few smaller (yet still significant) figure skating analysts, like me. While the grand slam might not be a record kept track of by the International Skating Union, the page was still so interesting and helpful to many members of the figure skating community, and it would be great if its deletion could be undone (if possible). Lilydog945 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2019 (EST)
Hello Liz. The above talkpage was recently deleted by you as G8, but there is a template page for that talkpage. Was it a mistake? Rehman04:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
You are right, Rehman. It shouldn't have been deleted. All I can think is that sometimes a page that is up for deletion is a redirect and it could have led me to the redirected page and I mistakenly deleted it in error. Thank you for bringing this to my attention so I could restore it. LizRead!Talk!01:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I hate this, why warn me the draft is up for deletion and then delete it (immediately) before I can respond. The policy should be wait 24 hours or 7 days between the two. -Broichmore (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Broichmore, it is a G13 deletion which means that the page is a draft that can be restored upon request. I assume that this is your request so I will restore the article, Draft:Echoism.
Thanks for the reply. Nevertheless the machine in 2019, should grant some grace on a timer, rather than (effectively) immediately delete. -Broichmore (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Broichmore - I mostly agree that a slightly longer wait would be appropriate on G13, but Liz is just following the rules, and, besides, you had six months to update your draft, and you can get it back. Why leave a draft alone for six months and then complain? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Empty categories: Events in Congress Poland
Thanks for your note Liz. I objected because I thought that the move was premature. There have been active discussions about how to handle things like Congress Poland and the modern Polish state.No agreement has been reached. When agreement is reached, I imagine that this category will be needed. But I suppose that we can re-create it later. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation data scientists are using machine learning to predict whether—and why—any given sentence on Wikipedia may need a citation in order to help editors identify areas of content violating the verifiability policy.
An overview of Wikimedia Summit 2019, a working conference to discuss the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Process, preparing draft recommendations for Wikimania 2019 in August.
