User talk:Waffle Czarina/Archive 1

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Shmuel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jechiel Perr -

Sara Hurwitz
As per your previous contributions on this topic, I thought you might be interested in contributing to this article. Joe407 (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A single blog post
You said, "on further reflection, a single posting on Gawker doesn't satisfy WP:N or WP:BLP at all." Are you willing and prepared to stand behind these words? Because there's a lot of crap on Wikipedia that's a pure, blatant BLP violation, and referenced only with something 1% the size of Gawker. Are you willing and prepared to start removing it? Because I can point you in that direction, my friend. I certainly can. If you're sincerely interested in improving this project by your own lights. Let me contact you away from here. Email? Qworty (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you say? Does what you're saying apply to ALL articles about living people, or only to that Hospital woman?  Because if you really believe the reasons you've given for gutting that article, you have a lot of work ahead of you on other articles. Qworty (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I reject the contention that one cannot fix one article without accepting the obligation to fix all articles. Shmuel (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Shmuel. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that you'll see this, but while I agree that it's ridiculous that feedback changes haven't been logged until now, I also think that the feedback system is worse than useless and ought to be scrapped. I'm not sure whether to wag my finger at the anonymous user you speak of, or buy him/her a drink. — Shmuel (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)