Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 16 October 2019

Template:NoBracketBot

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

ER

Hey, Sarah! I'd be willing to help oversee this apparently well-intentioned editor's work under certain agreed-upon conditions. I'd think at a minimum, she'd need to agree to a period of probation during which she doesn't independently add any new content to articles but only brings sources to article talk pages, suggests specific edits, waits for feedback, then makes exactly the agreed-upon edits. Length of probation indefinite, but at minimum a year and not to be lifted until we've seen many, many suggested specific edits that in their original form are not problematic w/re copyvio. I just hate to see it end this way for someone who clearly wants to improve and contribute in productive ways. --valereee (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, that's very kind of you. I was thinking we could put together a team, and perhaps you could lead it as the mentor, with several more of us willing to help out as needed. I agree that this is not a good way to treat someone who clearly means well and has done good work. I wouldn't want to see it be too restrictive though, because that would be a depressing way to have to edit, where everything has to be brought to talk first. Perhaps if she wants to create anything new she has to check first, either a new article or adding a large amount of new material to an existing one? SarahSV 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah. I saw your question about just how much copyvio there'd been; I'm interested in that answer, too. My concern is that copyvio is absurdly difficult/tedious to detect and fix when a source isn't online or isn't in English. I'd be very leery of allowing someone who didn't yet understand what copyvio meant to add something I couldn't easily check. I'd literally want to be able to see, "Source says X. We currently say Y. Suggested change is to say Z" before I'd be comfortable saying I'd done my due diligence. Yes, it would be a depressing way to edit, but I really don't want to add to Dianaa's workload lol --valereee (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking through her deleted contributions. I've just started. The first article I looked at (Edith Dolan Riley) has two sentences in it (that I've noticed so far) lifted from the source, but the whole article was deleted by Fram as a copyvio, when all it needed (based on what I've looked at so far) was a slight rewrite. I'm therefore wondering to what extent the copyvio concerns are solid. I'm not saying they're not, but I'd like to see evidence. SarahSV 17:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, butting in quickly. Elisa mentioned Evangeline Marrs Whipple in her unblock request. Looking at the article history, there's a lot of rev-deleting. From what I witnessed there was a fair amount of that and we need to know why and whether the source misuse continued - I didn't follow that many of her edits so don't really know. As far as a crew or mentoring, a good start would be to set up a sub-page with a tutorial, explaining how to use sources, how to avoid plagiarism (even from PD sources) and to show a full understanding of Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. The only way to know the full extent is to check a large sample of her work. I'd be happy to pitch in but it will take time and effort.I know I sound like a broken record, but the process of bringing the unblock request to AN (where as an non-admin I shouldn't have chimed in) before making a plan seems wrong. The process argument is beyond me and I frankly don't have the patience for it, but let me know if you'd like me to check some articles (I don't use the CCI tool when I check for sourcing issues but I've had a good success rate) and whether you'd like me to take a stab at a tutorial. The only caveat is that I work very slowly these days, am not around that much. If a rush is required, then there's not a lot I can do. Victoria (tk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, thanks. If you'd be willing to write a tutorial, that would be extremely helpful, and not only for Elisa. I hear you about the time issue; I have the same problem. I'm currently looking through the deleted contribs, but if I were to do it thoroughly, it would take ages. SarahSV 18:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Evangeline Marrs Whipple, it copied or closely followed this source, which has a free licence. I can also see at least one sentence copied from this, which is not free. SarahSV 18:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Montanabw, and Rosiestep: Valereee has kindly offered to help mentor Elisa for a probationary period of at least one year. Details to be worked out, but it will involve Elisa posting new content to talk for approval. I'd like to help too, and Victoria is willing to start work on a tutorial (time permitting). Would you also be willing to be part of the crew to get Elisa back to editing? It would involve keeping an eye on her, joining in talk-page discussion from time to time, helping with sources, and so on. If we can put together a plan, there's a better chance of getting her unblocked. SarahSV 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, time permitting, I'd be happy to join this mentoring collaboration. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. My real life has been kind of crazy since last November, but I will be glad to assist as time allows. Thank you for proposing this Sarah. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I am very willing to help. Make sure anyone who needs to get a hold of me pings me so I'll know I'm needed. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That's brilliant, everyone, thank you. Valereee, are you willing to put together a plan about what kinds of edits would need approval? Article creation, yes. Substantive new content (more than one paragraph) to existing articles, yes. Ordinary copy editing, including adding sources and slight expansion (up to one paragraph)? I would say no. What do you think, and do we need a special page to monitor it? If so, perhaps it could be a subpage in your user space (e.g. User:Valereee/mentoring). Or it could be done on article talk as needed. SarahSV 19:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll put together a plan. I'm thinking at first, any actual addition that counts as more than what I think of as a copyedit probably needs oversight, if only to reassure the community that we're on it. Even a sentence fragment can represent copyvio, depending on how it's worded and how many other ways there are to say something. We could maybe plan to relax that as soon as we're comfortable that ER is getting copyvio. But let's talk about what copyediting even means. When I think of copyediting, I'm thinking of something that is done by skilled writers of English. What kinds of ce are you thinking ER would probably be doing that wouldn't need someone to check, at least at first?

Hm...having it on a single page would be helpful because people could just have that page on their watchlist instead of having to ping people. But that takes it off a given article's talk page. Hm. That's a question. Input on that? --valereee (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it might help Elisa to have a single page where she can ask for help, and if it's in user space, we can invite people to take part. By copy editing, I was thinking of her improving articles she has already worked on, where she's familiar with the sources and understands the pitfalls. We can check by looking; she wouldn't even know we were checking. I'm looking through her deleted contributions, and I'm really not finding anything terrible. I acknowledge that I've just started. But the first I looked at relied on PD sources, and therefore was not a copyvio, although the whole article was deleted as such (and it had copied only a couple of sentences from those PD sources). The second I looked at was similar. I think we need to avoid a situation where Elisa feels entirely boxed in. Help but not control. But if you prefer to do it on talk pages, I'd be fine with that. SarahSV 21:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, my preference is that Elisa agrees to work through the tutorial first (I can tailor it for her, using her articles) and understands that when I put on my teaching hat I tend to be a bit ... strict. My rules are simple and easy to understand: no copying, ever. Not from a PD source or any other type of source. It would be best to avoid issues about PD vs non-free: for example I wouldn't accept the biographical text from archiveswest. It's tricky because the words next to "Access Restrictions": are "open to all users", but I believe that refers to the collection itself (though I could be wrong). To avoid ambiguity and pitfalls it's best to reword everything. The language barrier seems to make that harder, but not really. I've known people who read a source in English, paraphrase it and write it down in their native language, then translate back to English. Anyway, I'll to put together a subpage for the tutorial as soon as a can but it'll take a few days to get started. Victoria (tk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria: I agree about no copying ever. Archiveswest.orbiscascade.org says their words on that website are C0, but now I can't find which page that's on. But regardless, no copying is the best thing. SarahSV 22:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I third no copying virtually ever (only exceptions I make are quotes, which I very rarely use, and names, because I often write articles on non-English speakers.) As I have no earthly idea how to attribute a PD source, it is far easier to me to just read it and write it. I do something similar to what Victoria described because when I am straight translating from foreign sources, there are always things that don't actually make for smooth text in English. It's like that children's game when you whisper a story to the person next to you and by the time it goes around the circle it has nothing to do with the original. The tutorial sounds like a fabulous resource for many editors, not just Elisa. SusunW (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on no copying except for direct quotes, and use of quotes only when really needed. I'm finding it interesting that Sarah isn't finding scary bad copyvio, though. Would it be useful to have someone like Dianaa take a look? Is it possible this is all a tempest in a teapot? --valereee (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, I found the C0 notice all the way on the bottom of the Archiveswest.orbiscascade.org page, so apologies about that. But it does raise the issue of plagiarism vs. copyvio, which in my view needs to be taken into account. Will dig around and see what our current policies are and how far they deviate from my take that direct copy/paste should always be avoided. Will check back in a day or so. Victoria (tk) 00:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, bear in mind that I've only looked at a couple so far. But Fram is usually thorough, so I imagine he would have looked himself. There are 17,210 (97.5%) live edits, and 433 (2.5%) deleted (see edit count). I'd expect to find more deleted edits from someone engaged in a lot of copyvio, given the number of eyes on this since her first block for copyvio, which was in July 2017.

Victoria, I've long disagreed with the focus on copyvio rather than plagiarism, but I lost that argument. I think we should never copy-paste text. However, when editors do copy from PD sources, they're supposed to at least add a template to that effect at the end of the page. See WP:FREECOPYING, which is part of WP:PLAGIARISM. SarahSV 01:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I've put together a draft of a plan at User:Valereee/ER; feedback please. --valereee (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Valereee. I made one small edit for clarity. Can we/should we, address the other issue of mass deletions? This was one of the areas that caused frustration for Elisa and made her feel under attack. I have no idea how it works to have them draftified, but is that a reasonable solution so that they can be cleaned up and put back in main space? The problem I see is if they are deleted and she is not allowed to recreate them, even under our supervision, it may be uncomfortable for her. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

SusunW, I would assume it would involve checking those articles for copyvio that goes over the line between minor copyvio issues that are fixable and those that can't be kept in an article's history but must be deleted? It would be nice if we could save as much of her previous work as possible. She might be able to suggest which articles are the most promising candidates for draftifying. --valereee (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the approach of Elisa reviewing the previously-written promising candidates and working on those first. It would be a good way to demonstrate lessons learned. Plus, in theory, some of what was written was probably just fine, so it wouldn't require creating an article from scratch; it would be rescuing a previous deletion. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, that's great, thank you for doing that work. We can draftify anything that isn't a copyvio. Someone should check with Elisa which ones she'd like to start working on, and we can take it from there, assuming that's what she wants to do. SarahSV 21:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe Victoriaearle would be the right person to reach out, as Elisa will be working with her first as she goes through the tutorial, but what should we be telling her? We can't promise anything. --valereee (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, Elisa knows that we're working on this. We just have to check, once it's finalized, that she agrees with the proposal. Do you think we should propose this mentoring as part of the current thread on AN, or wait and open a new one? A couple of people are agitating to close the current thread. SarahSV 14:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it needs to stay open, if folks want to close it, as long as we make clear that we're working on this and will be requesting comment eventually, there or some other appropriate place. I think we're better off taking our time to get our ducks in a row, and that could take a few days. --valereee (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm going to ask the closing admin again to undo his close, so that at least she doesn't have that strike against her. Not sure it will make much difference, but I'll ask anyway. Meanwhile, let's move on with getting this proposal finalized. If there's anything specific I can do, let me know. I'm not overly keen on the issue of one of us having to mark her edits in an edit summary. Is it not enough that we say we're keeping an eye on her edits? I'm thinking of it from her perspective; she's not a child and in fact is a good editor, so far as I can see, especially given that English isn't her first language. SarahSV 14:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

SV, I think the null edits do several things. They make sure the team isn't wasting time making checks when someone else has made them. They reduce the chance some other editor watching the situation thinking we haven't checked and jumping in to nitpick a perfectly reasonable edit. And they let the community see that we are indeed on top of it. I'm open to some other way to do this that feels less like micromanagement to ER, but IMO I do think we need to, at least at first, show that we're not just paying lip service to this mentoring. --valereee (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, okay, you make good points. SarahSV 15:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, a quick response (short on time at the moment). The best approach to something like this is begin with an assessment which can be done through a series of questions to determine which area/s need more or less focus. The worst thing to do would be to dump a bunch of blue links and say, "read these". It's something I do intuitively (sorry that sounds a bit touchy/feely) and is hard for me articulate. Regardless, I've had enough time to look at some articles, have prepared a plan, and can be ready to start whenever. Where to do it is an issue. Since she's blocked we might have to start on her talk page - if she's allowed- though I'd have to subject myself and her to having the entire project watching. On the one hand it might be good for people to see what I have in mind, on the other it might be nerve wracking for both of us. Ideally I'd set up a subpage, but it's best that she demonstrates understanding before subjecting her again to another AN pile on. That of course is only my opinion. Btw - Valeree, pings don't seem to work on your subpage, but I do have it on watch. I'm watching and will try to keep up. Victoria (tk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria, thank you so much for doing this. If one concern is doing it so publicly, you could set up a page on Meta (perhaps a user subpage). People would be able to see it, but fewer would look. If you want to do it here, a subpage of hers would make sense. SarahSV 15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize a ping wouldn't work there. Re: the tutoring, what it entails, where it happens...I agree that a bunch of links to policy and guidelines aren't the point of this. What I was getting at was more a general idea of the things you have in mind that you'll want to check her knowledge of, then work with her on anything you find. So you might say something like 'the tutorial will include confirming knowledge of X, Y, and Z, and covering anything within those that seems to need clarifiction.' The things that were brought up as issues at ANI, I'd think. I also agree that doing it in public is uncomfortable, but might be helpful in gaining community support. Sarah, good idea about Meta. --valereee (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a valid question, but if you don't mind I'd like to be intentionally vague. Basically the subject at hand is "How to edit Misplaced Pages" and the more focused subject is "How to use sources correctly" which encompasses best practices re sourcing. This includes definitions of various aspects of what we lump under the umbrella of copyvio, with emphasis on what not to do and what to do.The best way to approach a task like this isn't through what's called an indirect assessment, i.e a multiple choice test, but rather through what's called a direct assessment - these often take the form of diagnostic writing or portfolios. Elisa has a portfolio of work, which is a helpful starting place. A good way of doing something like this is a modified form of Socratic questioning, using the texts of our policies and the portfolio to tease out what needs to be done, which areas need more focus, explanations, etc., and which areas less. Hence beginning with an assessment that takes the form of a question and answer (in written form).Have I ever done anything like this on Misplaced Pages? No. I've done in it real life, quite often, and the results depend on many factors but it can be surprisingly effective. My background and training is in basic skills, various learning modalities, with an emphasis on ESL learners. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned I've had experience scrubbing articles and trying to work with their authors - but it's an area inevitably filled with conflict and I've not done it for a while. I'm not really all that well known, but some people know me and are aware of some of the work I've done (per WP:BEANS not going into more detail). I'll read the AN thread carefully to be certain I've not left out any valid concerns.After some thought I think it's best to get started on Elisa's page if that would be allowed. Meta is a good idea, but my time is extremely limited for various reasons and there will be linking and such, which is easier for me here where I'm familiar with the markup. It would be nice if we could left alone at the beginning and I will set up my own dedicated sandbox for others to pop in, leave suggestions, comments, etc.To be absolutely honest I'm used to working in an environment where success rates with students rarely reached 50%, so I think I can be objective and I'm quite pragmatic. Hope this helps. Thanks Sarah for hosting this discussion. Victoria (tk) 20:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria, I see no reason you shouldn't work on her talk page. Once people see what's happening, I can't imagine anyone objecting. I emailed her to let her know about this discussion, and she has agreed to the proposals, so feel free to get started whenever you're ready. SarahSV 20:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

After reading this, I'm comfortable with Victoria running this sort of by the seat of her pants. We can just point to this convo anyone who has a question. --valereee (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. Let's wait to see whether there's input from anyone else or whether anyone else has questions. I've decided I will set up a dedicated sandbox/subpage in my user space to field questions re the tutorial itself, and can't get to that immediately. If it's okay I'd like to wait until tomorrow to get started. Also, just to warn everyone (and I'll explain this to Elisa) because of some health issues I'm never certain of availabilty, so we'll be working in fits or starts if that's ok with everyone? If I'm feeling ok, I hope to get started tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria looks fine to me. Glad you ran the ideas and discussion by Elisa, Sarah. Let me know if you need me. As I said, I am around, but for the rest of the week have a lot of commitments. SusunW (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, fits and starts is fine with me. --valereee (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. SarahSV 23:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Valereee, would it make sense to move the discussion at User talk:Valereee/ER to your talk page? I was hoping that your ER page could be dedicated to the mentorship so that Elisa would be interacting on a supportive page without talk of sanctions. It's up to you, though; this is just a suggestion. SarahSV 00:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's a good idea. I was trying to figure out how to work it so that editors who weren't actually part of the mentoring team could feel welcome to comment, but not there. On my talk page felt a little public, but I guess my talk page is a lot less public than some!  :) I've moved it, but it may just happen again. valereee (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• In the interests of avoiding any appearance of trying to go around the rules, should Victoria and ER's work move to meta? --valereee (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Valereee, there probably isn't much more to go, so it would seem a shame to interrupt it. Let's wait to see what the response is. SarahSV 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

    OMG. WTF? --valereee (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

    It's unfortunate for sure. I suggest we carry on putting the final touches to the mentoring plan. I'm going to read it again and I may post something on User talk:Valereee/ER. SarahSV 21:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuation of An thread here (Elisa.rolle cci)

The an thread is getting to be very large and cluttered, so discussion is best continued here. With what you last said at An, that means that she likely had problems paraphrasing, not copying large chunks of text over. This is a good and bad thing; The good thing is, this makes the CCI less urgent. The bad thing is, it's harder to detect bad paraphrasing than it is direct copyvios, so the cci will likely take longer. Regarding the deletion of the article, I'm not sure what to make of that; I'll relay what Fram says once he responds on meta. Thanks for your assistance, 💵Money💵emoji💵 02:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, I've seen three articles of Elisa's so far that have been deleted as copyvios that should not have been:

• Isabel Pell (created by Elisa in August 2017), deleted by Jimfbleak at Ritchie333's request, supposedly copied from http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biop1/pell01.html. But that webpage says: "Source: Misplaced Pages, the 💕".
• Edith Dolan Riley (created by Elisa in October 2018), deleted by Fram because parts of it closely followed http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv58477/pdf. But that webpage is C0.
• Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb (created by Elisa in October 2017), deleted by Justlettersandnumbers, citing copyvio of and . The latter, which the article did copy, is cc-by; Elisa needed to add an appropriate template. The former is not free, but the article used very little from the former, and the sentences it did use were tweaked, not enough but you can see the effort had been made.

SarahSV 02:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

These "copyvios" are confusing me and don't seem to add up, so I think a different plan of action is needed. It's late where I live now, so tomorrow I'm going to run this by Jlan and try and figure out the exact nature of these vios, and then figure out what to do about the CCI and the Elisa situation moving forward. Once again, thank you for your detective work.... One way or another, I have a good feeling that this will bring down that massive CCI and benefit the project. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵 02:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers and Fram are on break, so this mystery is going to be on hold for a bit. Thanks again for your help. 💵Money💵emoji💵 23:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Money emoji: thanks for letting me know. SarahSV 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Both are back now from their breaks --valereee (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So sorry for the delay, I took the month of August off. Jlan didn't respond, which is ok because Fram responded instead (although only the first sentence is really relevant), where he said she copied from both. This worries me, and presents 3 options: we look for the books she plagarized from, which would take a while, delete all articles she cited books in per CCI guidelines, or unblock her and have her tell us the books she plagarized from as part of her unblock conditions. I'd like 3 the most, but all options are feasible; 1 especially if you and your friends can help out. Again, I'm so sorry for the long gap in a response. 💵Money💵emoji💵 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi I didnt know if you could help me with a draft i created

Hi :) my draft was turned down and i didnt know if you could help me on it. Even if it' only pointers. Im in hopes maybe you could help rewrite or edit it to make it comply with wikipedia standards if you are interested. Thank you i left a link below so you could find the draft

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Draft:DG3_Rappers-_Amber_Richhart_and_Angelia_Richhart?markasread=167544488&markasreadwiki=enwiki Angel7112114 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Angel7112114, I'm sorry I won't have time to help with that. Rewriting it would be a big job. All I can suggest is that you pull out the three most-reliable independent sources, and write a much shorter article based tightly around those sources. Sorry I can't be of more help. SarahSV 21:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it alot. Do you know any one that may be able to help me? Angel7112114 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Try reading Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages (though it's a little dry); then follow up at Misplaced Pages:Teahouse for things you don't understand (but do try to help yourself first; just throwing yourself on people's mercy without showing that you have tried to help yourself doesn't work as well), and definitely go through the Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Adventure interactive tutorial. On talk pages, you don't have to start a new section to continue a conversation, just edit the existing section - I took the liberty of merging your sections together. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) As GRuban says, you could ask for advice at Misplaced Pages:Teahouse, which is for new editors. I don't think you'll find anyone to help rewrite it, but there might be someone there who can advise generally. Going through Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Adventure is also a good idea. SarahSV 21:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops - sorry, misread the timestamps, and thought you hadn't responded for a while. Didn't mean to barge in to an active conversation! --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, please go ahead, GRuban, you're welcome, not barging. SarahSV 21:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		Essayist1 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thank you for your help last week. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Essayist1 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Essayist1, many thanks, and thank you for making the case for deletion. SarahSV 02:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

E-cig template

The e-cig DS alert template says "You have shown interest in the Electronic cigarette topic area." It does not include "nicotine" articles. I think it should be changed to include nicotine articles. I propose changing it to something like "You have shown interest in the Electronic cigarette and/or Nicotine topic area." This article is not techinally covered by the e-cig alert. Should there be a formal Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, to ask that nicotine be included, I think you'd have to submit a request to WP:ARCA. But electric smoking system is covered already: "Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed". SarahSV 20:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I never submitted a request for clarification or an amendment at WP:ARCA. Can copy my comment above and/or start it on my behalf? QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what your question means (word missing, possibly asking me to do it?). There are instructions at WP:ARCA about how to open a request. SarahSV 20:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like someone to submit a request at WP:ARCA to include nicotine articles such as nicotine and electric smoking system. This would not include cigarette articles. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're asking me to do it, no, I have no interest in doing that. But the instructions seem relatively clear, although having it cover nicotine but not the most common delivery device would be difficult and strange. SarahSV 20:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright. My request would be too complicated. Got it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Misplaced Pages:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of common misconceptions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of common misconceptions. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello, I’d like to introduce myself. I’m new to Misplaced Pages and will be on the talk pages with a COI, representing the Church of Christ, Scientist. The earlier representatives from my church are no longer active. Of course I will not be engaging in any direct editing, unless there are specific instances when you or other editors feel that would be helpful. My user page says a bit more about where I’m coming from: FirsthandPOV-CCS. I know you’ve been a significant contributor on the pages related to Christian Science, and so I just wanted to give you a heads up. I expect to be posting on the Talk page of the Robert Peel (Christian Science) article soon. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for introducing yourself. I'll leave a note on your talk page shortly about the COI issue. SarahSV 20:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

AN

There is a discussion there about your actions at the Moors Murders article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks

You are always polite and assume good faith, thanks for your contributions. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, thank you for saying that. It's very much appreciated. SarahSV 22:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The pill

Sarah, can you please have a look at this edit? I hate having to remove it, but the sourcing is really sub par. It's really important stuff of course, and I know that there are other editors who are well-equipped to do that justice. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I'll take a look but it's not my area, so I can't promise anything. It would be worth leaving a note on WikiProject Medicine. SarahSV 03:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Per Softlavender, but I also think that the committee benefits from having you as a party as well due to your recently expressed concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

EC

I don't know whether I'm happy or sad that I'm late to the table: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Further_attempts_to_bait_Eric_Corbett

I think the time is past to add more light than heat, so I limited my reaction to support for the case declination. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Sphilbrick

Thanks for your contributions.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I'm sorry, but for some reason I've just noticed this. Thanks for your note. I see things haven't progressed much. SarahSV 02:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penny Rowson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penny Rowson. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Animal rights

Portal:Animal rights, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Animal rights and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Animal rights during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for actually evaluating my concerns about the sourcing on the section related to labor relations on Smithfield Foods. Double thank you for the edits you made. You added some great sources. :-) 219.73.60.102 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

For your work on Amina_Warsame.

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Stuart. Much appreciated! SarahSV 22:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Misplaced Pages can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SlimVirgin,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SlimVirgin,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Elise.rolle

Can you point me to where the ban is logged please? Guy (help!) 21:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guy, thanks for closing that. I have no idea where or whether it was logged. I'll have a look around. SarahSV 22:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I can't see any sign of it having been logged. I'm not sure that site bans need to be. SarahSV 01:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Portal/Guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Portal/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Misplaced Pages should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SlimVirgin,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Template editor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Template editor. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Epstein and a NYT piece

Hi Slim,

I've been thinking to contact you about the Epstein BLP. I've pinged you to the RS/N in case you can help suss out whether the NYT can be used to portray Epstein's first and most-known accuser, Virginia Guiffre, as someone who makes inaccurate statements. The NYT makes a statement and links to a 2,000 page document, which luckily Newslinger dug through to find the source material. I would love your input into whether WP's interpretation of NYT's summary of that material is accurate. With many thanks, petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, I didn't get your ping, but I'll take a look. SarahSV 17:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You are most appreciated, Sarah. petrarchan47คุก 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I'm not sure if you carefully read all that Newslinger has written, but one line I feel is important. I've started a thread at his page, and thought since my pings don't work, I'd just add a link here. The WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline is apparently in need of clarification. If all editors understood it the way it was meant to be, we would never have had the issue at the Epstein article to begin with. petrarchan47คุก 19:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Sarah. I see that you have washed your hands of the Clinton drama, but I wonder if you can point me in the right direction for help? I am truly at a loss. As you may have observed, people are reading the same words but interpreting them differently. At the noticeboard people are making sense, but at the Epstein article, only those who interpret "a claim" as "the claim" are participating, and they are insisting on keeping mention of Clinton allegations out of the article unless we can use the contrived NYT rebuttal. Is this something I should take to AE? Any advice would be much appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"only those who interpret "a claim" as "the claim" are participating," because that's the only correct way to interpret it, as three editors have indicated by removing your content, as you have sought "consensus" for your interpretation via a backchannel rather than Talk soibangla (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47 and Soibangla: I see I've been pinged again elsewhere. I can only draw your attention to my recent post about that being my final comment. I would have to do more reading and know how the source is going to be used, and I don't have the time or interest. In general, my advice is to err on the side of caution with BLP issues, and if the NYT source isn't helping, find another source. If there isn't one, that's a sign that perhaps there's been a misunderstanding. But regardless, I really can't comment on it again. SarahSV 20:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I confess I am really at a loss to understand why you decline to answer the question with a simple A or B, but it is what it is, and it may result in an outright transparent falsehood being incorporated into an article for the evident purpose of smearing someone. And that would be a disgrace. soibangla (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peel COI edit request 9-OCT-2019

Hello! At Talk:Robert Peel (Christian Science) you had asked the COI editor some questions regarding their publishing sequence. Those questions have now been answered, and I wanted to check with you to see if you had read them and if there was anything else you wanted to add to the discussion before I closed the request. Thank you in advance for any time you can spare on this. Warm regards,  Spintendo  06:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I'll reply shortly. SarahSV 19:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Referencing and footnotes assistance

Hi SV, I'm helping out on an article on Abū_al-Faraj_al-Iṣfahānī with quite complex references and footnotes. I think that separate 'references' and 'works cited' (e.g. in the style of this article) would work better for it but I'm not familiar with how to implement it (I usually stick to science articles where just referencing with cite_journal is pretty simple). Given your experience with articles using that sort of referencing, would you be able to drop by and lend a hand? Thanks in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) 01:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, sorry to be so slow to respond. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. Implementing the format you see in the Angelou article is easy enough. Create a "Works cited" section and list the long citations there, e.g. "McPherson, Dolly A. (1990). Order Out of Chaos: The Autobiographical Works of Maya Angelou. New York: Peter Lang Publishing." Then in the text itself, list the short cite, e.g. <ref>McPherson 1990, p. 1.</ref> There are fancy ways to do it with templates so that the long and short citations are linked, if that's what you meant. SarahSV 20:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Random question

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I have a pretty random question. I noticed that you recently removed a CliffsNotes source from the Night as an unreliable source. It led me to wonder if CliffNotes or SparkNotes are considered unreliable sources for Misplaced Pages? Apologies if this has already been covered on RSN. I admit that I have not checked the noticeboard's archives to see if a consensus was reached on this matter; I vaguely remember asking about this in the forum a while back, but I do not think it generated much conversation. Is it a case where these "notes" are considered unreliable in general or are they discouraged because as I would imagine, the same (or similar) information could be found and sourced to higher-quality literary analysis articles? I was just curious because I do not want to accidentally introduce bad sources if I ever work on a literature-related article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, I should go back and make a null edit to correct my edit summary. What I meant was that it's not an appropriate source for an FA. It's a tertiary source aimed at schools and perhaps intended more for background reading, but it may be a reliable source in general. I don't know. The best place to ask is at WP:RSN. As you say, when writing about literature, it's better to use scholarly sources if they're available. SarahSV 20:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, and that makes sense to me. In the future, I will ask RSN if I ever work on a literature-related article, but I agree that it would be best to keep to scholarly sources. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)