User talk:Vicki Rosenzweig
I've archived a bunch of old talk from this page. --VR
More archiving, this of most of the current content. I'm not very active on Wikipedia these days, so please don't expect quick responses.
Mis quoting sources
I really have a hard time believing that you prefer a version of an article that mis-quotes the 'sources' cited. I am sure you love Mr. Nicoll's 'dry wit' and his 'byword in fandom', but please keep such Original Research to fan pages outside of Wikipedia, and let the articles within Wikipedia contain reliably sourced, verifiable, and notable marterial. Thanks!22.214.171.124 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- No original research doesn't mean we can't use primary sources:
- Point of information My tagging of OR and changes thereafter were based on the fact that the content of the 'source' was vastly different than the statements within the article. Taking the information that actually existed in the source and then extracting and embellishing to the extent of the statements that were within the article was the original research.
- it means Wikipedia itself should not be a primary source, and we should think about what we're using them for, and why. If the question is what someone wrote, their own published writing is a reliable source. Or would you object to an article on William Shakespeare citing one of his sonnets rather than a literary critic's discussion thereof? Nor does the policy mean that online compilations are inherently unreliable: one question to ask about reliability is how the material was compiled, and another is whether the compilers had motivation for deception.
- Also, I am trying hard to believe that your phrasing above was meant in good faith. Vicki Rosenzweig 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Were your claims of vandalism when returning to the misquoted citations in good faith???SavingJDNfromthefilk 12:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Transnational Radical Party
Transnational Radical Party, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Transnational Radical Party satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transnational Radical Party and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Transnational Radical Party during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AvruchTalk 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Vicki, I see you've shown some interest in the A Canticle for Leibowitz article in the past. I'm interested in bringing it to GA status soon and am soliciting your help. A number of revisions have been made in the past few weeks to position it for a successful nomination process. Would you mind reviewing the article and making suggestions/changes to assist in the process? Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
CH and ll
Greetings, Vicky. You asked this. I gave my feelings on the issue. Regards, 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:American Central University
Early Infanticidal Childrearing
Remember that? A new editor, Cesar Tort, has done a major edit of the article and changed the title to Psychohistorical views on infanticide, but I still think it is highly problematic. I had a detailed exchange with him in which I set out my problems with the revised article and he responded, here - it would take some time to read through, but several years ago you had many valuable comments, and I would be grateful if you could look at the revised article and my comments, and those of others in sections below mine, and add your voice. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just nominated American Freedom Coalition and World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Your user page
Nomination for deletion
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitismBorock (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Vicki. I noticed you changed a lot of instances of "wheelchair-bound" into some variation of "wheelchair user". I don't know your reason for doing this, but I expect it is because you find wheelchair-bound to be somehow offensive/insensitive to wheelchair users. While "wheelchair users" is common to refer to people in a wheelchair, referring to the act of being in a wheelchair as "wheelchair-using", is not (at least not quite as common as wheelchair-bound). I've also never heard of the notion that wheelchair-bound has negative connotations, but I'd happily be proven wrong. I've reverted your edits where you changed to wheelchair-using and where I found that your version of the text was needlessly evasive with regards to the wheelchair. If you can convince me of the need to avoid all use of "wheelchair-bound", then I'll revert back to your version. Cheers, --Atlan (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I replied to you both on my talk page. In short, I'll accommodate by altering the text to something that doesn't say wheelchair-bound, rather than simply reverting myself. Bear with me though, it might take a few days as I'm rather busy right now. By the way, are you part of this campaign to rid Wikipedia of the term wheelchair bound?--Atlan (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm in a wheelchair, and although this is the first I ever considered the phrase, "bound" is slightly offensive for its negative connotation (in fact wheelchairs are quite liberating, considering the alternative). In the right context, where one is trying to emphasis negative connotations of being in a wheelchair, bound would be OK. For example "The wheelchair-bound man was trapped by stairs in the burning building" is better than "The wheelchair user was trapped by stairs". We have to be careful about removing a phrase entirely for political reasons without considering context; language is a great thing and Orwell taught us the dangers of limiting it for political purposes. However for NPOV Wikipedia purposes, bound is going to be rarely appropriate. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
From wheelchairs to something completely different.. Many years ago you were the first to create the article John, King of England, back when Wikipedia was in its infancy, not unlike the early days of Anglo-Norman England, one could say. Well now it's NINE YEARS later (feeling old?) and guess what.. the seed of the article has evolved and now is currently under review for Featured Article status (and what a great article). Thought you'd be interested since you started it off. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Vicki Rosenzweig,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at email@example.com. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar
Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
- Cool! (and, congrats!) Wikipedia serves as somewhat of a reminder -- to me, at least -- that a lot can happen in 10 years. :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aristotle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since I don't know whether this edit counts as an action, am now going to poke at my watchlist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicki Rosenzweig (talk • contribs) 00:47, January 1, 2016 (UTC)
- Good to see you still here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States#Proposal_to_fork_some_content_into_general_article_for_.22drug_prices.22 User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Vicki Rosenzweig.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
- NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
- Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
ArbCom 2019 special circular
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear Vicki Rosenzweig,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.