User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/471

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thought you would enjoy this link quoting Morwen
http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/wikipedia-changed-its-entry-to-properly-reflect-chelsea-mann

Morwen also blogged here: http://abigailbrady.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chelsea-manning-on-pressing-button.html

-- \/\/slack (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, \/\/slack ! I just finished reading it. I appreciate the alert! Liz Let's Talk 12:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Valerie Sutton
I see that you succeeded in getting the article on Valerie Sutton deleted. It is absolutely stupid things like this that are why I hardly ever edit Wikipedia anymore and stick to Wikia, where I don't run into such things.

VS created a system to record movement. It is now used by many people. I do not see how you could possibly consider the article, as written, to be nothing but a promotion for her systems. It was purely a biography and a history of how the system of movement writing came to be designed.

The article was no more a promotion than a biography of Henry Ford is a commercial for Ford cars, or a biography of Bill Gates a commercial for Microsoft.

You've given me one more reason not to bother editing on Wikipedia. -- BRG (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my action is part of the reason why you might quit editing on Wikipedia, BRG. The reason for the article deletion was:
 * "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: image is copyright, "refs" are spamlinks, not independent, don'tsupport text support.
 * You can always appeal a deletion, of course (nothing is ever truly deleted!). I know that deleted pages can be restored if an editor can say they will address the problems that existed in the article. I don't know the specific page to go to so I'd suggest asking Jimfbleak for clarification about this deletion. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is hard to "address the problems that existed in the article" because I cannot figure out what words you found to be "unambiguous advertising or promotion." I can't for the life of me figure out what words led you to characterize it as such.
 * By not stating where you found words that were "promotional," you gave me no way to defend the article specifically. It's blind-side attacks like this that make me disinclined to do anything on Wikipedia except correct typos and stuff like that. --BRG (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BRG, I tagged the article because it was self-promotional, it read like a fan page and had few references. But I don't believe you have to rebut my reasons for tagging it, just make a good argument about why it shouldn't have been deleted.
 * But as I said above, I recommend you contact Jimfbleak for clarification as he was the user who actually deleted the article. Liz 'Read!' 'Talk!' 13:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #72
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week. Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussions
 * Discussion started about improving the RfC process
 * d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/References and sources has been closed
 * Events/Press/Blogs
 * Report from Wikimania
 * Wikidata meets Incubator
 * Office hour on 26th
 * Other Noteworthy Stuff
 * Average edits per page is nearly 5 now.
 * Wikivoyage is still scheduled to get access to data on Wikidata (aka phase 2) on August 26.
 * Developers are working hard to also make the URL datatype available by August 26 but there are factors that are not in their hands so it might have to be delayed until the next deployment in 2 weeks. URL as a datatype will soon be available on test.wikidata.org. Please give it some thorough testing and report bugs.
 * Outsch! (Help collect and fix paper cuts.)
 * Did you know?
 * 20 undescribed monsters
 * Newest properties: separated from (P807), code Bien de Interés Cultural (P808), WPDA id (P809), academic minor (P811), academic major (P812), date retrieved (P813), IUCN protected areas category (P814), ITIS TSN (P815), decays to (P816), decay mode (P817)
 * Development
 * Prepared deployment of phase 2 on Wikivoyage
 * Worked on ability to sort qualifiers and references inside a statement
 * Started work on an api module to merge items
 * Worked on special page to query for items with one specific property and value
 * Cleaned up code for handling recent change entries from Wikidata in the clients (Wikipedia/Wikivoyage)
 * Worked on generic script for populating sites table and better integration with WMF process for creating new wikis
 * Setup new git repo for WikibaseMobile skin and extension
 * Fixed SetClaim api module to properly mark bot edits in recent changes and advised pywikipedia maintainers about adding support for the module. SetClaim can be used to create claims with references in a single edit.
 * Reviewed code for Google Summer of Code students
 * Updated doxygen documentation
 * Open Tasks for You
 * Report a paper cut (see above).
 * Help fix formatting and value issues for a property.
 * Hack on one of these.

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way
If you're interested in the evolution of the Vatican position on homosexuality you should definitely join the discussion/fray at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism! I've been mostly staying outside of the doctrinal bits other than to revert obvious factual inaccuracies, but you sound like you have more knowledge of the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is a complicated mess, Roscelese. I was more on top of things in the 1980s when I was living in San Francisco and all I know is that JPII later issued more compassionate statements and less about homosexuality as a "disorder". But I'll check in and look over the conversation. I'm just not up, right now, on the most recent official documents. Liz  Read! Talk! 13:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Valerie Sutton
I posted the deleted text here. If you want to check, all I've removed is an image which appears not to be copyright-free. I can't believe that there are TWO users (at least) with that irritating hummingbird!!!!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Jimfbleak. I didn't mean to pass the buck but I couldn't recall too many particulars of that article.
 * As for the hummingbird, maybe it's time to move that to my sandbox. Kind of MySpacey, I guess. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgian alphabet
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgian alphabet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC
Hi Liz, I noticed you are signed up for the feedback request service. You may want to comment on this RfC Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews and the GA nomination as well. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, my, Ignocrates, I'm not sure I want to step back into this dispute! I thought things had quieted down. I'll check in and look at the discussion but I'm not a biblical scholar so I'm not a master of ancient texts. Thank's for the head's up...I think. ;-) Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not that same tired old dispute. This is a new dispute. Why stop at just one! :0D Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But still the same people arguing, Ignocrates? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is that little problem. You can get the monkey off your back, but the circus stays in town forever. Ignocrates (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see an "argument," I see from my end a reasonable question about the scope. Of course, I can see how some people would try to avoid dealing with that question, and how that might cause them to make it an "argument," rather than a reasonable discussion about what the article should cover.
 * The question here seems to me to be about the content of the article more than anything else. There are at least two works which have been called "Gospel of the Hebrews," one being that source (or those sources) generally referred to as such by scholars today and at least one other called by that name by Jerome. Honestly, as they themselves never really indicated that they were referring to the same book, there is some question whether we should make that assumption either. Honestly, I don't know, but I would assume that if the ABD discusses them both (or all) in the same article first, and then describes the way that scholarship arrived at its current basic consensus, that there were two (at least) and that one seems to be similar (if not identical) to the Gospel of the Nazoreans, that being the one Jerome talked about, and, finally, coming to conclusions (admittedly not supported by any direct evidence) about what can be gathered about the remaining material, if it is all about the same source. The ABD says this is one of the most "vexing problems in the study of early Christian literature," so I think most people would agree with you that it is a thorny one, but it is also, I think, based on that, a very relevant matter. But, yeah, it is a thorny matter, and I can well imagine that others might not want to weigh in on something even academia isn't really sure about. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting that PiCo worked hard to fix up this article, and part of that fix involved restricting the scope. Since then the article has been remarkably stable (until now). That was the point of pulling out all the Hebrew Gospel material: to put an end to the ceaseless edit-warring. The "vexing problems" were moved to the parent Jewish-Christian gospels article where text-critical issues involving both the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans are considered together. Ignocrates (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * John, you make some valid points and this debate should really happen on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews not my Talk Page as I am far from an authority on scriptural texts. I've done some work with archival material but none of it involved ancient religious texts. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)