Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

I'm not a newbie user, but thanks for swooping in and decorating this article with a bunch of flags. Lovely! I have only just started my work on this article. This article is under no more risk of being nominated for deletion because of the improvements I have made today than it was before I made them yesterday and your laying the threat on it is not helpful.

I know how to properly acquire and license a photograph. If you had bothered to check, you would have seen that this image is pulled from Wikimedia Commons where it is clearly indicated that the photograph is using a Creative Commons license. All rights have been released so lay off the lawsuit threats.

And I feel obliged to observe that if you're going around to all the #GWWI participants' talk pages and leaving similar "helpful" comments that you are not doing the #GWWI project a service (and you certainly aren't making me wish to have a tea). I've read your user page. You should know better than to dump all this on my Talk page instead of the Talk page for the article where it would be welcome and helpful. ChristineBushMV (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

:-( Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Sorry, I tried to help, and I'm sorry it came off like it wasn't that way. Regardless, I hope you'll continue contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner and assume good faith of other editors. Thanks for being involved in the women's editing initiative. SarahStierch (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi ChristineBushMV (talk), I am one of the main organizers of #GWWI. SarahStierch's comments are meant in good faith, and overall to improve the quality of the pages improved/created by the #GWWI project. She pointed out a few things about the page I created which another long-time Wikipedian had flagged as well. Her comments really helped me with my page--and we believe that her feedback is ultimately very useful for our project (and thank her for her work.) As we get more involved with this project, let's try to assume good faith on each other's parts as we get to know Wikipedia better. We're all not perfect, but we're trying! Thanks so much for your contributions to #GWWI. Thorgodofwar (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sarah! How are you? Figured I would let you know that I've modified Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Large to include the "message" and "signed" parameters, and I think it looks great and Ocaasi has already included the change in the WikiLove script. Due to the success there, I've decided to tackle adding the ability to specify a number of badges received in the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Small template and have set up a series of -sandbox templates (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host-sandbox, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Small-sandbox, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Answer-sandbox, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Easter egg-sandbox, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Host-sandbox, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Question-sandbox) and have been testing the changes on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing#Technical 13. For some reason, setting the value of badges to "yes" or "1" changes the placement of the badge. Also, the easter-egg badge seems smaller to me, and I'm not sure why. I know you are familiar with some of this coding stuff, so I figured I'd have you look at it and see if you can offer some improvements. I'm also asking Soni, Writ, Heather, and Ocaasi to take a peek at it as well and see if we can't get it working right. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hey there, Sarah... I got my sandbox to work... I worked with Soni to get it figured out, and you can check it out → User talk:TheOriginalSoni#Teahouse Badges. Technical 13 (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys. I wasn't involved in creating the badge system. I'm flattered you'd include me in the conversation. I trust everyone to work on behalf of me and the community - so I'm good to be opted out of this right now due to other obligations :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

echo Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yessss!! My first ECHO :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear you like echos. Here's another echo. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Just Because Kitties Are Cute Award
	Just because! Spinster (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

	Teahouse Host Badge
	Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Never too late to remind you that you're part of an awesome team! Technical 13 (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC) (Piped as originally intended: 16:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC))

Too bad i didn't have a good photo of it to upload!

Do check out the brand, shiny new license if you have a chance!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

• Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
  • Nearest BART: 19th Street
  • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
  • Street parking abounds

Hello, You signed up to participate or view in this month's GLAMout. We'll be using Google Hangout, but unfortunately the link to the Hangout won't be available, until 15 minutes beforehand. We'll post the link as soon as possible at Wikipedia:GLAM/GLAMout#Link

Time: 12pm-1pm Pacific Time (3pm-4pm ET | 19-20h UTC) Coordinator: Merrilee Proffitt, OCLC Anchor topic: VIAFbot and authority control in EN:WP, and on Wikidata.

Well this came too late... SarahStierch (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sarah - saw your comments on Talk: Amanda Filipacchi (I'll eat my hat if I spelled that right on first try). I do have a problem with the so called "women" categories, when they are used as subcategories while removing them from the main cats. I'm all for feminist studies, and as you no doubt recall I've spoken out about the male bias here - my "overabundance of testosterone" comment still gets me unfriendly email - but I object to a structure where the desired result is that we separate out female writers, put them in a subcategory, leaving the main "American novelists" category purely male. My reasons should be obvious - I'd be ok with having the female writers in both the sub cat and the main cat, but I absolutely can't agree to having them removed from "American novelists", even if it means that feminist studies can be facilitated. I'm far more concerned about someone perusing the "American novelists" category and getting the impression that all novelists are male. And then there's the annoying grammatical error - "women" is not an adjective, "female" is. I've said elsewhere that Wiki editors tend to be tone deaf when it comes to describing women - I truly don't think that they would think that "men politicians" or "men doctors" sound correct, yet they have no problem with "women politicians" or "women doctors". I don't actually think the grammatical error is the most important aspect here, but it's a pet peeve. But I do think that cleansing the novelists cat of women is wrong, offensive, and should not be allowed to stand. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 04:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. As I have thought I've said before - having "Women foo" categories is important to me. I think it's stupid to remove women from the "American foo" category (of course!). But, as we know, they want to "clean up" those categories - so I have no clue how that will be handled. I just hate the fact that the situation is getting so blended and weird now that people want to remove "Women foo" categories in general. While it's nice to think we live in a world that is genderless conceptually, we don't (I had this conversation in Berlin last year, where I met many German editors who believe that gendered issues no longer exist, which is clearly not true regardless of language). It doesn't really matter though - I'm too burnt out at this point to try to fight and argue and deal with it on talk pages through the at times painful consensus process that makes Wikipedia so unique and special (sincerely). Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I'm sorry I'm too worn out (from so long of "doing" women's focused projects on Wikipedia) to do much at this point. I'm spent, and this entire blow up was just...something that pushed me over the edge. Thanks for coming by though, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Gah, had to edit for grammar and so much more. I am officially burnt out about this stuff! SarahStierch (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't argue with that- time for a break! Tvoz/talk 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been seeing a edge of the gender categorizing issue and was going to leap into the discussion but have less desire to push that than I do to respect your wiki burnout. So, to quote an old song "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Sarah. Thanks for your work on the media stuff. Wanted to point you to this, which may be a bandaid but a decent way out of this mess. Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today. I know semantic media wiki with beautiful data etc is coming, but this is something we could implement today, with not too much effort, and regular editors could do it themselves with very little technical assistance needed. All we really need is a bit of help from the guy who wrote the cat-scan tool, to clean up that interface a bit - could you get the Foundation or wikimedia people or whoever interested in throwing some resources at this? Like I said, it's a short term fix, but would do a lot to demonstrate to the world that we're reacting. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

ping. any thoughts? cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, I'm disconnecting myself from this conversation about the categories for the sake of having severe burn out and oddly enough, distress triggered from it - I've been pretty emotionally mucky because of it. I can't help you with resources, I work in a pretty specific department team that doesn't engage in that area of work, and anyone who works at Wikimedia, knows we can't really influence other departments, to be honest. If I was you, I'd consider requesting funds through the Individual Engagement Grants. I'm sorry I can't help more :( SarahStierch (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks - sorry you've been down about it. I think actually getting cat intersect working cleanly within wikipedia would go a long way to alleviating many of the issues... In any case, I don't really need money, what I was hoping is that WMF could assign some of their dev team to help out - is that possible? Or who else might be good to talk to there? thx, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure off the top of my head, I know so few people "downstairs" and what their roles are regarding projects like that. A good place to probably inquire is maybe the tech mailing list. That's where a lot of staff and volunteers hang out - Wikitech-l. That's probably the best place to inquire. I don't work with any devs in my daily job (and not really in my volunteer work), so the list is probably the best place to ask around. SarahStierch (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will try the mailing list. Odd that with wikipedia, the best way to move things like this forward is to go to a mailing list... :) In any case, I'd nonetheless welcome your thoughts/input, as a user/editor, to the approach I've proposed (linked above). Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The cat intersect tool is a good one, although, yes buggy, especially with the Situiation Normal, SNAFU logo at the top. AND Sarah, when life gives you lemons, never ever make lemonade, buy a squirt gun, drain the lemons, and blind the bastards who pissed you off.........Its the simple things...reallyCoal town guy (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To be honest, I feel that if those categories are so full that they need to broken down further, they should either be broken into equal "male" / "female" groups (if that is what is decided is the best disambiguater). I personally think it is petty to break the categories up based on gender or nationality, and in the case of the novelists, would much rather see it broken up by writing style or time period... That's just my thoughts on it though (feel free to disregard). Technical 13 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Most bios in general are broken up by nationality - this is pretty standard these days, and seems like a reasonable way to diffuse. The gender/ethnicity ones are much more contentious, and can easily lead to ghettoization and nasty NY times articles, as we've all learned the hard way. It's confusing for editors - the fact that all categories diffuse, except a few special ones - its the exceptions to the rule, and this special "rule" in my perusal of the tree doesn't get followed at all consistently. (Give it a try yourself - please come take my quiz, and see how well you score - it's hard!). Fixing american novelists is just the tip of the iceberg, we're far from done.

The proposal for category intersection I've made above can get around this, by eliminating the need for such gendered/ethnic categories (e.g. instead of Category:American women novelists, you'd intersect Category:American novelists with Category:American women, or you could do Category:American novelists + Category:American men + Category:African-American people +Category:People from California to get an intersect of gender+ethnicity+job+state - so every bio would have top level cats like Category:American women, Category:African-American people, Category:American bisexual people, etc, and then editors could build common intersects, but researchers could do even more - so this would be a huge extension to the capabilities offered by static categories today, and would vastly simplify the category tree by eliminating all of the gendered/ethnic/sexuality/religious categories (they would become dynamic instead). You could even handle intersex or other genders in the same way, and produce slices of the tree that wouldn't exist as categories today. The only problem is, the solution/hack calls out to an external tool, and it's a bit slow, and doesn't look much like wikipedia. I'm discussing with the developer if he can tweak the UI somewhat.

As to your other points, we already have Category:20th-century American novelists (and others), and many genre-styles of novelists within, so we already are breaking them down by writing style and time period. This is especially important in large trees like the American one, which has 6800 novelists, vs smaller ones like Category:Singaporean novelists which doesn't have that many. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi everyone - it's be great if this conversation could perhaps be moved to the talk pages for the categories (or the category talk page). As I've mentioned now, multiple times, I've been suffering from some pretty severe burnout regarding gender work on Wikipedia and having this extended conversation isn't helping. I'm really really grateful for the work you are all putting into this to parse it out and improve the system, I just don't really have the mental energy to keep having it hosted on my talk page right now. You may notice the template at the top of my talk page about feeling distressed. I hope you don't mind me asking that. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done. cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Would you be interested in suggesting a question or two for the English Wikipedia readership survey 2013? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you being secretly sexist? I just completely updated California Historical Landmarks in San Francisco, California and you sent me that message? Maxschweitzer (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Wow, I'm um, pretty shocked by your response. It's merely a reminder that using edit summaries is important. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Sarah, just to let you know, there have been complaints about Max, and I'm trying to deal with them. If you're interested, you can follow at least some of it on my talk page. I wouldn't spend much time on it if I were you, though. As you might imagine from Max's comment's above, not much of it makes sense. In the meantime, I'm sincerely sorry to hear you're discouraged. I don't know why you are discouraged, but given the nature of Wikipedia, I can't say I'm surprised. Sometimes the stress becomes intolerable, at least temporarily. I know I often feel not only stressed but kind of lonely, particularly since I've become an admin. If I were you, I'd go back and take a look at your RfA. Having 217 support votes and 0 opposes should make you feel pretty good about yourself and about the community (that's a rather remarkable "score"). I hope your breaks help you. I only wish I were smart enough to take some breaks. We don't know each other, but I wish you only the best.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Really this opened my eyes, admins have a lot to do. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor

I don't know how that default Twinkle induced template that you left on Max's page made you seem sexist to him. *scratches head* I commend you for your positive reply to what seems to be a trolling attempt to me. *shakes head* Wait, there are no trolls on Wikipedia, I misspoke! ;) Happy editing!!! This comment made from my BlackBerry Curve 9330/6.0.0.706 at 9:31p on 5/6/2013. - Please feel free to correct any typographical errors that may exist. Thank You. Technical 13 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you dropped this off on my talk page using your BlackBerry Curve makes this all the more sweeter. Thanks Technical 13 :) SarahStierch (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and trying to leave a barnstar with a 2 year old phone with a weak Internet connection is no small task (took me like 15 minutes to post it). Cheer up dear. Everything is good. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be a shame to see someone who has done so much for the project get discouraged and leave. Consequently, I have decided to award you a picture of a brownie, because let's be honest...what could be better than seeing a picture on a screen and then not getting to eat it? Hope to see you in full force soon, happy editing. Sincerest regards, Go Phightins! 02:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Awe, thanks Go Phightins! Right now I'm just doing gnomish work. I hope to be back in full force soon enough, just gotta get through this right now...and yes..chocolate always helps :) Omnomnomnom. SarahStierch (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with re resizing my photo from Kyoto. I thought it looked a little big lol

Greatpumkin (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah,

I believe you care about this topic, so wondering if you are aware of this discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ottawahitech. I actually (and just posted this above in the category talk section of my page) that I'm no longer engaging in "categorygate" discussions. It's been extremely emotional for me and frustrating and I just don't have the mental energy to put into it at this time. This ranges from the comments on talk pages, to the press, to the entire "over blown" situation. I appreciate you letting me know, but, I'll probably be putting my energy into other things right now (you may notice the distressed template at the top of my talk page). THanks for sharing this though, and I hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts. SarahStierch (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am terribly sorry to hear that you are being discouraged from editing Wikipedia. Please don't be discouraged. By the way, Maxschweitzer has been blocked indefinitely by Bbb23, so that should not be a problem for you anymore. Also, it's always best to carry on and when a user realizes that they have posted comments about a fellow user in a negative light, the best way is to apologize to them. I also think if a person is discouraged by a disruptive editor, the best bet is to ask for others to take care of the situation. I hope everything will go well for you now that the situation has be resolved. All the best, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support:  Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

I hope you feel better soon. Pine✉ 06:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume III, Issue IV, April 2013 Headlines From the team: Some personal thoughts on GLAM Australia and New Zealand report: Wikipedia in academia and libraries in Australia Denmark report: Upcoming Edit-a-thon 1864 Finland report: WLPA; GLAM Sessions; Funding France report: Brest Germany report: Hamburg Museum; Museum August Kestner Hungary report: Article writing contest about statistics and related sciences Italy report: Wikipedia workshop; Editathon on women's biographies Mexico report: Fotofestín activities; DIY scanner project progress and Winners of the Holy Week in Mexico photo contest at ITESM Campus Ciudad de Mexico Netherlands report: GLAM WIKI UK; Wiki loves Sound; Wikipedian in Residence; Wiki loves Libraries; Wikipedia Training National Museum of Ethnology Spain report: Longest edit-a-thon ever at Fundació Joan Miró in Barcelona Sweden report: GLAM handbook version 3; conferences; hackathons and Wiki Loves Public Art Switzerland report: Swiss Federal Archives looking for a Wikipedian in Residence Taiwan report: Taiwan Government Data Portal Launched UK report: GLAM-Wiki; new and departing Wikipedians in Residence USA report: First GLAM Boot Camp; Consortium meeting; GLAMout; plus workshops and editathon Special story: Intersections between GLAM and Wikinews Open Access report: Featured content; Wikimania sessions Calendar: May's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Oh my god.

• 02:47, 29 March 2013 SarahStierch (talk | contribs) blocked 186.88.129.224 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{uw-vaublock}})

Is there are reason this IP was blocked indefinitely? I personally think 24-48 hours is recommended. Please tell me why the IP was blocked indefinitely. I will be fine with any response. Alex2564 (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP - it's associated with 3 or 4 other IP's being created by the same person. That person is involved in a law suit with some named Wikipedians and that IP has been posting content on Wikipedia under those 3-4 accounts attacking those people (I am not one of those people in the lawsuit, just associated with the people in it). I'm not going to change the block. The IP person is savvy enough to create 10 more IP's if they want. SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually came here to ask about the same thing. (And unlike Alex2564 I'm not a sockpuppet. :P ) Is an indefblock over a month after the fact really called for? I completely empathize with how annoying it is to be trolled or see your friends get trolled, but the block doesn't appear to really be preventing anything. Or, even if it is (which of course I'll take your word for if you say so)... why not knock it down to a year or two? All IP addresses change eventually, after all. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I just read the article in the Signpost and had to stop by and congratulate you. Good job. You've been through a lot on this project, you've survived a deletion and survived a great deal of what I'll call lively debate for want of a better description. You've done a remarkable job educating the community about the serious issues that we need to solve and you've provided some great solutions of your own. I know the community here can be quite trying at times and even with all of that you have excelled at making Wikipedia a nicer and more welcoming place. But more importantly you have been an inspiration to others and a role model to countless people. That is great in itself, but this is Wikipedia and your efforts reach millions of people and are now a part of history. This is something to be very proud of. It is a noble endeavor to help educate the human race and to encourage others to do the same through their efforts at Wikipedia and the other WMF projects. I just wanted you to know that your work is greatly appreciated and important to humanity. Congratulations on being Wikipedia's go-to woman. All the best and please know what you do here at Wikipedia matters. It matters a great deal. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let me add my congrats too. You are doing a great job, please keep it up! AshLin (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to untangle the entry for John Livsey Ridgway. Based on the materials I've found, and the remarks of User:Hilokid (Daniel Lewis, biographer of Ridgway's brother John), his middle name is "Livzey." (The LOC and Smithsonian, however, have yet a different spelling, "Livesy.") I was about to move the article to "Livzey," when I noticed that you had moved it last year. So I'm writing to touch base with you, lest I start an edit war. What's the best way to sort this out? Dgorsline (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I think the best thing to do would try to find some sources such as birth/death records for Ridgway. If we can find those, even using something like ancestry.com, that I think would be the end all. If all else fails, we can have the main article by John L. Ridgway and then have both the uses of his middle name redirect to that article, and then have it stated in the lead that he is known as John Livesy Ridgway and John Livzey Ridgway. Thoughts? SarahStierch (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. The redirects for all three spellings are already in place. I will add the alternate spellings to the lead. I will try to turn up a birth/death record for him. Dgorsline (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

• Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
• Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Im struggling to get this article accepted and need some advice. Can you have a look and let me know what I can do to get this article in shape? I cant seem to find published articles that the reviewers will accept. Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnespolo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2013 (this is me) (UTC)

Hi there Rob! Thanks for writing. OK. I'm going to give you an honest break down of the article and my concerns. Don't take any of this personal, Wikipedia is a weird world and it's hard to understand how it works. One thing to consider: If you work for, or are associated with Labware Inc. then you should not write the article about them. This falls into our conflict of interest policy. We have determined that it's virtually impossible to edit content on Wikipedia neutrally if you're associated with something, and that falls into another policy: neutrality. So keep those things in mind. Seriously. And yes, that's a pain in the butt, but, it's best to request someone else to write the article (or hell, even pay someone if all else fails). So here are some tips:

1. The article should probably follow the format of other business articles. You have a table you created - great job at creating the table - however, that's not the type of table we generally use. I'd say it'd be best to just remove the table and not have it for now.
2. THe entire lead you wrote is completely uncited and has one weird word that can be seen as promotional: "solutions". That entire word encompasses something we can't have on Wikipedia: non-neutral language. Merely claiming that Labware Inc. has "solutions" is suggesting that other companies don't. Remove the word suggestion.
3. Remove anything that isn't cited with a secondary reliable source. If it doesn't have an article in a reliable secondary source like a newspaper, magazine, tech website, or academic journal then it shouldnt' be there, basically. See WP:RELIABLE.
4. In the other paragraph, you have to remove terms like "is now" and "ranks". You have to make the article as BORING AS POSSIBLE. Or you'll never get it kept on Wikipedia.
   

OK, now the citations which are plaguing you:

1. The first source, the article about the founder, is a reliable secondary source.[2] Sadly, it's behind a stupid paywall so we can only assume good faith that it talks extensively about whatever you cite with it. However, one citation is not enough. We need multiple and mentions that are more than just mere mentions (i.e. namedrop).
2. This article is a weird one. There is no author, and it reads slightly promotional (like a press release). Most Wikipedians probably won't feel comfortable with it being a reliable source.
3. The Tysons food website is not a source that establishes notability at all. Seriously. Tysons uses delivery companies and has awesome staff but not everyone involved in the business has an article. This isn't a reliable source either, since it's associated with LabWare.
4. The Bloomsburg Businessweek link[3] is a mere profile, which is built on company provided material, making it an unreliable source.

So, on that note, I believe, right now, Labware Inc. is WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. I wish it wasn't, but, alas, that's how it goes for many organizations. So, if LabWare is supporting you to write this article, it's best to focus on getting your product out there and promoted via reliable sources than to spend time writing a Wikipedia article. Or, what i'd love to see, is you write content on Wikipedia that we need help or improvement on. I hope this helps some, and I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news! I do appreciate your attempts and contributions, so please don't stop helping to improve Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah for your feedback. Its very much appreciated. I will keep searching for reliable sources and try again. In the case that I cannot find other notable sources, is there any way to get an article kept on Wikipedia? comment added by Rnespolo (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 May 2013 (this is me) (UTC)

Hi there. No, not at this time, we won't be able to keep the article without it passing our notability guidelines, and lack of reliable secondary sources means that the article most likely won't pass. You can always submit it again, but, I cannot make any promises. Sorry, again, to the bearer of bad news! SarahStierch (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I really appreciate your feedback about my recent article: Education Pioneers. I've cited multiple reliable sources, including the Huffington Post, US News, Education Week, CNN Money, the Harvard Business Review, and Bloomberg Businessweek, Guidestar, Philanthropedia, and more, but I've still been declined for lack of notability as proven by reliable sources. Are there any others you had in mind when you asked for more? Bballgirl1007 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! OK. I'm going to break down my concerns with your article. Please don't take any of this personal! Wikipedia has lots of weird rules and policies and it's really frustrating at times, so don't take it personal at all. I didn't write this stuff, and it all has it's reasons for being in place. Also, please note: if you work for Education Pioneers you should not be writing the article about them. That's against our conflict of interest policy and you could be blocked for merely writing content about it. Research also shows that it's virtually impossible to write neutrally about something you "care for" or are "attached to". And that then violates our neutrality policy. So, if you're being funded by, paid by, or you know someone who works at the company, then I advise you abandon your cause and try editing Wikipedia and one of it's millions of articles that desperately need help :) Here are my notes

1. Just by reading the lead it sounds promotional: "mobilizes" "Accelerate excellence" "transform" "succeed" "selective" "successful" all of those words are non-neutral and show an inherent bias towards the work that the organization is doing. Language like that needs to be removed completely from the entire article.
2. There are no Wikilinks to any other articles. I'd add some if you can.
3. The article does read like promotional material. When I read it, I see it advertising it's programs and courses, how many weeks it takes, and all the people they work with. That's not what Wikipedia is about.
4. If I was you, I would remove every single thing that is not cited with a reliable secondary source. All of those lists and those alumni. If those alumni are "notable" they'd have Wikipedia articles about themselves. Remove it all, and anything else uncited.
5. ANother tip: KEEP IT BORING. As boring as totally possible. Wikipedia isn't a promo tool, it's not a phone book, etc. Keep it as boring as you possibly can. Remember Encyclopedia Brittanica? IT's boring. Keep Wikipedia boring! (Like we Keep Austin Weird).
6. External links always go after references. The point isn't to promote links, it's to cite content with reliable secondary sources. Learn more about extenral links here: WP:EXTERNAL. The list is also excessive. That's an insanely long external list link. Please remove some of the links following our guidelines in the external link policy page.

And now your sources:

1. Guidestar is not a reliables source unless you are citing specific IRS specific information about being a 401(k). It's content submitted by the organization, thus making it a primary source and not usable. So delete anything citing that.
2. This Huffington Post article is non-reliable because it was written by someone associated with the organization.[4] Therefore it is not reliable and cannot establish notability.
3. This source [5] is not a reliable source in Wikipedia world. It's basically pulling from content provided by Education Pioneers and has no research done by the writer. It's not even written by a named person, therefore it's questionable on if it's written by the organization or the publication.
4. Anything published by the organization is a non-reliable source and should not be cited unless it's citing something really boring and generic like a mission statement or when the organization was founded. That means pretty much ALL Of the citations you use from the org website. It's excessively used, and does not meet notability criteria. That includes this[6][7][8][9][10][11]
5. Press releases are NON-reliables sources. So, this does not count as a reliable source[12]
6. These are reliable secondary sources that help to establish notability: [13]

So, at this point, the organization does not meet our notability guidelines. Mere mentions of "notable" alumni that aren't even featured in Wikipedia or appear notable enough to merit their own articles don't establish notabiltiy. Using the majority of the organizations website does not either. So, unless CNN and Time magazine, and similar media outlets, are writing full fledged stories without "the help" of the organization then they don't pass notability guidelines at this time! I really wish I could be more positive. I do appreciate your contributions, and I hope you'll consider contributing other content - we have millions of articles that need help! SarahStierch (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the press mention; I haven't had time to keep up with that story since making the edit last night. Now my ears are burning :P --Markzero (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I found a decent image for this article. If you get a chance, can you do a quick Flickr review? BTW, good to see the Commons RFA. INeverCry 18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)  Done :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I just was sitting in my house with my iPod turn on so loud and this idea came to my mind: What if the Spanish Wikipedia had a Teahouse, it would be like La Casa del Té. Please, reply at my talk page if you think you can help me. Cheers!! Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono! Great idea. THe best people to ask would probably be User:Heatherawalls and User:Jtmorgan. They actually created a toolkit set that editors can use to create Teahouse on their own Wiki's. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/The menu. I hope that helps! I think it'd be cool to have it on every Wikipedia :) SarahStierch (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! Sarah. You rock!! Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Good as gold!

Hi, Sarah. I'm AutomaticStrikeout and I recently created a new thingy that I call the Golden Editor Award. A short time back, I requested some nominations, and User:TheOriginalSoni nominated you. Even if he hadn't, I probably would have eventually declared you a Golden Editor anyway. There likely are plenty of reasons I could provide which make you a Golden Editor, but I will focus on what might be your finest contribution: the Teahouse. An inviting and friendly place where new users can get helpful answers was a very good idea. I have personally utilized the Teahouse on more than one occasion and I'm hardly alone. Even without considering all the other things you've done, the contribution of the Teahouse makes you a Golden Editor. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Support:  Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 16:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC).

Awe...thanks guys! I'm really flattered and touched by this :) The Teahouse was a lot of work, blood, sweat, tears and love! And it took more than just me - J-mo, Heather, Siko and so many Teahouse hosts to create it. Thanks for the wiki love and kind award. I am honored! SarahStierch (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Curses. Pipped at the post! Basket _Feudalist 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 18:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sarah,

Thank you for your message regarding references. I have hopefully corrected all the inline references for this author's books using the RefToolbar and have re-submitted. (I assume the same editor continues to re-review the submission - or is it redistributed randomly to another?)

I do have two other questions with which I hope you can help:

1. When an opening statement such as "Linda Holeman (nee Freeman) is an internationally best-selling Canadian author of fiction" is used, can a commercial web page such as an Amazon.com page listing her books for sale be used as a reference? Or is a reference even needed here, as all individual books are listed by title (referenced with publisher and ISBN info) immediately following in the paragraph?

2. When referring to past awards or activities, how can these be referenced if the organization issuing the award has no published or web source for the specific individual? For example, an award may be old enough to no longer be mentioned on the organization's web site. Or again, this author taught writing courses in the 1990s at a Canadian university; how can this be referenced? Must every single past award or position that cannot be referenced be removed?

Apologies for the lengthy message, and thanks in advance!

Randall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfreemania522 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randall. First, let me give you one tip: don't forget to sign your messages you put on Wikipedia talk pages! It's something most people aren't aware of at the beginning. To do that, once you're done sharing what you wish to share, simply type 4 tildes (~~~~) and hit save! :) It's an important part of knowing who is writing what on your talk page and saves everyone (including a robot we have that does it for us) time!

You asked a few questions about your Linda Holeman article for submission. It's great that reflinks helped. However, my main concern about the citations still stands. None of them are reliable. That means, at this time, by simply looking at the sources you use, Holeman do not show that. They fall into two categories: article she has written and books she has written. In order for anyone, including authors, to be included in Wikipedia they have to pass our WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Your article submission does not show that, thus, right now, no matter what, we wouldn't be able to accept her article. You can read more about what constitutes a reliable source here: WP:RELIABLE. They are often newspaper/magazine/journals written about her not by her. So until you replace all of your citations, the article won't be able to be on Wikipedia. ANd if you don't find any reliable sources, that just means she isn't able to be on Wikipedia right now.

You (or someone) will have to remove the "internationally best-selling" line. It's promotional and does not fit into the scheme of things on Wikipedia. We're not a promo website, we're an encyclopedia. So just write that "Linda Holeman is Canadian fiction author." No best selling, no internationally.

Amazon is not a reliable source. If you scroll down in the Wendy Maltz article, you can see how you can do a correct bibliography of the subjects work.

I'd just list the most recent and critical awards. In this day and age, if an organization or award is that important it will be published someplace. Anyone can say they have won anything, so when it's coming from the subjects website, that isn't good!

I hope this helps! Another good place to find more help is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk which is specifically for situations like yours, and the Teahouse, a space I co-created for new editors to find help: WP:TEAHOUSE. Good luck! And i hope you'll also consider helping to improve one of the 4 million articles that Wikipedia has on it that desperately need help. SarahStierch (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you're not in the dumps anymore! Have yourself a nice cup `o tea and let's get some stuffs done! Technical 13 (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		I stumbled upon your name as I was editing, and I was instantly reminded of how generally pleasant you are. So, I'm dropping by to say: You make Wikipedia a better place with your kindness and civility! Sophus Bie (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Awe! Wow, thank you Sophus! I am flattered! :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; you deserve it! :D Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello You've just declined my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Medical_Research_Council_Technology) and I'd like some help with it please. You're right that I'm struggling with the references, particularly as some articles (such as MRCT's collaborators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Drug_Research_and_Development) have no references whatsoever - perhaps I am referencing things that don't need to be referenced? Anyway, taking some of your comments on our existing references: [1] This is not from the subject's website - it is the Medical Research Council website, not MRC Technology's. MRC Technology is independent from the Medical Research Council. [2] Point taken, but perhaps I don't need to reference this statement of policy? [3] I'm not sure that I see how the UK government is associated with MRCT? MRCT is not a governmental department, nor is it funded by the government. [4] This reference appears to have changed since I cited it last year, I will find an alternative. [5] Fine [6] I don't see how MRCT is involved with the journal SciBX. This is a journal published by the Nature Publishing Group and Biocentury Publishing http://www.nature.com/scibx/about_site.html Thanks for your help Suzy Mcdi7sh2 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Suzy! If I was confused on the citations, surely I can't be the only one :) In order for an article to be included in Wikipedia it has to pass our "notability" guidelines. I presume that Medical Research Council Technology is an organization, based on this website. So, in order to get a Wikipedia article, they have to pass specific guidelines about organizations. You can read about those here. The standard for writing an article about an organization usually follows a type of style: history of the organization, what they're up to today, and thing special that has happened (i.e. a major breakthrough that changed the industry, controversy, whatever) and that's it. We have to keep things boring and to the point, and easy enough for people who aren't aware of the organization to understand what the organization is about when they are done reading the article. I did a brief Google search, and the few links that I found that I thought could be reliable secondary sources ended up being press releases and those aren't reliable secondary sources.

Also, you asked me that you were unclear about why the government is associated with MRCT. I'm not sure, I don't know anything about the organization. If MRCT isn't associated with the government, or that link, then it shouldn't be in the article. This is a tough one, and again, if multiple reliable sources can't be found, it might be WP:TOOSOON for an article about the subject. You can read more about what constitutes a reliable source here: Wikipedia:RELIABLE. I hope that helps some. The best place for advice is generally either the Articles for Creation help page located here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk or the Teahouse, a space I co-created on Wikipedia to help new editors like yourself: WP:TEAHOUSE. I hope those links I shared help. Again, it might just be too soon to write an article about the organization. But I could be wrong, and maybe folks on those other help spaces can help! Thanks for improving Wikipedia, and I hope you'll also consider helping to write and improve the over 4 million other articles we have that surely need help. SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarah, you're not making much sense here frankly. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate this article. I thought that it met all the requisites but I see that it is now simply a problem of inner citations, and I understand that they do have to be there. Could you just kindly tell me if it was a problem of formatting or was it because there weren`t enough references and footnotes?

Daniiinm (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniiinm! Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia. You included a nice list of reference. What you should do now is add inline citations. You can learn about how to do those here: WP:INLINE. Once you get the inline citations appropriately placed, then you can submit it again for review. :) SarahStierch (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, it's me again. Thank you kindly for getting back. I had a look at the link and put in all the inline citations I could (3 in total). Could you have a quick look and tell me if it's ready to submit again for review? If there's something I´m not getting, do let me know. Many thanks for your assistance. Daniiinm (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I just received a message from you telling me that my article was declined. I can understand that, but I am just wondering whether Omniglot as a website is considered unreliable? Could you check it out if you have not already? As far as I know, Omniglot is something like a journal you wrote that you were looking for. Thanks!

Xquozojak69 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Xquozojak69

Hi there! Yes, Omniglot is a reliable source, I believe. The other sources you used are not (wiki's and the "language" website). Another good place to get feedback and input is the Articles for Creation help Desk: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk. hope that helps! SarahStierch (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there certain criteria that classify a reliable source? I am just a little stuck. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.60.253 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! There are. You can find a good guide as to what qualifies as a reliable source here: WP:RELIABLE. SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah:

Thanks for taking the time to review my article about Purolator International. I wanted to make clear that I was not intending to submit a new article about Purolator. I made revisions to existing text to clarify a previous editor's notes that the article had notability issues, and that it read like an advertisement. With that in mind, could you please take another look and let me know if I have sufficiently addressed those issues? Thanks so much! Princess KimmiePrincessKimmie (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Princess Kimmie! I went a head and removed the notability tag. I did remove some things - the location list, the listing of important staff members, and moved some things around to make it look less promotional. I also added some subtle citation needed tags. Feel free to fill those in with reliable sources at your leiure. I am leaving the orphan tag on it, until the article is linked from other articles! Great work! SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on the Fly Panda article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fly_Panda). Understood. Would this reference be notable enough? http://www.mtv.com/artists/fly-panda/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macmints06 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, actually. The best place to probably ask would be the Articles for Creation Help Desk, here, or the WP:Teahouse, here. I would lean towards no, but another opinion would be good! SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello S.

Wondering if I could have one more set of eyes on my article for creation.

-I've "pruned" the references. There were suggestions of some that had only passing references to the subject (2 line mention), and some too close to the subject (such as publisher's bios). Notability of the subject was not brought up. -External links have been reduced.

I was in a bit of a "vacuum" with another editor how to address awards (use of award center listings as valid or not), and some info being trivial or not (such as an award).

Sometimes one more set of eyes makes things easier, if you wouldn't mind a look and further suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Laura_Fernandez

(892c (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)).

Hi there! Good work. There are still too many citations maybe related to - because they were created by her or her colleagues - but, I've went ahead and moved it into the article space. I did make some edits to it - cleaned up the language from being too puffy, removed external links in the article, etc. SarahStierch (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Kavi Alexander's page and the included references. But I noticed that you did not mention the two articles in LA Times about him that are independent sources confirming his notability. Please let me know if this was an oversight or why these can't be used as references.

Also, I am a bit confused about why the books that praise his techniques etc. can't be used as an independent reference?

Thanks, Ajoyprabhu (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Those two articles are great - now we need more articles like that! Citing Amazon and non-reliable sources aren't able to establish notability. We have to have Alexander featured heavily in multiple reliable secondary sources. And remember: Wikipedia must be neutral. To be blunt: Wikipedia doens't care if someone is praised or disliked. Everyone has both, and everything should be neutrally covered - the good and bad - in Wikipedia. He's done great work, and surely there must be more out there about him. I encourage you to ask for additional help at the Articles for creation help desk or the Teahouse. And please review what the article says at the top about music notability guidelines. Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. FYI, Kavi has one Grammy award (1993 for best album) and another one nominated for best album (1994) which has been referenced. Also, I am not citing Amazon! I am pointing to published books. Should I change the links to the actual ISBN number?

Ajoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoyprabhu (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great. I'd say that makes him surely notable, as long as the citations show he's won that Grammy. Ah, I couldn't tell if you were citing Amazon with all of the Amazon links. So yeah, I'd cite it a different way. In your citation button in the menu there is a link for books. Anyway, I'm traveling and will be slow at responding, so I'd stop by the WP:TEAHOUSE for more help. Thanks and good luck! SarahStierch (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I think I finally understood what you meant and I cleaned it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Valerie_Miles#Biography . I don`t know exactly what to do now to get it resubmitted. COuld you kindly tell me how? If you can, any new feedback on the article would be greatly appreciated. Daniiinm (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like you did submit it :) It's confusing sometimes. OK, I'm going to let someone else review it - it's good to have a second opinion. But I'll take a look, too! SarahStierch (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)