User talk:Liz

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions: 1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

'tis the winter season!

This page was last edited or modified by Chaddude14 (talk).

Note: When emailing me, please also post a {{You've got mail}} template to this page.
I check my Wikipedia email account infrequently.

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Recommended reading for editors who are upset RIGHT NOW!:
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Staying cool when the editing gets hot!

If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply.
And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.

Deletion of Mahmud Muhieddine Barmada

Hi, I would like to know why you deleted the article of Mahmud Muhieddine Barmada, Despite being reviewed by User:Kj cheetham Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasouhq (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Liz

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Liz! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dimitar Stojmenovski (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dimitar Stojmenovski and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dimitar Stojmenovski, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 09:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Liz! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hitro talk 09:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Guliolopez (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

In need of aid

Hi @Liz, I wanted to ask if it is advisable to move the draft Kabelo Secondary School to article space (after the I add the coordinates) although it is unreferenced (hatnote applied), the reason the article is unsourced is because I find the sources unreliable. Motlatlaneo (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Motlatlaneo,

If you are asking what is "advisable", then, that is to submit your draft to Articles for Creation before you move it. They might decline the draft because of a lack of references but, their goal is to give you advice so that, if you follow their guidance, your article will not be deleted if it is moved into the main space of the project. It is usually required to have at least one reference to verify that this subject of the article actually exists! So, while the AFC reviewers might seem critical, if you get their approval, it is very unlikely that your article will be deleted when it is moved into main space.

What I would advise you to do is, whether you move it into article space yourself or submit it to AFC, make a copy of the content and put it on a User space page in case it does get deleted. You should always have a back-up copy of your work so that if it is deleted, you have a basic version of the article draft so you aren't restarting from scratch. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz,i finally moved the article to main space and added citations and coordinates to verify the existence of the school, is it okay or am I missing something ma'am? Motlatlaneo (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Motlatlaneo,

You are talking about Kabelo Secondary School, right? Honestly, I'm not the best judge of new articles (that is what AFC is for) but at least your article has some valid references which is more than many school articles have so you have that in your favor. An AFC reviewer would be able to tell you if it is "good enough" but I don't think many articles are 100% safe from being tagged for deletion, it always exists as a possibility.

It's marked as a "stub" which is good, the expectations for stub articles are lower than regular articles. I think it's rare that a secondary school has "Notable alumni" so you might just remove that section. In general, from what I have seen on Wikipedia over my years, it's better to have a brief article that just states the basic facts about a subject than one that is too long, that has been "padded" with irrelevant content to make it seem more important. Many school articles make the mistake of listing every teacher, every subject the school teaches, every building on the grounds and that stuff is usually quickly removed. Remember that this article is not for prospective students considering going to this school but for anyone looking at this town, this geographic area who wants to see what schools are in the vicinity. Is there any chance there is a website or webpage where readers who want more information could go to get it? This is something you can add to the infobox. Those are my basic comments. I think it is definitely a clear, concise article on your school. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Liz, I'll try to find a suitable url that depicts more information concerning the school

Ma'am I have been wondering, how does one upload an image on Wikimedia commons without violating the copyrights (fair use), because sometimes my work gets tagged for copyrightvio although it's my own craft? Motlatlaneo (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

RE: Welcome back!

Thank you very much for the welcome, the truth is that I had planned to write to you to apologize for the things I said without thinking about the past but you went ahead and wrote to me before haha. More than anything I have returned with the intention of improving some drafts that interest me and not focusing on wanting to be the first to create the drafts. I also wish you a Happy New Year. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 03:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bruno Rene Vargas,

Oh, that is good news to hear, we need your talent and knowledge about upcoming films. I was kind of surprised that things got so competitive with you because the main editor who trying to dominate others was blocked and kicked off the platform. So, you no longer had a rival trying to take credit from you. But, believe me, I know how easy it is to become overly invested with editing on Wikipedia once it becomes a regular activity. I hope when you are interested in returning you can help some of these stubs become articles that their creators would be proud to claim as their own! Stay well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Johan (WMF),

I only had a vague idea that this plan was working its way through the WMF organization and I appreciate the message to let us know it is an imminent change. This will greatly affect a large number of our contributors. I, myself, started as an IP editor before I decided to eventually create an account.

Does this mean that people will no longer edit as IP accounts or just that most editors won't be able to view their IP number? Will their contributions be attributed to a randomly generated series of letters and numbers every time they edit? I understand that there are legal consequences that are mandating this change happen, it's just hard to envision how this will work and how page histories will appear. Thanks for the links, I'll go over and see if there are some answers to these questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Emptying categories out-of-process

Hi Liz. Could you please explain what "Emptying categories out-of-process" means? I saw that in your edit summary for your removal and subsequent emptying of Category:Vidzeme from Sigulda. I'm trying to figure out why you emptied the category. Please ping me if you respond here. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AlexEng,

No problem, it's an expression that editors outside of those who frequent WP:CFD discussions rarely hear. Emptying categories "out of process" is removing the contents of categories so they get tagged CSD C1, are are deleted by speedy deletion. Typically, categories become empty and are deleted as "empty categories" when there is a major category reorganization or if the categories are filled by a template which is deleted at WP:TFD or if they have one article and the article gets deleted by PROD or in an AFD. There is a daily list of empty categories (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories) and if you look at it, you can see that it is a mostly random collection of different types of categories. That's a normal daily list. However, today, there are 27 "People from X" categories which is very unusual to see. It is a result of an editor removing all of the contents of these categories, article by article. This is not how category deletions are supposed to be done.

Now, there might be very good reasons to delete all of these categories, it could be that all of these places have somehow gotten renamed. But what an editor is supposed to do for category renames, mergers and deletions is to make a proposal at Categories for Discussion. For example, you can see some of these discussions if you look at the CFD page for January 4th. This is the proper process for deleting, merging or renaming 27 categories on one subject but, unfortunately, many editors find it faster to just empty categories than to have these discussions that are settled by consensus of interested editors.

Reverting an editor's edits is a drastic step that I've only done once or twice before and I wouldn't have done it if it had been a single category. But looking over this editor's edits, they were doing a major recategorization and their account was only a few days old....this is a huge kind of project for a new editor to take on so I have my suspicions that this is a returning editor who might have been blocked.

I hope this explains things to your satisfaction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation, Liz. That answers my question and even some follow-up questions I hadn't thought of yet. Thank you for your great work! AlexEng^(TALK) 04:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

...old respected friend/WP colleague. I recognized your signature from long ago, at the patronymic page, and was, frankly, shocked to see you—someone I knew in an earlier life—still hard at it here. We wanted to wish you, as a sanity supporting former colleague, a Happy and safe New Year. Kind regards to you and yours. 2601:246:C700:558:7012:C16C:DDF:500B (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2601:246:C700:558:7012:C16C:DDF:500B,

SOOO mysterious! You aren't going to tell me who I knew you as? I'm not going to analyze your edits, just accept your good wishes.

I did take two years off from editing Wikipedia after a bout with cancer, the death of a parent, a cross-country move and a return to take some college courses in completely new fields (philosophy, literature and art history). Plus, the national politics scene changed radically in 2016 and I got absorbed with watching network news which left me a little dispirited. But the urge to fix mistakes I saw eventually returned and here I am, back at it. But my promise to myself in 2022 is to cut back on the hours I spend, it was fine during the pandemic but I need to get off my laptop and get back into the face-to-face world, or, the mask-to-mask world, for now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Just did this series of edits to Aleksandr Sorokin, and decided to show you what your earlier investments of time have yielded. in terms of quality output.

I am very sorry but gratified that the bout was decided in your favour, and that you have recovered from that and the loss and other challenges to look into those new fields. (My minor of many years ago was in philosophy, and I wed an art historian, and so I know a little of what you are engaging.) I understand the temptation with regard to the news, especially in this COVID era, and I have in fact, for work reasons, had to be immersed. But I ultimately decided that too few were actually listening to learned counsel, so that the public health fight was for others with more long term calling—so I toweled off (so to speak) and returned to other, more productive arenas. Here at WP, I simply try to address what I read, sometimes creating short stints, as in today's athlete, but other times engendering very long work on minor intellectual interests. (My seeming devotion, for instance, to the biography of a death row inmate began only with conviction that his and his father's writings should not be substantial sources for that BLP content, and revision of that article took an "age" (by WP standards). As for identity, I will look into ways of sharing, but after two hard chapters at the hands of others here, I am content to remain 2601... and to reach out to those I remember fondly. Cheers, Happy New Year, and I will look back here from time to time. 2601:246:C700:558:B5DC:4EAA:E1D:6C21 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Love of Sumako the Actress vs. The Love of the Actress Sumako

Hello Liz, could you as an admin please handle this? The Love of the Actress Sumako should redirect to The Love of Sumako the Actress, not vice versa, because the former is the common title in film literature. At its present state, it's incorrect. I tried a cut-paste-solution (not the most elegant solution, I know), but this was reversed by another user. Said user referred to WP:CUTANDPASTE; of course, being a non-admin, this doesn't help me much. Could you help here? Thanks, Robert Kerber (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Kerber,

I'm sorry for the delay in responding, I somehow missed seeing your message. But it looks like your problem was fixed by another editor. If things are still not the way you'd like them to be, let me know and I'll try to respond more promptly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz, the thing has been taken care of in the meantime. Thanks for getting back to me. Best, Robert Kerber (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Viewing deleted pages

Hello Liz, I guess my admin skills need an update, since I'm not able to see any more than a user name and “(log details removed) (edit summary removed)” for the deleted pages you list at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion idea. Could you help me with this, please? If you like, you can use e-mail. ◅ Sebastian 06:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sebastian,

I know that some of the pages (2?) were oversighted so you wouldn't be able to see those even with admin abilities. From what I remember, they were just personal profiles from children so that content was oversighted. I hope that helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that explains it! I just looked at the wrong pages, then. Yes, there are two that behave that way, so I presume that they have been oversighted. (Or is there any direct way to know?)

Of the others, most do indeed mention professions, but I doubt that they could ever be used for self-promotion. E.g. I got a good laugh out of Geet's “Profession-sinning”.

Much as I agree that it was silly to delete them just after you posted the links to them, couldn't that be a hint towards a solution of the problem? If the admins who deleted or moved them joined some group or category such as “admins who are happy to delete or move unencyclopedic pages” then one could just delegate that part of mopping to them and let them deal with any possible consequences such as WP:REFUND. Eventually, they would also figure out whether it's better to delete or move them. ◅ Sebastian 09:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sebastian,

I'm afraid my frustration got the best of me with my comment about deleting examples, it just used to happen to me all of the time, especially when I was a new admin. I'd go to a fellow admin's page and ask, "What is correct thing to do about Page X?" and then an admin who was cruising by the talk page would just delete the page which kind of ended the conversation. But I think when some admins spot problematic pages, their instinct is to get rid of the offending page even if it was the central point of a discussion.

As for the discussion at WP:CSD, I think what I was hoping for was some new criteria which would less of an indictment of the editor than "promotion" and indicate that the page was inappropriate but the page creator was just misguided without any ill intent to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. That is why for some of these pages, I mark them as "tests" because creating these profiles is usually the first and only edit many of these editors make. But I thought the chance of creating a new criteria for speedy deletion in 2022 would require a massive campaign and RFC and I don't think most editors see these rather naïve, harmless pages as really much of a problem, at least not serious enough to change a long-standing policy. But I survey upcoming stale drafts and I see dozens of these sorts of pages every day so I wanted to at least initiate a conversation about them so that more editors were aware of the fact that many very young editors see creating their own Wikipedia page as similar to creating a social media profile page on Instagram or Facebook. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

As for me, my primary reaction with your OP was to sympathize with your frustration. But while I found the suggestion for such a new criterium sounded reasonable, I didn't see an urgent need for it. “Profession-sinning” editors, or at least editors with big penises, have been around for 17 years, and what you described didn't sound so significantly different from their contributions as to require specific attention. Until about a year ago, when I last intensively dealt with new pages, I never felt a need for such a new speedy criterium. Now your last sentence sounds like you noticed a dramatic increase of such new pages just recently. If your intention was to alert us of that, then it would have been more effective to name the section accordingly and back it up with statistics. (For me, a diagram would have really driven home the point.) The very generic subject “Speedy deletion idea”, of which, if one subtracts the page title, only the notion “some idea” remains, smells too much like a solution in search of a problem. (Speaking of naming sections, now that the subject of our conversation changed, I wouldn't mind if you adjusted the headline here.) ◅ Sebastian 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Bali MMA

Greetings, you have deleted the page but I think you have not checked the additional citations I added or the edit summary where I have specifically mentioned why at least another AfD is required. The page has been improved from its last stage with more citations so I would request you to kindly restore the page please. Thank you. --Berantral (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Berantral,

The AfD was just closed, at the end of November, we usually don't run AfDs back-to-back, they are typically done years apart, not weeks. One or two new references wouldn't overturn a consensus decision at an AfD to delete this article. You also misrepresented the decision at this AfD discussion in an edit summary, it wasn't a "soft delete", it was a straight decision to delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Deleted content

Hi there. You recently deleted a sandbox page that I was working on. I was asked to created a bio for myself to send to someone who wanted to create a page for me in Wikipedia. I thought the easiest way to do that was to get the fundamentals of the breakdown created in a sandbox that was not published and I could Edit it and then just copy pasta to the person who wants to create my bio. I thought it was a sandbox that no one could see and I was using it to just learn the fundamentals for editing a couple other pages. Learning to use Wikipedia has been on my bucket list for some time. I apologize for anything I did wrong. Is there any way to get the work that I did back? Or is it gone forever? It doesn't need to be on Wikipedia, But I would like to get the draft I was working on back. Again, I thought it was just and sandbox to play in and learn and did not think it was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardtmartin (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bernardtmartin,

There are times when admins can restore pages that were deleted, Bernard. But in this case, it was deleted not just for being promotional but for being a copyright violation of your LinkedIn page. For legal reasons, content taken directly from other sites or sources can't remain on Wikipedia and so this can't be restored. I can email you the content if you'd like.

As far as wanting a biography of yourself on Wikipedia, I encourage you to read over Wikipedia:Autobiography on why this action is discouraged, primarily because it's almost impossible to write one with a neutral point-of-view because of the natural conflict-of-interest we all have about ourselves.

There is also a good essay, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and the message there is that if there is an article about you on Wikipedia, you would have no control over what content editors would add to it or remove from it. I don't know anything about you or your life but an article might not highlight aspects of your career that you are the proudest of. As hard as it might seem to get an article on to Wikipedia, once it is created and approved, it can also be a challenge to remove it should it ever turn into a biography that you are unhappy about. Wikipedia regularly gets requests from people who want their biographical articles removed from the project. Just something to consider in your quest for an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

HelloLiz. Thank you. Yes please email me the content. Thanks much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardtmartin (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hank Kunneman

Courtesy notification of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Kunneman. While I'm with you in firmly believing it should be deleted—the sourcing is totally inadequate for any BLP, let alone one making contentious claims like this—I can't really justify deleting it under A7. The coverage he gets is itself a prima facie credible claim of significance, so a speedy deletion would reasonably be appealed which would in turn have the perverse effect of making it harder to delete the page since people would see "this page was previously kept" in the history. Much as I dislike the AfD circus, I think this is one that's going to need to be done the long way round. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Iridescent,

That sounds sensible, Iridescent. When I tag pages like these, instead of deleting them, I'm really looking for a second opinion. This fellow seems like a kook Wikipedia doesn't need a bio of but probably borderline as far as notability goes and I can now see that AFD is the proper step to take. Thanks for informing me about opening this deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Iduma igariwey

i believe on its talk page i had objected to moving it, as per Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections. RZuo (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RZuo,

Are you talking about Draft:Iduma igariwey? You placed an objection on the talk page last summer about moving the draft. But the draft was deleted yesterday as a CSD G13 abandoned draft because the page hadn't been edited since July 7, 2021. Placing an objection on a talk page six months ago won't stop an abandoned draft being deleted the next year. What will prevent a deletion is to continue to work on the draft. Drafts that have been abandoned (unedited for at least six months) aren't kept around indefinitely, we have a speedy deletion criteria that is specifically about their deletion.

Do you plan on working on this one and improving it? Because if the answer is "yes", then I'd be happy to restore it. Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections: "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." "If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc." RZuo (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

i repeat, Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections has put it clearly, that such a page can only have two outcomes -- either being moved back, or being moved back and listed at afd. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Incubation: "Incubation is not intended to be a "backdoor route to deletion"." there is no ground for any speedy deletion once an objection has been made. the draft was not abandoned, but pending a move.--RZuo (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RZuo,

I told you that if you wanted the draft restored I would do it but you seem to care more about arguing than working on this draft.

I deleted this draft because it met the criteria for speedy deletion, CSD G13, that is the extent of my involvement. I didn't move this page. You can argue about whether or not the page should have been moved with the editor or admin who moved the page, which is what you should have done in July 2021 instead of leaving a message on a draft talk page that no one would ever see.

If you want to work on improving this draft page, I will restore it but if you want to argue about policy interpretations, please find someone else or somewhere else to do that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I have fixed the issues, and the article is now at Iduma Igariwey. It is obviously a stub but I an sure it is not amenable to speedy deletion and will survive an AfD,--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And now it was converted into a redirect, so that the issue is moot anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

S$

$S welcome --CBFuc782 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Deborah Tucker (skater) with Deborah Tucker (actress)

Hi Liz,

Not very technically savvy, I’m trying to merge myself as my name shows up in two different places on Wikipedia. How do I go into my actress page and at least add “Deborah Tucker” and “Figure skating at the Winter Universiade”, event link here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_at_the_Winter_Universiade

…both my name and event as live links when you click on them, added to my actress page (possible)??

I don’t need a separate skater page on its own, as I don’t have other skating titles, (only competed at nationals in 1985 and 1986, and didn’t make podium) but it would be nice when you click on “Deborah Tucker” under 1985 Ladies Bronze at “Figure skating at the Winter Universiade” it would go to my actress page.

Please help, and email me with any questions as that would be easier than through this (hoping this message even gets to you or to the powers that be).

Thanks,

Deborah Tucker (actress/skater) Tucker.deb@gmail.com Debralynn28! (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Alien, Machine or Human?

What! are you a robot, alien or human? It’s 1:18 in New Jersey. Get some sleeepppp!!! Celestina007 (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Celestina007!

Oh, I'm not in New Jersey any more. I did live there for 20 years though. But I'm in the Pacific Northwest now so it's only about 10:30 pm. Bedtime soon! It must be early morning where you are!

I've spent the last few hours not editing but reading old noticeboard cases and SPI case reports, trying to catch up on things. I use to spend a lot of time participating on noticeboards when I first started editing but it came out as a very negative thing at my RfA so I rarely visit them now. But staying away has made me out-of-the-loop on certain events that have occurred on Wikipedia since last summer. It seems like there has been a fair amount of the regular drama, but I really hate how what seem like small disputes can get taken to ANI and spiral out-of-control and sometimes backfire on people. It really is a court of last resort unless there is a huge problem that needs to be addressed quickly.

Any way, I hope you are well and the new year has started off smoothly for you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh! That’s a 9 hour time difference, yes it’s barely 8:06am in the city of Lagos, The new year has been great for me! To expatiate on your point when I had surgery sometime last year and was still in admission and spent a great amount of time on the hospital bed what I predominantly did was read some ANI's from way before my time and a general dive into history, I found it kind of interesting and bizarrely therapeutic. Celestina007 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Cobra Pumps

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Addred85

Hi, Liz. I apologize for creating confusion in creating the page for David Mead's album Cobra Pumps. Is there no way to delete either the "draft" version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cobra_Pumps_(David_Mead_album)) or the "real" version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Pumps_(David_Mead_album))? It's fine with me if one is deleted, or both, and I start from scratch with specific instructions on how to create a proper page. I think I created the page for Dudes correctly, but maybe not? Creating pages and uploading album covers under "fair use" guidelines (see also: the album cover I uploaded for Dudes) are two things that seemed easier several years ago, but maybe I'm wrong — it's been a while. Again, I apologize, and thank you for your patience.

Hello, Addred85,

I decided that, rather that deletion, I'd turn the draft into a redirect to Cobra Pumps (David Mead album) in order to preserve the page history.

Please in the future sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). This will sign your message with your username, a link to your user page and the time and date of your message. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz! —Addred85

Approve Draft:Prince Ukpong Akpabio

please i have made changes to the page Prince Ukpong Akpabio still save in draft.please review and approve Edyreuben (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Edyreuben,

I don't review drafts but it looks like you have already decided to move Prince Ukpong Akpabio II to the main space of the project. I would have recommended you submit the draft to Articles for Creation to prevent a speedy deletion tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Tala Halawa AfD

Greetings Liz,

I've just noticed that you've closed the deletion discussion on the aforementioned article. I hadn't realized it's been seven days since my nomination (how sloppy of me). Would it be possible to reopen and extend the discussion, as it had exactly two keep comments (with hardly any content) and no discussion: hardly a consensus. I was holding off on responding, lest other impartial parties take part in a meaningful discussion, but was beat by the clock. I really hope that my sloppiness and the apparent lack of interest (and perhaps not advertising in the correct fora) doesn't result in the perpetuation of this unencyclopedic and unsalvageable article which is about a single event that happened to a non-notable living young lady. Best regards! --Fjmustak (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fjmustak,

I'm not 100% certain that this is the correct step to take but I'm new to closing AfD discussions so I've accommodated your request. I think 2 keep votes is sufficient to decide to Keep an article but I've reopened the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your accommodation. --Fjmustak (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Anyone can edit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Anyone can edit and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Anyone can edit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Restore Article of Sanjaysinh Sukhdevsinh Gohil

Hi, Liz. I saw that you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaysinh_Sukhdevsinh_Gohil under CSD G4. It's my understanding that it was Created by mistake. Would you mind restoring it to draft ? so i can continue editing draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassanoVincenzo (talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CassanoVincenzo,

This article was just deleted through an AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjaysinh Sukhdevsinh Gohil, so, no, I can't restore a page that was a recreation of a page just deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

Hi Liz! I was about to drop a note on The Banner's talk page to say that we don't usually delete user talk pages, but I see you are deleting them, so I figured I'd double-check with you first to see if I was missing anything. 28bytes (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. And that is that I am restructuring my old archives. From 12 monthly archives I bundle them into 1 yearly archive. The Banner talk 21:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. 28bytes (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 28bytes and The Banner,

Not sure if this is worked out but my understanding is that we don't delete THE User Talk page but that it was okay to delete User Talk Archive pages. I have to say that The Banner is only the 2nd or 3rd editor I've run into who requested Talk Archive pages to be deleted, it's not a common request but I thought that it was okay because all of the edit history is still on their main User Talk page. If I'm incorrect, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz; no, you're fine, I deleted the rest of them. It wasn't clear to me what was going on but The Banner explained it so we're all good. Sorry to have bothered you! 28bytes (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Re:Mayor of Wigan

Hi Liz, I looked at criteria for speedy deletion and think it might fail WP:A7 and WP:Notability. There's a significant lack of coverage outside of Wigan.gov.uk (the only source in the article), that I suspect is unreliable (couldn't find anything at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). Thanks, CalSmith2 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CalSmith2,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your message about Mayor of Wigan. So far, two different administrators have removed speedy deletion tags you placed on this article. I think the problem here is that you appear to be a very new editor and you are not familiar with our deletion processes. Criteria for speedy deletion are very specific and you can not tag a page "Delete" and then insert your own reason. However, if you use Proposed deletion or Articles for Deletion then you can put forth an argument on why you believe an article should be deleted...you can not do this with speedy deletion.

If you have questions about editing Wikipedia or its variety of deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse which is a forum for new editors to ask more experienced editors for advice and support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Improper CFDS

Why did you speedy rename Category:16th-century Persian mathematicians, even though the rename was opposed at WP:CFDS? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hwllo, LaundryPizza03,

Typically, when these proposed renamed categories appear on the Empty Category list, it's because they've been approved and emptied. If that's not the case here, then I will restore it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please restore. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Opposed_requests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done earlier today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Empty category with invisible member

Hey Liz, do you know why Category:Belgium weatherbox templates page information is showing it having one page in it but the category looks empty to me? Gonnym (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gonnym,

Thanks for letting me know. Admins have been having problems with category counts for speedy deletion categories since last night and I wonder if this is an extension of that issue. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problems with speedy deletion category counts. I see no other reason why there would be a message saying the category isn't empty when it clearly is. Unfortunately, looking into the Phab ticket for this problem, WMF deploys new software for the English Wikipedia on Thursdays and the message on the ticket was doubtful whether any WMF developer could look into this over the weekend. If this is all the same problem, then it can't be limited to just this Wikipedia.

But I've brought up issues with inaccurate category counts for years--pages tagged as being in a category but when you look at the category page, they aren't there!--without much of a response from the WMF developers who thought it was a low priority problem. It's mainly a problem that has come up with stale drafts and empty categories which aren't really a priority for anyone unless one is part of the clean-up crew. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Favor

Hey L, coming straight to you to help me avoid WP:ANI drama with another user. As you know I spend much time on our red categories report, and this time User:寒吉 is responsible for a large number of the of the red categories (here's just one diff). When I started to remove them from each page to which that user had added them, that user reverted my edits without comment or discussion, and when I went to the user's talk page to discuss, at User talk:寒吉#Please do not revert edits without_discussion, well you see how that went: near as I can tell the user wants me to create all of the categories? Appears may be a WP:NOTHERE situation and is certainly disruptive. If I am off base let me know; otherwise can you please provide me some administrator support? Pinging @寒吉:. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, UnitedStatesian,

While we haven't seen eye-to-eye 100% of the time, I value the work that you do and we have assisted each other in the past when it comes to working with categories. Unfortunately, this is not the best time for me, I'm heading to bed soon and leaving town for my first weekend away since the pandemic started.

The only resistance I've encountered to WP:REDNO are the red link User categories that people seem to like to create and trying to explain how we allow 2 of them (User pages and User talk pages) and no more sometimes doesn't go over well. But there shouldn't be edit wars over removing red links. I'll try to look into this tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Found two similar article

I have found two similar article about a Malayalam film: Ammavanu Pattiya Amali and Ammaavanu Pattiya Amali. Both represent the same movie. So could you delete the latter one or guide me on how to delete it. As the second one doesn't have any reference either, the first one has much more information than the second. Aadirulez8 (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aadirulez8,

It looks like UnitedStatesian already did what I would have advised you to do which is not to delete the article but change it into a redirect to the article you want the focus to be upon. Then you retain the page history so any information that is useful in the other version is available to you, with proper attribution, of course. Deletion isn't always the best way to resolve these dueling version problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Puppet (Tyler, the Creator song)

Hi Liz. This article was moved to mainspace by you, but recently another editor has blanked and redirected it. I was wondering if you had any stance on whether the article is suitable for mainspace/passes notability guidelines? ––FormalDude talk 09:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FormalDude,

I don't have an opinion of this particular article but I do have an opinion about creating a second version of this piece in Draft space. Please don't do this! If you disagree with changing it into a redirect, you can ask the editor who did this about this. But the version that already exists in the page history should not be superseded by a new draft version that you've cut and pasted. Please work with the version that you first created and that can mean that you "un-redirect" the page. But I'd talk to the other editor first so that you understand why they changed the page into a redirect so this doesn't become an edit war. But, please, we really don't need two copies of articles about the same subject. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Jacoby

Hi Liz,

We are frustrated at not being able to meet the standards set by your editors, which btw come across as confused and inconsistent. There are so many pages published on the site now that include flawed information and questionable sources. Sources included with our submission are legitimate publications. We don't understand how why we are not allowed.

Is this about having to pay someone off? Do we have to "hire" an agency approved by your editors to get published? Please advise.

Cynthia 2600:1700:352B:20:CC82:768E:301:33EE (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

dropping by, I took a look at Draft:Jonathan Jacoby. It was deleted only because nobody was working on it, and it can be restored. So I have done so. I was the reviewer who first declined it, so I have given you some advice on the draft page. I assume you are CyncoLA. Please always sign in with your account. The first and essential thing to do is to declare if you have a conflict of interest, as appears probable. See our rules at WP:COI, and WP:PAID, ifthat applies. The article will not be approved until you have made a statement about this on the draft. I cannot edit the article directly, and I do not think I should directly edit the draft, because I am a member of at least one of the organizations he has been affiliated with. The advice I give you here and on the draft is the general advice I would give anyone writing about any organization. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hi, Liz Please review this Article , Thanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan 2409:4060:201E:5ED0:0:0:C47:C8A0 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please restore per Erik Boivie on English Wikipedia

Hi Liz, on December 24, 2021, you deleted the contribution Per Erik Boivie from English Wikipedia, where it had been since October 2018. You state that is is not "notable". The creator of TCO Certified - the world's leading sustainability certification for IT products is notable and I hope you will restore it. My very best regards, Yngve Sundblad, y@kth.se Professor emeritus in Computer Science / Human-Computer Interaction Royal institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvesund (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

CSD for User:Menace_Gettin_Money_Glock

Twinkle wouldn't let me add a link as a comment unless it was specifically to a MFD, but there was no previous discussion to link to -- it didn't go through MfD. It speedily deleted as a G3 a couple hours before recreation... jp×g 09:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sterling K. Frost Wikipedia Article

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi. I understand that you have placed my page for deletion because of possible copyright violations. I have carefully rewritten the article in my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gabcol/sandbox. Can you let me know if the rewrite is clear now as I have made the edits? Gabcol (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabcol,

The copyright violation tool says it still closely resembles the bio on this First Citizens Group page. But above all, I can't ever verify that a page will never be tagged for deletion no matter how well-written an article is. No one can give you a guarantee.

What I would recommend is submitting your draft for review to Articles for Creation, AfC reviewers have a better sense on what is an acceptable article and what is likely to survive than the rest of us. That's their job, reviewing drafts and making recommendations so they won't get deleted if moved into main space. So, their opinion is worth more than mine is.

If you have general questions about editing on Wikipedia, I recommend bringing them to the Teahouse. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

this please. Cheers --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 22:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Synoman Barris,

It looks like Spencer already got to it. Thanks for bringing it to an admin's attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Letha Weapons

I spent hours researching and writing Letha Weapons? I thought it was pretty good, Why did you delete it? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Polycarpa aurata,

As the deletion note states on the article page, this article was just deleted in an AFD decision, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letha Weapons. Any recreation of this article in main space will be deleted unless it is judged to be "substantially different" from the version that was deleted.

As far as I know, the only way to overcome an AFD decision to "Delete" is to work on an article in Draft space and submit it to approval to Articles for Creation. Without getting approval from an AfC reviewer, any article on this subject moved into main space will be deleted. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Liz, I don't mean to be rude, but how am I supposed to know that? I noticed Letha Weapons didn't have a page when I created the page for John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut. I put a lot of work into her page and now it is all lost? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, it states right on the page that it was deleted due to an AFD decision just 11 days ago. If you look at Letha Weapons, it states this right on the page.

I'm willing to restore your version and move it to your sandbox so you can submit it to AfC. But if you try to move it right back into main space, it will be deleted again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It literally says "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue." So I did. I had no idea that it was just deleted. Can you direct me to the rules about creating pages that have been deleted? Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Letha Weapons

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Letha Weapons. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Polycarpa aurata, thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Liz, can you please put a copies of the two pages somewhere so that I can compare them? Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Polycarpa aurata,

Since you contested my page deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, I'm considered an "involved administrator" and, aside from explaining my action, I have to stay out of the proceedings while the deletion decision is being reviewed by other editors or admins. You might try asking admin Daniel, I know he's done similar things in the past.

I hate to say "I told you so", but you should have taken my offer to restore your page to your Sandbox so you could submit it to AfC, then you'd have your content back right now instead of having to wait a week for this review to be completed. Oh, well, now you know. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. I understand. I will ask Daniel to see if they are willing to do it. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please restore my Draft: Antonin Beliard

Hi Liz, I am TotoB12 I have recently worked on my own Wikipedia page for a few months now. I have just learnt that you have deleted it, citing the fact that I have not modified in the last six months. I edited the page not longer than two weeks ago, and so I do not understand the reason of this deletion. Thanks, TotoB12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoB12 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TotoB12,

I deleted this page in August 2021 so I'm not responsible for the recent deletion. But, apparently, there was content that was oversighted, that probably was why it was deleted. If you get unblocked, we can continue this discussion and see if there is a possible remedy. But, right now, I do not have access to whatever content you recently added to the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Howard Stableford

You deleted Howard Stableford, in response to a PROD request made on the basis of lack of notability, a couple of weeks ago. I believe the subject is notable. Please will you restore the article, so that it can be improved, or sent to AfD if anyone feels strongly enough. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Andy Mabbett,

It looks like Hut 8.5 got to this page restoration before I saw your message. Glad you could get your article back to work on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

HEY YOU ADD THE GDP COUNTRIES VS STATES ARTICLE BACK PLEASE

HEY YOU ADD THE GDP COUNTRIES VS STATES ARTICLE BACK PLEASE. It was such an educational article I don’t know why you would do such a stupid think, people legit use this to teach kids. 73.206.1.124 (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 73.206.1.124,

It would help if you provided a link to the deleted page so I knew which page you were talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Azerbaijan–Fiji relations

A tag has been placed on Category:Azerbaijan–Fiji relations indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Nebraska Railroad Museum

Hi Liz, just a courtesy heads up that I undeleted this. I thought I had more time until G13 (my own miscalculation). With more news of the museum's reopening, re-location I think there will be meaningful updates soon to help us determine whether this will be mainspace ready. Let me know any questions. Star Mississippi 23:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Oh, no problem. But when you restore a deleted stale draft, you need to make a minor edit to the page or it remains eligible for speedy deletion, CSD G13. The page restoration doesn't count as an edit to the page so it looks as if there have been no edits to it in over six months. These things you pick up when you patrol WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that tip! Drafts are 100% not my area, so appreciate the heads up. I'd blame unfamiliarity with drafts for the G13 mistiming, but that was really just poor math. Have a great evening! Star Mississippi 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, Star Mississippi, you aren't the page creator so you wouldn't have received a 5 month reminder from Firefly Bot so it's understandable. Heck, lots of people who do get the reminders forget! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ooh didn't even know that was an opportunity. I had just put it on my calendar incorrectly. I don't even remember how I ended up finding this article, but now it's back on my to do list, literally, on my userpage. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 01:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to undelete/add back Draft:Sioux Chief Showdown and Draft:Connor Hall (racing driver)

Hi Liz,
Last month, I requested the undeletion of an article draft I created, Draft:Sioux Chief Showdown, and you were the person to respond to that request, saying that I should further confirm that I intend on working on it because last time it was undeleted, I said I would make edits to it but never ended up doing so. I do have specific edits in mind that I would like to make to the article draft, so I hope that it is added back. The same goes for Draft:Connor Hall (racing driver), although I think I forgot to request that it be added back a few weeks ago when you deleted that article draft. I just put in new undeletion requests for both of these articles again so they're on the "requests for undeletion" page since undeletion requests go away/are archived after a certain amount of time.

Thank you,
Cavanaughs (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I saw your userpage (or pages since you also have a second account, Nwjerseyliz) and that you are from New Jersey! So am I- I'm from Central Jersey! Pretty cool that you're a teacher or professor in New Jersey (that's what it seems since in you say "my students" in your userpage intro) and edit Wikipedia in your spare time! I'm a college student at Rider and edit Wikipedia in my spare time! (Check out my userpage intro for more info about me!)

Hello, Cavanaughs,

I have restored Draft:Sioux Chief Showdown and Draft:Connor Hall (racing driver). You know, these drafts have been restored THREE times and I don't think I'm overstating it to say that they will not be restored a fourth time. If you went to WP:REFUND to ask for these drafts to be restored, I think you would have been asked a lot of questions about them. So, please keep actively editing these pages and get them in shape to submit to Articles for Creation because if these drafts are deleted again due to inactivity, I don't think there is an administrator who will restore them again. The goal is to get new articles for main space of the project and so having pages indefinitely in Draft space is undesirable.

As for me, I lived in New Jersey for 20 years and that's where I lived when I initially started editing Wikipedia and signing up for social media accounts so that's where my username comes from. I mostly lived in Morris County so a bit north of where you are from. I'm now in the Pacific Northwest but I don't think of myself as a local yet so I just go by "Liz". I do miss the Garden State though! We don't have Rita's Italian Ice here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of Draft:Ayan (actor)

@Liz:Hello ma'am I saw you deleted my draft due to recreation of the draft but I got permission from User:Anachronist and started making the draft [1] I'm currently working on the after I feel it's ready I will submit it for AFC approval as per advice. [2] you also moved it. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Liz and User:Anachronist. The article/draft was a WP:HOAX that is repeatedly recreated. It looks they are simply buying time to create some unreliable/false references. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Draft:Ayan_(actor) for the discussion. Also, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ayan in a award show.jpg uploading fake images. 2402:3A80:68B:32BF:95AA:51F4:2553:A931 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't comment on the hoax aspect, but I do wonder about deleting Draft:Ayan (actor) for the reasoning that the original article was deleted by AFD, particularly if the new revision is substantially different. A draft is an appropriate venue to create a new article that addresses the concerns raised in an AFD discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Anachronist please have a look at Draft:Ayan Nayak (deletion log). Thanks 2402:3A80:68B:32BF:95AA:51F4:2553:A931 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of that. What is your point? My original comment still stands. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist, I typically don't delete drafts of articles that are recreations of articles that were deleted in AFD decisions but it looked like this article had been repeatedly recreated and deleted several times which, to me, makes a difference that if it is the first attempt at overcoming an AFD deletion decision. I'll have to consider this request.

But my gut feeling is that if I do restore this page, within a few minutes, it will just be tagged for deletion again and another admin will come to me, asking why I restored it. Articles on this subject have a big, red target on them and I don't think one will be approved by AFC and survive to be in main space until the article subject has more substantial reliable sources to support the claims that they have an acting career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: & @Anachronist: I understand the entity has red target and could not get quick AFC approval; also in the point I haven't submitted the draft for review also there was a tag that the article is not ready for the draft; It needs more reliable sources and this needs time. Also I don't know why the user who tagged the draft for deletion using the IP rather than using his/her real account. It's a request to restore the draft. If some users have so much problem in draft, I will make on my sandbox and based on. There is no policy on Wikipedia I think it says that based on past history what others did repeatedly re-created something like that all was a Hoax as per the IP user says, we can't make a draft of the user and I think if I get back the draft we can Improve the draft. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest, when significant reliable and independent coverage becomes available, that you request of the deleting administrator (Liz in this case) to restore the draft for you to work on. The sources need to be more than just announcements and interviews, and you should be able to prove that the subject meets WP:NACTOR criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: and @Liz: sure and would request Liz not to move this talk section to achieve so that I can make the request here. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, २ तकर पेप्सी,

I just moved user talk pages messages from September 2021 to talk page archives yesterday, so this discussion will probably be here until April or May. And I plan on being around. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz and Anachronist: Just for information I am sure Draft:Ayan (actor)/Draft:Ayan Nayak/Ayan Nayak are same. My query is why every time the article is being created with a different name in draftspace? Is they are trying to hide something in oder to avoid WP:SCRUTINY? The creator usually has a habit of bypassing WP:AFC. As per I remember the references used were non-reliable/non-connected and few were WP:CRYSTAL and fake in nature. He has also uploaded fake superimposes images of the Draft:Ayan (actor) and has been involved in interwiki spamming. See the same was attempted in Bengali Wikipedia bn:অয়ন (অভিনেতা) was deleted (deletion log) by আফতাবুজ্জামান with edit summary (সম্পূর্ণরূপে ধোকাবাজী। তথ্যসূত্র ব্যবহার করা হয়েছে একজন বাংলা না জানা চলচ্চিত্র নির্মাতার। কমন্সের ছবিগুলো এডিটেড ও ম্যানিপুলেটেড। নিবন্ধের অয়ন আর তথ্যসূত্রে) that translates to (Completely deceptive. References have been used by a non-Bengali filmmaker. Commons images and references are edited and manipulated.). They have also tried to add "Ayan Nayak" in en-wiki Brahmāstra (film) where one these reference [3] used mentions "Ayan Mukerji" NOT "Ayan Nayak". These are added quietly to legitimize his claims in the new article. In bn-wiki his same trick was reverted as per [4] whose edit summary translates to (The 5639605 revision that was edited by २ तकर पेप्सी has been canceled - self-promotion, the two are not the same persons.) by Yahya. Respected admins here २ तकर पेप्सी is just WP:GAMING in Wikipedia projects. 19:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

They are not the same. Draft:Ayan (actor) is only marginally better, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

pinging admins and experienced editors who have dealt with their edits in various Wikipedia projects including here @আফতাবুজ্জামান, Yahya, DanCherek, EugeneZelenko, and Bonadea: for their insights and opinions if they wish. 2402:3A80:6BD:C0B7:89EA:4877:59F5:C50 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2402:3A80:6BD:C0B7:89EA:4877:59F5:C50,

Why are you so interested in this draft of this little known person? You seem very familiar with the page creator who I assumed was the article subject but maybe I'm wrong. Is this a continuation of some interpersonal conflict on the Bengali Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I came across so much details on investigating their global contributions. Similar things were going at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blogs19 and stalking Itcouldbepossible talk-page at User_talk:Itcouldbepossible#Hello_2 I discovered the draft unusual and also informed at the WT:AFC. 2402:3A80:6BD:C0B7:89EA:4877:59F5:C50 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read c:Commons:Project scope, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and d:Wikidata:Notability. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@2402:3A80:6BD:C0B7:89EA:4877:59F5:C50: as you said They have also tried to add "Ayan Nayak" in en-wiki Brahmāstra (film) where one these reference used mentions "Ayan Mukerji" NOT "Ayan Nayak" could you please kindly check the details of the article where it clearly mentions that Ayan was their in the film. Also I am with @Liz: why you are so much concerned about the draft, where the article is supposed to be ready. And we can see by your editing habits that you are a experienced Wikipedian but it's very surprising that you don't have any account (or not revealing it). It's upto you what you think but as @Anachronist: said whenever I would find more reliable source of the actor. I will ask Liz for the refund of the draft and will improve the draft accordingly. Thankyou ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 20:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz:::Hii Liz, I hope you are well and safe. I know it's hard for now to restore the draft but can you provide the content of the article so that I can add a ref and some points on my personal notebook not anymore on Wikipedia. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, २ तकर पेप्सी,

Please give me a link to the page you are interested in. Is it alright to email it to you? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz:[5] yes send me email. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Hello I haven't received any email when I checked my mail. Where to check the email of [6] this draft. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: waiting for you to send the draft. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 23:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, २ तकर पेप्सी,

My apologies, I lost connectivity earlier today and just got back on wi-fi a few minutes ago. No internet all day! I will get to this later today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure whenever you will be free send the email of the draft. Goodnight. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 23:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, २ तकर पेप्सी,

Okay, I have emailed you that last version of that draft along with a little advice. Good luck with your content creation work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable advice; will work as per your advice ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 00:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A7 on Katie Sturino

Hi Liz -- No way do I think this is A7-able -- the book appears notable (several indept reviews) and so the article could at the very least be moved to target the book, with a note on the author being the founder of a related company. However, there does also seem to be reliable coverage of her life prior to the book. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Espresso Addict,

When I tag pages, rather than deleting them, I'm asking for a second opinion because I'm uncertain about that page, especially on questions on notability. There used to be days, years ago, when CSD patrolling admins would just delete any page that was tagged without looking at it but, fortunately, those days are long gone and so I'm glad that you examined the article and shared your opinion with me. I might move forward with an alternative deletion process, like PROD or AFD, but I can see with your explanation that speedy deletion was inappropriate for this article. Of course, if you, or any other editor, wanted to spend time improving the article that would be the better alternative. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever deleted an article or draft as a single opinion (well, maybe in the case of unambiguous attack pages but I've rarely if ever tripped across one that wasn't tagged). I don't know how I'd comment in an AfD (probably retarget on notable book), but I don't think prod is appropriate as the creator is active and opposed to deletion. ETA: I doubt I'll take this one on, as it's not my field at all, but I'll tag it for the Women's projects and see if someone there wants to assist. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, after posting my comment, I thought, "I hope it doesn't sound like I'm passing the responsibility on to Espresso Addict to fix the problems with this article!" I'm just not an expert on content creation.

I'm continually impressed at editors and admins who are, even on subjects they don't care anything about! It sounded like you had some solid suggestions that maybe should go to the page creator. I don't think they'd be receptive to me, after I tagged the page for deletion. As for me, I think I'll just let this article be and not move forward with any further action. There are thousands of other articles and drafts I can spend time on. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1469 in Ireland

A tag has been placed on Category:1469 in Ireland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 15:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename categories

Please see my proposal to speedily rename subcategories of Category:Enforced disappearances by country e.g. Category:Forced disappearances in Argentina to Category:Enforced disappearances in Argentina to align with the parent category per C2C. Hugo999 (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hugo999,

I hope you are well! I don't know anything about the situation with this group of categories, just that a few became empty and were deleted. As you know, if there is a use for the categories now, they are easily restored but I don't know if a previous CFD discussion led to them becoming empty. I'll look into your request later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

United Nations in popular culture

Regarding your decline of WP:Requests for undeletion#United Nations in popular culture and your response provided, the request was for userfication, and not undeletion. Jay (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

Yes, I saw that but it would not have changed my response. I'm open to restoring pages deleted through speedy deletion to User or Draft space but I've never done so with content deleted through an AFD decision unless it was a "soft delete".

But you can choose to respond to the request differently, I know that admins can disagree about requests at WP:REFUND. You can choose to respond to their request by fulfilling it but I won't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Jay, and for your additional rationale, Liz. Unfortunately I seem to be stuck in a bit of a Catch-22: you pointed me towards the closing admin to see if he'd userfy it (he told me to go ask WP:REFUND instead). But since you already told me no at REFUND and pointed me to DRV, DRV would initially seem like the place to go to. But WP:DRVPURPOSE lists, under "Deletion review should not be used", 7.to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests). So you're telling me that I should go to DRV, and DRV that I should go back to you. Have you had experience with something similar happening before? Should I just ignore all the rules on this one and post at DRV anyway? Pilaz (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: the issue is currently being solved at REFUND by DGG. See: WP:Requests for undeletion#United Nations in popular culture. Pilaz (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Pilaz, I gave you the answer that admins give at WP:REFUND for editors who want content restored that had been deleted at an AFD decision. It wasn't a matter of the content of the article or what your intentions are. REFUND is for uncontroversial deletions and this wasn't uncontroversial. The directions say to point you to the deleting administrator and deletion review. We have a template to answer responses such as yours, it's not a matter of my discretion.

But I'm not sure about this current request as I thought DGG restored this page for you. And even though you stated you wanted this content in your User space, you moved it into Draft space so I don't think that Jay's concern was valid in your case. I think at this point, you should ask another admin for assistance, maybe Jay or DGG would be more open to helping you out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Not an issue and I perfectly understand that my request was both unusual and coming from AfD, so following the manual was probably the right call. My personal problem was that there seemed to be no avenue to make a formal request for userification/draftification elsewhere, so I was only writing to ask for guidance on this, since I feared getting sent back from DRV to REFUND. At any rate, thank you for taking the time to reply. Now waiting for DGG to finalize the restore. (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Elham Al Marzooqi edits/resubmit

Hello,

I have made some edits and pulled in several new citations for Elham's wiki page. I'd like to resubmit it. Any help/advice appreciated.

thanks

-mm Mmcdonald767 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mmcdonald767,

You are talking about Draft:Elham Al Marzooqi, right? It helps to provide a link to the page you are concerned about. I don't review content so I'm not experienced in giving you advice about article creation and development. We all have our areas we work in and, I'm sorry, but I don't evaluate draft articles. What I can do is restore the previous content that was deleted, if that information would be useful to you. I hope you realize that the only reason the draft was deleted because, if a draft goes six months without being edited, we consider it to be abandoned. It wasn't deleted because there were any problems with the content, there just had been no activity on the page.

If you believe it is ready, please submit it to Articles for Creation so it can be reviewed by an AFC reviewer. They are experienced in evaluating drafts and they look for particular things like reliable sources and that it obeys our copyright guidelines. They might be critical but an AFC reviewer's goal is to get the draft ready to be moved to main space. Often drafts are moved too early into main space and they are quickly deleted and a reviewer's purpose is to tell you what needs to be done so this doesn't happen to your work. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you I am sorry about the missing link. I can see where that might be pretty handy to have. I knew the original was deleted due to the time elapsed. I was trying to gather new references and material based on previous recommendations. Having done so, I feel like it's at least comparable to some existing entries in her space. Thanks again for your help.

Mmcdonald767 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Mmcdonald767, so you don't need the previous content in the page history, then? My only recommendation is if the AfC reviewer declines to approve your draft, very politely go to their user talk page and ask them if they have any suggestions on how to improve the article so that it will be approved. Do not make demands, ask for their advice. Their primary job is looking at draft articles so they have seen hundreds! For example, does the page need to be copyedited so that the language is smoother or does it need one or two better sources? Some AfC reviewers are very specific and some aren't and it doesn't hurt to ask for follow-up information if the review isn't detailed enough.

And if you need help with copyediting or other issues, the Teahouse is a good place to ask for advice. I went there often when I was a new editor, they can point you in the right direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

• Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Liz. :) Is this article meant to be indef-ECP'd? It looks like you temp-ECP-move-protected it after a couple bad pagemoves, but indef-ECP-edit-protected it at the same time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tamzin,

Aeieii! Oh, no. This was a mistake. For some reason, "infinite" is the first choice when you protect a page when it should be the last option presented. I'm surprised that I wasn't contacted before now about this. Thank you for bringing this to my attention so I could correct it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirects for deletions

Howdy. We'll have to wait for somebody else to come along & properly nominate the 2021 Prince Edward Island Liberal Party leadership election re-direct for deletion. I tried the correct way as you suggested, but found instructions too confusing & frustrating. After a full hour of trying to implement it? I walked away from it. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GoodDay,

I guess you don't use Twinkle? Because with that editing tool, you just select XfD, put in the deletion rationale and bingo bango, the deletion proposal is posted and the page creator is notified. You don't have to search for templates to use. Twinkle makes tagging pages for deletion very easy.

If you want to state the deletion rationale here, I'll post the proposal for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be great. The party didn't hold its leadership election in 2021, instead postponing it indefinitely. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

05:28, 25 January 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Steven salowsky (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace) Tag: Twinkle (thank)

Salutations Liz! I must apologize, I meant to send this for submission as draft, not a post. Can you please help me in doing so or guiding me if I need more information, references? Thank you kindly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecarguru2 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thecarguru2,

I think you are talking about Draft:Steven Salowsky and, unfortunately, I do not work on article creation and development, I have other activities on Wikipedia that I attend to. I see that your draft has already been reviewed so, hopefully, there is information in the AfC reviewer's comments that can assist you in improving the draft article. If the comments are unclear, you can always visit their user talk pages and ask for more clarification.

If you are looking for help and support in your editing, I recommend visiting the Teahouse where more experienced editors can address your questions and concerns. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

lorry vandal

Hey Liz,

sorry for the not particulary helpful edit summary at the now deleted Carpați (truck) page. I suspect you aren't quite familiar with the "lorry vandal", which might explain your edit. Long story short: Some Greek lad (SPI) has a habit of making up vehicles – especially lorries – that never existed. He either inserts these fake vehicles as successors or predecessors into existing articles' infoboxes or sections, or creates new articles on these fake vehicles. He typically disguises his fake vehicles as vehicles from manufacturers that are not well-known among native English speakers (e.g. Carpați (truck)), so that it is not immediately obvious to most Wikipedians that his edits are utter nonsense. I have summarised the important key points at the SPI page. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Johannes,

You might be very familiar with this sockpuppetry but, as an admin who patrols CSD categories, I can't just take your word for it that an editor who is unblocked is actually a sockpuppet. I need to see confirmation by a checkuser or SPI clerk, ideally in an SPI case. I think other admins might have a different approach but I think most just steer clear of the CSD G5 category until the editor is a confirmed sockpuppet. My alternative was to not untag the page but I chose to instead.

Now that you have mentioned filing a new incident at the SPI case, I'll give that a look. All I need is a confirmation and I'll delete the page but a checkuser might take care of that once they are done. Thank you for your understanding, you are correct that I am not familiar with the behavior and editing quirks of some of the more frequent sockpuppeteers we see here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Liz, I totally understand your point of view, I wanted to apologise for my inappropriate edit comment (and explain the lorry vandal case to a minimum degree… :-) ). Either way, the page has been deleted and the sockpuppet has been blocked, so there's nothing left to do (until the next sockpuppet appears, of course). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Johannes,

You know, there is no need to apologize but on a project like ours, it never hurts to be gracious when talking with another editor who might see things differently so thank you for that. This has been a pleasant interaction. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

RevDel

Can you please delete revisions 1068153973 and 1068154195 as they contain racial slurs and defamatory remarks regarding Amartya Sen? Thank you. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 22:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Train of Knowledge,

 Done Happy to do this. And I've blocked the editor. Glad I was around to see to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

And maybe block the /64, for a few months at least? They've been at this for over a year. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Suffusion of Yellow,

Thank you for that link. I gave them a 3 month block but this is only the 2nd or 3rd range block I've done so if there are any admin talk page stalkers who could double-check my work, that would be appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Owen michael hawes

It is gibberish or just vandalism that the initial edit has this edit summary "he is a 12 year old stronger than the rock i love him:" Matthew hk (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Matthew hk,

I usually evaluate an article or draft based on what is written on the page, not an edit summary, unless it violates BLP or is a personal attack. The page could probably be tagged for speedy deletion as a test edit since it is blank. I'll look at it again as well as the editor's other work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I expect a fair approach from you, Miss Liz.

Good evening, I wanted to talk to you about something.  It's about this guy @Kevo327  this guy spamming my articles for no reason and quickly deleting my articles.  Although I objected that it should not be deleted, no one has responded to me so far and nothing has been done about it.  The deleted articles are not only my articles, this guy also deletes the articles of different Azerbaijani admins by doing a quick deletion and specifically targets the articles of Azerbaijani admins.  He is ethnically Armenian and it is clear that he does this from ethnic nationalism.  Was warned once by another admin @Bbb23.  However, he is still doing the same thing and I expect a fair result from you on this issue. Because of this man, my 2 articles that I wrote without any justification were deleted.  I am sure that you will approach this matter with justice, thank you.

My articles deleted by @kevo327 : Nacaf Şarifi Irevani Huseyn Ali Khan (Khan of Quba) Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aydın memmedov2000,

I'm looking into this and trying to sort things out. Have you ever edited with another account? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have different accounts on wikipedia, but I do not use them. This is the only account where I write and edit articles. Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if they are accounts you used in the past and abandoned, that is one thing, if you currently have alternate accounts you use, you must list them on your User page. But the reason I ask is that one of these articles was deleted on the grounds that you are a sockpuppet of a blocked editor so I'm trying to find out why you were identified as this. If you are evading a ban or block, then this conversation will soon be over, if not, I need to see how this mistake happened. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm new to writing articles and sometimes I get banned when I make a mistake. When I'm banned, I admit my mistakes and I don't run away from my mistakes. but my deleted articles were definitely deleted unfairly, so it has nothing to do with my ban. Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Aydın memmedov2000 neglects to mention that they were topic banned by the community (WP:AA2), which they basically just ignored (all of the above are a violation), and continue to, even after being blocked for it. I've now blocked them indef since I see no indication they'll respect the community's will or appeal the ban properly. I can only explain the same thing so many times. El_C 00:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, El C,

Thanks for the missing piece to this puzzle. I saw a mention of an editing restriction in the block log and was surprised, since they are such a new editor. I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 or Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, am I looking in the wrong place? I have never imposed any kind of editing sanctions on an editor so I'm a little out of the loop on where they are all logged. Thanks, El C. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see it mentioned at User_talk:Aydın memmedov2000#Topic ban, that should have been the first place I looked. But it also should be in the AA log, right? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

AA? Are you calling me an alcoholic?! Shame! Hold on, let me just finish this drink. Ah, that's better. Anyyyyway, logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Aydın_memmedov2000. El_C 00:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks for the link. Talking about alcohol, it's almost 5 o'clock here, time for a glass of wine. Just one. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Jacques Guy

Could you please restore pending a discussion of the merits? I received no notice that this article was up for deletion. (I had my watch list blanked as I had over 20,000 articles on it and couldn't keep track of anything anymore, so I'd need direct notification.) The proposer for deletion has been pushing pseudoscience (e.g. that a linguist is not a RS for linguistics because he hasn't interviewed any angels) and is trying to team up with another editor pushing pseudoscience (e.g. that people in the southern hemisphere write upside-down) -- he's proposed an exchange where each defends the other's edits against those who insist on following policy, and has been chastised several times by admin for inappropriate behaviour. In this case, the Jacques Guy article ties in to the article (decipherment of rongorongo) that the other editor has been trying to change against consensus for several years now. Seems to be part of a strategy to get all RS's removed so that all that's left is the pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, kwami,

As a contested Proposed Deletion, I have restored Jacques Guy. It can always be nominated for deletion in an AFD discussion but it can not be PROD'd again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't address your larger question, kwami, I'd recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if you feel like an editor's point-of-view is affecting article quality. That seems to be a place where pseudoscience matters are discussed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been procrastinating doing that, but probably should. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Vietnamese immigration to Mexico

I would like to say why do you want to delete my article so bad like someone already tried deleting it by using this template again instead of deleting my first article would you mind helping like what is this? —MrStephenLeon (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MrStephenLeon,

I read what you wrote but I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. It would help if you provided a link to the page you are discussing. I see hundreds, maybe thousands, of pages every day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Look Here!, I read many articles a day that's why I made this article but the main thing is that I got all this information in the version of Indonesian (Language), I've been trying to find a site that mentions all of this but I can't find any. Also, when I use the cites I wouldn't be able to use it it would count as either vandalism or whateva or as a fail i don't know why but i see many users trying to delete this article for some reason so why??? MrStephenLeon (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I can't help you if you won't provide me with a link to the page you are concerned with. If you are just going to rant, I'd log off Wikipedia until you calm down and have a conversation without being in such distress. I'm going to get back to my work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MrStephenLeon,

Okay, I think I have figured out what this is all about. Vietnamese immigration to Mexico has been tagged for an AFD deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese immigration to Mexico. To be honest, the first AFD discussion was closed improperly by an inexperienced editor who should not have done this, so a second AFD is justified. You tried removing the AFD tag from the article, which is not allowed while the discussion is ongoing and so I reverted your edit to replace the tag.

That is all I did. I have not proposed your article for deletion, I have not participated in the deletion discussion, I'm not sure why you are venting your disappointment at me. Your best move here is to a) read over the reasons why the article has been proposed for deletion, b) improve the article to make up for any problems that were raised at the AFD, and c) go to the AFD discussion and argue why this article should be kept. There are steps you can take to see that this article isn't deleted, take them! Good luck with your efforts! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Deletion Discussion

Hello my name is Satish and I have written an article and the name of the article is siddhant Ghegadmal (Actor) I have put many references in that article but wikipedia editor repeatedly puts templates to remove that article lest that article Do not be removed, I made this article with great effort, please make this article better and not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBG90 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SBG90,

You have been blocked as a sockpuppet but in case you see this, please stop trying to get an article about yourself on to Wikipedia. You will not be successful. Better to focus on making yourself truly notable out in the world than creating multiple accounts and trying to compose an autobiography here. But don't worry, very few editors on Wikipedia have an article about themselves on the project so you are in very good company. Focus on doing the work, not getting the publicity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed of Deletion of Article Mirnaa Menon

Hi Brother,

I got a message on my talkpage stating that the article I created was proposed for deletion. I have added the sources which are reliable to wikipedia policies. I didn't add any misleading information in the article. May I know what is the problem in the article. It will help me to improve myself and correct the mistake I done.Paavamjinn (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Paavamjinn,

If you look at the edit that included the PROD tag, you can see the reason I put for the Proposed deletion. There was a draft version of this article, Draft:Mirnaa, that had gotten declined by Articles for Creation reviewers multiple times, the page had been moved to main space and back and I thought that your article was this same draft that had gotten placed, once again, in main space.

But although some of the same editors have worked on both the draft version and the article you have created, and much of the content is the same, I was incorrect about this tagging and Phil Bridger rightly contested the deletion and removed the PROD tag. This was not the same article. I should say that these days, I primarily work with stale draft articles and I see quite a few editors whose drafts are declined several times by AFC reviewers and instead of fixing the article and improving it, they cut & paste the last version of it into a page in the main space of the project. So, this is what I assumed had happened but I was very wrong. I'm sure that there is room for improvement with the article, almost every article on Wikipedia can be improved, but my reason for tagging this page for deletion was incorrect and I apologize if it caused you any stress.

If it is any comfort, know that articles can only be PROD'd once so you don't have to worry about it being proposed for deletion through PROD again. I hope this answers your questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm really a sister, not a brother, just in case we continue to communicate, I thought I'd make that clear. Yes, there are some female editors on Wikipedia. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

So the article has no problem right. I created the article with maximum details I can obtain from the various sources. Thanks for the valuable information sister. Paavamjinn (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio at Jagadish Chandra Bose

Hi Liz. Would you be able to determine if these edits are copyvio [7] (and revert-revert in the next couple of edits). (Related to the on going Karna disruption.) Thanks! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DaxServer,

I'm not an expert on evaluating content but I think you are right here. Another editor already removed the content and I deleted the revisions. Thank you for detecting this problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Liz! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

• Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

• News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election

• Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"

• Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?

• Deletion report: Ringing in the new year: Subject notability guideline under discussion

• WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured

• Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021

• Gallery: No Spanish municipality without a photograph

• Obituary: Twofingered Typist

• Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial

• Essay: The prime directive

• Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?

• In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing

• Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"

• Serendipity: Pooh entered the Public Domain – but Tigger has to wait two more years

• Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

January songs

in friendship

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 23 January - click on songs. - Thank you for the appreciation on Jerome Kohl's talk, - it's overwhelming what that user alone did in the field of contemporary classical music, with expertise recognized worldwide! I am in the process of translating two of his articles into German, - tough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda Arendt,

I was not familiar with this editor but I look at a lot of page histories every day and when I see an editor who looks like they are a productive contributor but their name comes up as being blocked, I like to look into the circumstances of what happened. I guess blocking an account is the standard procedure now when it is confirmed that an editor is deceased. About a month or so ago, I had the same discovery looking into the situation with Possibly. Although it is always sad to read this kind of news, I see even more instances where an editor was busy editing every day and then, poof! they just disappear...no retirement notice, no sign of what has happened. I think it's better to know bad news than to wonder whether someone just got busy with their off-line life or whether they are no longer with us.

That reminds me, I should ask my family to come on to my user page and post a notice should I pass away. I don't think they even know my username! Stay well, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Jerome was the fourth editor I encountered after I joined in 2009, and he told me that what a reliable source said was wrong ;) - Never let he make me feel inferior although he was one of top experts in his field - that's great. - The Rambling Man, - did you notice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

Hi Liz, I'd like to work on a new draft (Draft:Jackpocket) and am seeing that there is a G13-deleted draft on the same topic. What is the protocol here? Should I make a request for draft undeletion or is it ok to start a new draft? You were the user who originally made the deletion so wanted to check with you. Thank you so much! --StrangeChemistry489 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, StrangeChemistry489,

Actually, draft pages that were deleted purely for being "stale" (that is, abandoned) via speedy deletion G13 can be restored upon request. So, I can restore this page for you if you want or you could start "fresh" if you would like to be seen as the page creator. Looking at the deleted page, which I can do with my admin-goggles, there are a lot of references but the draft was declined as it was believed to be the result of paid editing and looked like an advertisement. It's not illegal to be a paid editor but, if you are one, you need to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Failure to disclose that you are a paid editor can result in a loss of editing privileges so it is always best to be upfront about your situation.

Let me know if you would like this draft restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this explanation is very helpful. No need to restore this page, I will start a fresh draft. Thanks, again! StrangeChemistry489 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Clean-up categories from 2003 has been nominated for deletion

Category:Clean-up categories from 2003 has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

Bots Newsletter, January 2022

BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.

Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.

Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).

January 2020

Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.

• Y ST47Bot, Seppi333Bot, Qbugbot 4 · N2 PkbwcgsBot 25, PkbwcgsBot 26
• A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
• Two new bots dropped in January 2020: ST47Bot, the successor to STBot, and Seppi333Bot, whose task was to perform a weekly update of four "massive" wikitables for WikiProject Molecular Biology.
• Cydebot, an adminbot operated by Cyde since 2006, was blocked after going berserk on categories that hadn't yet been CfD'd.

February 2020

Speaking of WikiProject Molecular Biology, Listeria went wild in February

• Y AnomieBOT 78, Cewbot 2, DannyS712 bot 67, DannyS712 bot III 63, PearBOT 6, DemonDays64 Bot 2 · N2 PearBOT
• On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
• On February 18, ST47Bot got into a tussle with Amalthea (bot), and had to be partially-blocked from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview.

March 2020

• Y MajavahBot, SDZeroBot, TheSandBot 6, TheSandBot 7, Bitbotje, FACBot 6, TheSandBot 8, Qbugbot 5, Cewbot 3, SDZeroBot 2, PrimeBOT 31, WikiCleanerBot 12 · AntiCompositeBot
• In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
• Some of the twelve bot tasks approved this month were TheSandBot 6 (removing blocked users from Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues), and TheSandBot 7 (removing unblocked users from Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names). SDZeroBot 2 was approved to refine geographic stub tags. New bots approved this month were MajavahBot (to patrol WP:EFFPR), SDZeroBot (to merge stub tags), and Bitbotje (fixing DISPLAYTITLE modifications, DEFAULTSORT errors and broken behavior switches in draftspace).

April 2020

Listeria being examined

• Y TheSandBot 9, BHGbot 5, DannyS712 bot 69, SDZeroBot 3, ST47ProxyBot, WugBot 4, SDZeroBot 4, DatBot 10, WikiCleanerBot 11, WikiCleanerBot 13, WikiCleanerBot 14, AntiCompositeBot 2, Cewbot 4 · N2 DaedanBot 1 · Creffbot
• A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
• ST47ProxyBot joined the stable in April, after a BRFA started in December was finally completed. As an adminbot, it was authorized to block IP addresses belonging to open proxies, public VPN services, and web hosts. New tasks approved for existing bots included BHGbot 5 (diffusing categories), TheSandBot 9 (taking over some tasks from the inactive RonBot), and WugBot 4 (updating data at {{Interactive COVID-19 maps}}). Also, DatBot 10 was approved to scale down non-free SVGs — I didn't even know that was a thing.
• A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy was started by Thryduulf about whether WP:BOTCOMM should explicitly specify that bot operators must be responsive to concerns raised on English Wikipedia specifically (as opposed to Phabricator, SourceForge, Toolforge, et cetera). Eventually, the policy was amended to its current form:

Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.

May 2020

We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots

• Y MajavahBot 3, DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, Dreamy Jazz Bot 4, QEDKbot, William Avery Bot 2, DannyS712 bot 68, PrimeBOT 32, TheSandBot 10, Bot1058 7, BHGbot 6, EaglesBot 2, Cewbot 5, WikiCleanerBot 17 · N2 MDanielsBot, PhuzBot 3, Gedimon · ? PearBOT 7
• MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
• Other approvals for this month were William Avery Bot 2 (processing redirects in {{R from scientific name}}), DannyS712 bot 68 (allowing users to schedule bot reminders for themselves), TheSandBot 10 (removing blocked/locked users from Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices), Bot1058 7 (updating Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink), Dreamy Jazz Bot 4 (adding {{WikiProject Biography|living=no}} to talk pages where their associated article is in a year of death category), and QEDKbot (deleting and nominating empty categories).
• General syntax fixing tasks were approved for DannyS712 bot 70, CitationCleanerBot 5, PrimeBOT 32, BHGbot 6, Cewbot 5, and EaglesBot 2, as well as WikiCleanerBot 15, 16, and 17.
• Seven bots who fell below activity requirements (with neither the bots nor their operators having any edits or logged actions in two years) had their bot flags removed. They were NekoBot, Robert SkyBot, DASHBotAV, VoxelBot, JackieBot, ReferenceBot, and CensusBot.
• On May 12, EmausBot was blocked.

June 2020

A partial block averted at the eleventh hour for the robot that makes Legos

• Y QEDKbot 2, AnomieBOT 79, WOSlinkerBot 6, Yapperbot 2, Yapperbot, AnomieBOT 80, Dreamy Jazz Bot 5, WikiCleanerBot 18, HasteurBot 15, MusikBot II 4, NoSandboxesHere · N2 RedWarn · ? Seppi333Bot 2
• In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
• On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
• David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
• Two new bots had their first BRFAs approved: Yapperbot, to replace Legobot for handling the Feedback Request Service, and NoSandboxesHere, to remove {{user sandbox}} from articles in draftspace using Category:Non-userspace pages using User sandbox.

Conclusion

• What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

• Will Citation bot ever be set free to roam the project?
• What's the deal with all those book links that InternetArchiveBot is adding to articles?
• Should we keep using Gerrit for MediaWiki?
• What if we had a day for bots to make cosmetic edits?

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the February 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

---

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

• 1Lib1Ref 2022
• Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Hi Liz. I think there is a misunderstanding because my edit summaries said CSD instead of CFD. That was a typo that I copied to all three edit summaries. These {{db-xfd}} tags were placed as a result of a closed CFD discussion. Due to the high backlog at CFD non-admins (in my case former admin) are being employed to close discussions even when the result is delete or merge. I closed one discussion and am waiting to see how it works out before I close any more. I am new to the process, though I carefully read all the instructions. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jehochman,

I just posted a message about this on your talk page. The category has to be emptied prior to deletion and we typically use a bot for that although you can take on the job if you want to spend the time. Alternatively, you could revert my tag removal and see if another admin wants has a different interpretation, I don't take things like this personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are right that I forgot a step. I'm going to get the bot to empty the categories and then I will tag them again. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The denouement: I spoke with Tavix, who is the master of XfD, and we decided to relist these categories and ping the prior RFC participants who had not opined yet. Hopefully this will generate a consensus. Thank you for your help. Jehochman ^Talk 02:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great, thank you, Jehochman. CFD is kind of complicated, many admins who close deletion discussions steer clear of it which is how it gets so backlogged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Re:Draft:Collar (group)

What I mean is the draft is done, and what I wrote in the draft had been moved to the main space. Hence, I requested for the speedy deletion of the draft page.--Billytanghh (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Billytanghh,

Oh, that's different, it's not a move page request. I'll take care of it. Thanks for the response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

RfD closing

Regarding the tool asking to put a notice at the talk, it is fine. It just puts a one line summary of the RfD and the close, such as in Talk:Giggle water. Jay (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Jay: I think in this case the issue was that the talkpage itself was part of the same 2-in-1 RfD. I assume the best approach then is to decline the talkpage tagging and then manually add the template below the talkpage redirect? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into this, thank for the advice and feedback. In a recent case I closed, the page had been moved to a different title during an AfD so when I tried to close it, I got a message saying the page was a redirect, which it now was. I had to change the title in the AfD to close it properly. But before, this was an issue with the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

2603:9008:2400:1900:18C2:9B27:9D62:A46 block

You need to block the /64 as that's how IPv6 works.... 2603:9008:2400:1900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) wizzito | say hello! 04:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wizzito,

Thanks for providing that link. This is only the 3rd or 4th range block I've done over six years as an administrator. Their last block was 3 months long so I've doubled this one. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary snark, Liz.

At that now deleted article talk page. That said, please feel free to do necessary snark pretty much anywhere here. Peete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shirt58,

I try not to be snarky, Shirt58, but it can happen at the end of a long day of editing or if it concerns an frustrating, ongoing situation. It would help if you pointed out what page you are referring to so I can see what you object to so I can avoid it in the future. I work on quite a lot of pages over the course of a day and I don't know which one you are talking about. My apologies though if I said something offensive to you or another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shirt58,

I'm still in the dark on where I was unnecessarily snarky so I can't see what mistake I made. I see deleted article, draft and talk pages all day long so nothing stands out in my memory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for both the - in retrospect, quite inappropriate - comment and for this belated reply. ("Belated" here is a used in an unusual sense, I guess - it was only one day ago. Your talk page is so busy I can hardly keep up with it.) You wrote nothing that would come anywhere close to offensive. I had a particularly good day at work and was feeling rather ebullient. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

LMBO

Hi! Didn't LMBO use to be a Wiktionary redirect? – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Uanfala,

It was a disambiguation page that didn't link to any existing article on Wikipedia and it was tagged for deletion by an administrator whose judgment I trust. But I'll look into the page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Erm..... have you had the chance yet? – Uanfala (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why whenever I ask you about one of your G14 deletions, you always find something apparently more interesting to do and leave me having to go to the noticeboards instead. So, let's waste the community's time for a week: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 5#LMBO. – Uanfala (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Uanfala,

I'm sorry, I was out of the house, helping family, for most of the day and I have some regular responsibilities on Wikipedia that I attended to when I got home. I'll just restore this page, you needn't go to a noticeboard. I'm not forcing you to do anything. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused

After this request, this discussion, and this discussion, I am genuinely confused as to why you still find it necessary to ask AFC reviewers to go outside our normal procedures just because a draft isn't 100% exactly ready for mainspace and you don't want to move it after deleting the page. As has been said multiple times throughout these discussions, you do not have to move the page after deletion. The page deletion is a technical barrier in the way of the draft reviewer, so all that is necessary is for the page to be deleted. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

Maybe it's me, but I won't delete a page in advance of a possible page move without seeing the page that is going to be moved over and see that it is in good enough condition to be in the main space. And I can't be alone in this because incomplete page deletion/move requests like this typically sit for a long time in CSD folders without an admin acting on the request. I'm clearly not the first admin who has looked at them because by the time I get to them they are often hours old. I didn't realize that this was an unreasonable expectation to have but the discussions you link to show that this has been discussed before.

The only resolution I can see is for me also to pass on acting on these requests. I'm not going to delete a main space page (usually a redirect) if I can't see, in advance, that what is going to replace it is an improvement over what currently exists. And some of these deletion requests don't even link to a draft page where I can see what is going to be moved or, as I said at WT:AFC, the draft is in bad shape and not ready for main space. Honestly, I think it is premature to ask for a main space page deletion if an AFC reviewer hasn't even finished their draft review yet and there is a tag that the review is still in process. I wasn't saying that these draft aren't 100% ready and perfect, I'm saying in some of the pages I see that half the page is full of AFC tags and comments, should a page like this be visible in main space? How do I know that an AFC reviewer will clean it up once it has been moved to main space if they didn't take the time to clean it up before asking for a page deletion/move?

But clearly you disagree with me so I'll just pass on acting on these requests and let some other admin handle them. I'll stop my lectures and let another admin worry about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Агснινе

Тоо Вιg. Прроо (таlк) 00:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Пот fιпιsнеδ таιк. Пеνег Мιпδ. Прроо (таιк) 01:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Прроо

Did you have a question? Or just saying "Hello"?

You seem to be more familiar with Wikipedia than most brand new editors, have you had an account here before? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the page List of Punjabi films of the 2020s

Hi Liz. While planning to create the page, I found that it had been created previously before but was deleted. I was directed to contact you first before proceeding further as you were the one who deleted it. So I wanted to ask why was the page deleted before and if it's too early to create such a page as it's 2022 now? Plus do I have to create a draft version of this page first or can I create the page directly? Danishjaveed (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Danishjaveed,

No problem at all. List of Punjabi films of the 2020s was a redirect page, that is, a page that only contains a link to another page. We often create redirects with a variety of spellings or alternative names that all point to the actual article. This redirect had a link to List of Punjabi Films of 2020. Now, that page was moved by an admin to Draft:List of Punjabi Films of 2020. And THAT page was deleted as a stale draft, as a CSD G13. Those pages can be restored upon request.

When I looked at the deleted edits, it looks like this draft had lists of Punjabi films for January 2020, February 2020 and March 2020 but was later abandoned by the editor before it was finished. Would you like to see it?

You don't have to use Draft space but the problem with putting a new article directly into main space is that they are subject to review and speedy deletion if they don't meet Wikipedia's standards for completeness and adequate sourcing or are seen as advertising. Draft space or User space, like your Sandbox, is a safer space to create and develop articles over time where they won't be so carefully scrutinized. And if you submit your drafts to Articles for Creation, a reviewer can point out potential problems with your draft which you can fix. But it's your decision. Whichever you choose, I'd keep a copy of your writing elsewhere, it is frustrating to work on an article, only to have it deleted and not have a backup copy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The page seems to be replaced by List of Punjabi films of 2020 so no need. Anyways. Thanks for the information and the help :) Danishjaveed (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That's odd, I wonder why they just did three months out of the year. I guess they lost interest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe no Punjabi films (Indian) were made in 2020 after March. Because of COVID perhaps. Danishjaveed (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, of course, how could I forget about the effect of COVID?! Thanks, Danishjaveed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Help

I earlier proposed Mohit Sharma (Delhi cricketer) for deletion but my proposal got reverted by the page creator and later by you. Now, I have made out that there were some problems in it but am unable to figure out what actually it was. So, please tell me how I can get rid of the prob.

Hello, someone,

First, you need to sign your talk page comments. I don't know who I'm talking to.

Second, if you look at the page history of Mohit Sharma (Delhi cricketer), it doesn't indicate that it has ever been tagged for any kind of deletion. I have never edited that page so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I saw you gave a PROD notice to Lugnuts but you never tagged the page or provided a reason why the page should be deleted.

Next, if you are going to tag pages for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to start using Twinkle to tag pages. If you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post talk page notices for you and see that your tagging is done properly. It will even keep logs of all of the pages you have tagged for any kind of deletion.

Finally, anyone can remove a PROD tag for any reason, the page creator, someone who doesn't know anything about cricket, anyone, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions so if anyone takes exception to the deletion, they can remove the tag.

If you ever have specific questions about using Twinkle, page deletion, or general editing on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you answers and support.

But remember, always sign your talk page posts or you will always be a newbie here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I was unable to sign my comment due to some unavoidable circumstanced. Anyway, I have cited the reason "This article belongs to a cricketer, who forget donning the jersey of Men in Blue, has infrequently played for his domestic side, not even performed in IPL.", which you may not have noticed yet, but you are right, the article in question was never asked for deletion before. My proposal is the first and only one. So, please tell me how I shall submit my proposal. Gracias Michri michri (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Michri michri,

Did you actually read my message? I advised you to learn how to use Twinkle, an editing tool many Wikipedia editors, especially new page patrollers and administrators, use. It will help you tag pages without any problems and is very easy to use. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That's all, gracias. Michri michri (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Global Block Request

Please block this IP range https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2402:3A80:1C46:D09C:3926:B13B:5ADE:6A75 117.226.227.26 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 117.226.227.26,

Editor 2402:3A80:1C46:D09C:3926:B13B:5ADE:6A75 is a very assertive editor, and obviously not a new editor, but I don't see that they are doing any vandalism or blockable behavior. I'm also not experienced with doing range blocks so please get back to me if you see anything like personal attacks or if you believe this is a regular editor, editing logged out. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I am Itcouldbepossible. This IP user who has written on your talk page is actually User:Blogs19 an LTA user. I can say this strongly because he uses the 117.226 IP range. For reference you can see this. And there is also a reason behind which this IP is complaining against him. The IP who is complaining had created many sockpuppet accounts, and had posted requests on my talk page to move their promotional draft to mainspace. Please refer to User talk:Itcouldbepossible/Archive 2022/February#Article and also subsequent conversations on my talk page. I cannot link them as they have the same header and are creating problem. I did not know about this in the beginning. Then the IP 2402:3A80 said that IP is actually a sock of an LTA user. So I did not fall for their trap. And that is where they are probably getting angry, that the said IP is warning users before hand that the IP is actually a sock. The IP had started many cases at SPI which turned out that they were actually Blogs 19. So now you see the reason behind seeking a global block request of their enemy. You may also want to refer to the SPI case of Blogs19.And you are right. The IP is not a new editor. He says that he has been editing Wikipedia anonymously for 9 years and would continue to do so.

PS: Oh, I forgot something. You might not understand what is meant by Dada Amake Ektu help korun Amar ekta Article Kore din. Well the IP was begging me to help him create an article. Thats the translation. It is actually Bengali. Well, if you don't believe me, then I am also pinging Shinnosuke15 so that he can translate the same. He understands bengali as well. I hope he translates the same. Regards. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Hey, See this IP unknowingly removing cast from Article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2402:3A80:1C46:7BFB:9503:1856:4375:C868

@Liz: Hey, See this also IP unknowingly removed cast from this Article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1069844585

The Bengali text written using English alphabet means that "Brother please help me. Create an article for me". The ip is spamming a minor actor in Indian Bengali TV shows and also trying to create article about him. Shinnosuke15, 10:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shinnosuke15 Or his favourite actor Asim Riaz.Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

NOTHERE block?

JaysonVera (talk · contribs) is still trying to get their nonsense draft into mainspace. I think an indef would be appropriate. – ².O.^Boxing 14:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I also think it might be worth looking at Pardeep Bastola and Arunfromearth. All three accounts have messed around with page moves in the same manner and all have vandalised Category:Redirects from moves. – ².O.^Boxing 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Squared.Circle.Boxing,

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into this and see if action is called for. I appreciate it. JaysonVera is on very thin ice and I doubt that when their block ends they can move on from writing about themselves. But I like to give new editors a second chance to "get" Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Nmixx redirect

It's not a banned user but is a blocked user. So does what you said still apply? 52-whalien (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 52-whalien,

CSD G5 is commonly misunderstood. There has to be a blocked editor, Editor A. Then they create a sockpuppet account AFTER they have been blocked, Editor B. Any pages that Editor B has created, which have no substantial edits from other editors, can be tagged for CSD G5 deletion. But G5 is actually for ban evasion, not just for being blocked or for having multiple accounts. The sockpuppet master has to have been blocked before the pages were created to be deleted under this criteria. But if you look at my user talk page, you'll find lots of discussions about G5 because it's a tricky criteria to use, you have to know the blocking dates and account creation dates of both the sockmaster and the sockpuppet to determine if pages are eligible. And, sometimes checkusers don't even identify the sockmaster which means you can't apply it at all! I hope that helps explain things a bit more clearly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give me some advice?

I removed a picture of Jennifer Lawrence from the infobox of the RepresentUs page. That became a whole discussion about pictures, but that's not what the problem is. Before Tomwsulcer started editing that page, there was one mention of Jennifer Lawrence. Now there are at least ten. It seems *way* over the top to me and just a little creepy, but I'm not sure what to do about it if anything. Is there some way to get articles reviewed or something like that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata: What exactly is the problem with the article mentioning Jennifer Lawrence? ––FormalDude talk 00:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

There's no problem with *mentioning* Jennifer Lawrence. She's on the board of the organization. What I don't understand is why she would be mentioned so many times. More times than the founder and Executive Chairman. It's strange. The whole page is strange, actually. The talk page shows that there were paid editors working on it so that might be why it reads like it was written by RepresentUs and Jennifer Lawrence's PR team. How do pages like this get reviewed? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Polycarpa aurata,

IF you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or Wikipedia policies, I recommend taking them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. I'm generally a nice & helpful person but you brought a complaint about a decision I made to Deletion Review case which was an unpleasant experience I try to avoid. I don't feel like helping you out unless you have a question about an edit or administrative decision I made. In those cases, I'm bound by WP:ADMINACCT to respond.

But, hey, there are plenty of great people here, like [FormalDude who can help you out. Good luck with your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I admit that I am a bit taken aback by this response since you wished me well on my talk page, but I respect your feelings and I will look for help somewhere else or just drop it entirely. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for Unprotection and Help with Submission

Hey Liz, I contacted explicit and he or she told me that I should contact you since you were supposedly the one that protected the article "Sayed Noorullah Jalili". I have drafted an article for this page but I can not make any edits since it's protected because of previous spam. I would like to request your assistance in reviewing the article to see if it is ready to be published and unprotecting the page. Thank you in advance for your assistance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by COEUS1 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, COEUS1,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I don't see a draft of Sayed Noorullah Jalili in your contributions, so I can't look at your article. At this point, you would need to keep it on a User page like your Sandbox or a page like User:COEUS1/Sayed Noorullah Jalili.

Secondly, this article was deleted in an Articles for Deletion decision, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayed Noorullah Jalili, so that makes its creation much more difficult. If an article gets put directly into the main article space of the project, it will be deleted. The article and draft pages were protected because other versions kept being recreated. If I lifted the protection from main space as you request and you put an article on this part of the project, it would be immediately tagged for speedy deletion so that doesn't solve your problem.

The only way I know to overcome an AFD deletion decision is to submit a draft, which would be kept on your User page, to Articles for Creation to get their review and approval.

I don't want to pass your problem on to a different administrator, as you were sent to talk to me, but Draft:Sayed Noorullah Jalili page was protected by 331dot. But I don't think they'd be willing to lift the page protection as you are a very, very new editor. It's best to work on a draft in your User space and submit it to AFC. Or you could build up your experience working on different articles, the draft page protection is just for extended confirmed editors and you could get to that status if a few weeks if you did some regular editing, improving articles. This would also help improve your skills as an editor which would help you write a better article on Sayed Noorullah Jalili which is more likely to get approval from AFC. You could learn about important elements like notability and reliable sources which are crucial to editing on Wikipedia. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Liz. I highly appreciate the feedback and advice. I will definitely consider your advice to build up my editorial status until I can edit past the protection whilst still improving my skills. Thank you very much once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COEUS1 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

About Jimmy Mozzarella.

I know it's obviously fake, it was meant to be that way as a fun little joke to get some readers to laugh, I don't mind my article being deleted, but I would like for it to live on in Wikipedia:Silly Things. I didn't mean any harm or bad faith. Just wanted to make a quick joke article, thanks and have a good day! Sodapoppers (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sodapoppers,

Readers expect Wikipedia articles to be based in reality, to not be fictitious, there are plenty of other websites or blogs where you can share humorous, fake content, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia. We have a little madness that happens here on April 1st but otherwise, "joke content" is not allowed.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Oyster Art Gallery

They're a confirmed globallyl ocked sock of the master. SANTADICAE🎅 19:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I reversed my untagging and it was eventually deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TFA protection (on the day after) - thanks

Albeit 24 hours too late? Anyways, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RandomCanadian,

What is the page? What is the standard protection given? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

BWV 227, which other one that was recently at TFA and that you protected? I was just subtly hinting that it maybe should have been protected the whole time it was at TFA (as predicting that it will suffer some vandalism, including some of the more egregious stuff which is now revdeled, doesn't require any expertise in predicting the future) and not the day after... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know it was a Featured Article, I just saw the vandalism. I think my edit summary even asks why all of this vandalism was happening today. It's definitely not a part of Wikipedia I keep track of. But the article should have been protected long before I stumbled upon it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Zegarac

Hi! Would you be able to restore the dab page in the deleted history under the redirect Zegarac? The previously deleted Dave Zegarac has been restored, so now there are articles about two people with the name and a dab page is viable again. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Would you be able to restore Sarvar as well? Thank you! – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Uanfala

Good catch. Often when pages are restored via WP:REFUND, it can be a challenge to track down all of the removed mentions or deleted redirects. I restored Zegarac to its state before Dave Zegarac was deleted. I'm restoring Sarvar but I'm less certain about this page as the article Sarvar Abdullaev Sobitovich has not been restored. I removed this mention from the page but that can be added back if the article is restored. I was given a warning months ago about leaving mentions of deleted articles on other pages so I unlink them and remove them when I can. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! The link in the second line in Sarvar was red only because an IP had mangled it a few months previously [8]. Dab pages don't have many watchers, so edits like this don't always get caught. Also, Mr. Sabitovich wasn't the only person with the name, there's one more, the search results can be helpful: [9]. Anyway, I've started a discussion about G14 at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Rethinking G14, and it involved a look at the deletions (correct and incorrect) in the past one month: both Sarvar and Zegarac count as incorrect. You can have a look if you're interested. – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Uanfala: ( from lurker) FYI, whoever Sarvar Abdullaev Sobitovich is, this is a mangled name in East Slavic naming convention "GivenName Patronymic Surname", not yet completely abandoned in non-Slavic post-Soviet republics, i.e., it must be Sarvar Sobitovich Abdullaev. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I should have noticed. So it's Mr. Abdullaev then. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Access to deleted content of Propaedeutic value of Esperanto

Hi! Would you be able to restore / provide me a copy of the contents of the recently deleted page Propaedeutic value of Esperanto, so I can rescue any sources / notable information and include it under Esperanto § Education? I was unaware of a deletion process happening to that page, and any systems that could have notified me about it are defunct :(. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the actual page history might also be worth preserving. Since the deletion process simply expired, would undeleting the page and turning it into a redirect to Esperanto § Education be an option as well? TucanHolmes (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TucanHolmes,

A page deleted through Proposed Deletion can be restored if the deletion is contested which is how I interpreted your request so I have restored Propaedeutic value of Esperanto. It can always be tagged for an AFD deletion discussion but you now have access to its page history. If you want it to continue to exist on Wikipedia, you might spend some time addressing the reasons stated in the PROD deletion tag for why an editor thought the article should be deleted, improving the article will make it is less likely to be deleted again. Or, you could turn the page into a redirect which would preserve the page history. It's up to you. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It's now a redirect to Esperanto § Third-language acquisition. I will look over it in more detail soon, to see if anything can be salvaged. Thank you very much for your quick response! TucanHolmes (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

For a lightning-fast response to a user in distress with not a lot of time on their hands. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been a long time since I had a falafel but now I am in the mood for one! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

LTA is again back

Please block this IP range ... This IP is again unknowingly remove entries from articles. See this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2402:3A80:1A46:12E1:707B:A77A:7C8A:6B32 117.226.146.124 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 117.226.146.124,

I don't really do many range blocks and it looks like you and User:2402:3A80:1A46:12E1:707B:A77A:7C8A:6B32 might just have a content dispute. If you see a great deal of vandalism, it's best to report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's not a good idea for an unknown IP account to make identical requests on the talk pages of several administrators, it raises questions about who you might be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Ma'am currently I'vent any account and why the same things with this sock IP ???who's continueusly edits unknowingly and removing entries and casts, need to stop this IP.

Google Go

You have retargeted Google Go to the dab page which has Google Search#Smartphone apps as the primary topic. This is wrong currently. You would either have to fix the dab to have no primary, or retarget Google Go to the app target until someone fixes the dab. Or revert the close if you feel the dab page needs more discussion on the primary. Jay (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

I thought I correctly assessed the consensus of this discussion but I will revert my decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It is only a technicality that the consensus (about the redirect) is different from the current state of the dab. About the dab, there was only one vote with an opinion, and it was a suggestion (I'd suggest it's not entirely clear cut that the app is the primary topic). If you agree with that vote, you may want to change the dab instead. Jay (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No thanks, I reverted my closure. I'll let a different admin take a crack at it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Winter Storm Delphine

Regarding the Winter Storm Delphine relisting, typically I do not relist a deletion nomination if there is no discussion, or there are only delete votes. I relist it when the nomination is opposed, or there is no vote, but only a comment expected to encourage more discussion. Trying to understand your thought process behind the relist. Jay (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits by this “Liz” at Wikipedia.

Who is this woman (other than someone seeking to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit) is be removing photos from a notable biography? She removed photos of singer Brian Evans, who was the opening act for all of the celebrities whose photos she removed. The relevance is without dispute, as was his entrance into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. That’s not notable? Seems this woman has an axe to grind but knowing how Evans has handled this kind of stuff from what I’ve seen online his lawyers will be all over it…again. And Liz: you don’t know what you are talking about. Every photo on Evans page…he was the opening act for right up until they died. 189.206.144.171 (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Brian,

They were unnecessary clutter. They didn't show any real relationship, millions of people get their photo taken with celebrities. I didn't realize you constantly policed your own article. Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Liz

First of all, as does “Hell in a Bucket,” I am not Brian. The photos of Brian Evans opening for the celebrities were not just photos of him with celebrities, but news sources articles that confirmed he opened for them all. Perhaps you should read those articles? Additionally, as you know, editors of Wikipedia are no longer immune to lawsuits, and there are some seriously inflammatory remarks you and editors are making stating assumption as fact. To state Evans is known “more for lawsuits than his career” while his music is literally on dozens of TV shows as of this writing is absurd. But…dig your legal grave if you please. 189.206.144.171 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a legal threat, a blockable offense. -- Valjean (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

And there comes the prior knowledge that seals the WP:BLOCKEVASION. Unbroken Chain (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Brian,

If you have an argument to make for keeping this article, then make in on the AFD page. Try to be persuasive. And not attack everyone who votes to "Delete". Berating me here will only get you blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, I removed it as block evasion. Unbroken Chain (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I am not Brian, "Liz."

I have made the following statement on the AFD page and am pasting here for your own review and assessment:

The statements made by Hell In A Bucket and indeed someone named "Liz" are not worthy for deletion. With no evidence, statements are made about Evans as facts by these two editors. In fact, "Liz," who removed photos of Evans and all of the celebrities he has opened for, which is specifically sourced on the very page she claims is simply "Evans with Celebrities," is ludicrous. He was all of their opening act and it's sourced right there on the page. In addition to the well sourced news articles that substantiate why the photos were on Mr. Evans page, a simple Google search confirm this. I have personally reached out to Wikipedia regarding what I've seen today and I vote that this page not be deleted. It is my opinion that this is a personal issue with these two editors, and not factual based on Evans well established career, which is duly sourced throughout his page. For these two editors, who have provided no evidence that Mr. Evans has ever added information to his page, is suspect. They both make statements, not alleging or assuming, but stating as fact what they provide no evidence for. Additionally, and most outrageously, "Liz" makes the claim that Evans is more known for lawsuits, than the plethora of well sourced information on his page, including literally being added to The National Baseball Hall of Fame. I'm sorry, but this is an attack on this artist, and even myself, who has nothing to do with him and have edited other pages completely unrelated to him. Even I, as an editor, without any factual basis other than the vendetta of these two editors against this man, for whatever reason, certainly not based on anything factual, have even alleged that I am him. I would suggest that anyone reviewing this page really take a look at the years of effort of "Hell In A Bucket" and now more recently "Liz," who actually claims Evans, a member of The National Baseball Hall of Fame and who has recorded historic music videos that are well sourced as "more known for lawsuits," is very concerning. These editors have no right, and no basis, to make claims of fact when what they are really doing is alleging with no evidence to back it up. I have never seen anything like this as an editor, nor have I ever been accused of "sock puppet" activity until I decided, when editing Corey Haim's page, to work on this page, which is what Wikipedia requests. All anyone reviewing my vote on this need to do is Google the name of Brian Evans and his work with the legendary producer Narada Michael Walden, who produced the likes of Whitney Houston, and now is producing an artist for Evans. Evans also obtained 39 United States governor Proclamations for Sleep Apnea Awareness. As I said, I have reached out to five different sources that I know at Wikipedia to look at the activity of these two editors. Evans also has a verified Twitter page which displays all of the celebrities he has opened for, and those very celebrities following Mr. Evans personal Twitter account and in many cases even "Tweeting" about him. In one comment, "Liz," with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, responds to a comment made by, frankly, it could be anyone, as "Brian." I am also copy and pasting this entire comment to send to Wikipedia in the event that, as history has shown, anything positive about Mr. Evans is immediately removed so that, for example, the assessment by "Liz," who makes an absolutely astonishingly uneducated and unsubstantiated remark about this artist that he is "known more for lawsuits than his career" is simply shocking to me while his music is literally, as of this writing, on the show "BoJack Horseman," and numerous others on Netflix and others. For example, they don't claim "we think Mr. Evans did this or did that." Instead, they say that he is personally responsible for whatever it is they conjure up backed by no evidence to support those statements. I would suggest you look strongly at this, as I am having Wikipedia do, again, through multiple sources I know there and have in the past had direct contact with. Anyone looking at this page, the sources, or a simple Google search (not to mention the article citing Evans as one of the most relevant crooners of this generation in Grammy Magazine), will find that Mr. Evans has done more than many artists I've seen who have a page on Wikipedia. As an individual who lives in Mexico, I assure you that I am not Brian Evans. For these editors to make that claim, not as a claim but as a final judgment, is outrageous. Evans, the first artist ever to film a music video at The Bates Motel with comedian Carrot Top made history when he did so. Now, I normally would not say as much as I have here, and I certainly am not attempting to attack any Wikipedia editors the way these two editors have done to this man, but when I look at the statements that are meant to say that Evans simply "has pictures with celebrities" when the very Wikipedia page they are attempting to delete sources media that contradict her statement, and make allegations that he is "more known for lawsuits than his singing career" is beyond the pale. All one need do is look at the page, the sources, or search his name on Google or YouTube. The statement by "Liz" would be laughable if it was not so egregious. His work with William Shatner has garnered him millions of views on YouTube, the same work that got them both added to The National Baseball Hall of Fame and indeed the Baseball Almanac, all of which any of you can search on their very own websites. I've never seen this much attention brought to a single artist who on Amazon, has over a dozen albums and over 150 songs recorded. He has obviously also had legal issues which I don't dispute as they are also well sourced, but you do not see either of these editors deleting any of those, just the well sourced items that give Evans any credibility. Again, I have copied and pasted this entire statement and forwarded it to those I am in communication with, who know I am not associated with Mr. Evans personally, at Wikipedia for their review of what these two editors have done to Mr. Evans, and that is simply how I see it. How on Earth do you claim Mr. Evans is simply posting photos of himself with celebrities when the celebrities themselves are tweeting about him, and are by a simple Google search utilizing him as their opening act. Absolutely appalling behavior by these two Wikipedia editors. You cannot call it self-promotion if independent sources confirm what is being said. I have my own theories related to these editors intentions, and some may actually have to do with those lawsuits he was involved in. That's my opinion, those are big corporations that Evans has taken on so I would not doubt anything. The editor "Liz," in this particular matter is totally out of line. Just read what she says, then Google those very celebrities and who their opening act was: Brian Evans. Totally ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan4505A (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean like [[10]] and [[11]]? Or perhaps you are his cousin or his lawyer this time? Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

But, Joan4505A you say you live in Mexico and Brian Evans just Tweeted today a video from Mexico? You have to at least be consistent with your stories. If you are not him, you are related to him. Or President of his Mexican Fan Club, if he has one.

And I don't really know why you are attacking me, all I did was remove some unnecessary photos from the article, I didn't edit the rest of the content at all. The only claims I've made have been in talk page comments, besides the photos, I haven't added, removed or altered any other content on this article so I'm not sure why you see me as your Number 1 enemy. I definitely haven't done or said anything you could sue me over although lawsuits seem to be your thing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You always seem to be there whenever I CSD an article, and for that, I will give you this barnstar! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

2601:192:8800:C320:29CA:CC2B:95AD:AD94

Take a look at it now! Please see User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 ... when you see an IPV6 address like that, blocking just one rather than the /64 is more often than not completely ineffective. In almost all cases (read at least 99.5% of them), blocking a /64 will do no harm and will not cause collateral damage. I also opened a relevant SPI. Graham87 15:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Graham,

You seem to be angry with me. I just don't have much experience with range blocks and in the past I've been concerned that a range block will affect other editors who have no connection with a vandal. But I will now learn more about how to impose them.

I don't do a lot of blocks and most come from patrolling CSD categories and seeing individual pages that have been vandalized. My question for you is do you impost a range block every time you block an IP account? Thanks for any advice you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, this is a question I can answer! When dealing with IPv4 addresses (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx form) you typically only need to block one IP, since residential Internet subscribers are almost always assigned a single IPv4 address. Blocking a single IPv4 address will therefore effectively block an entire household (cellular devices notwithstanding).

When dealing with IPv6 addresses (xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx form) ISPs will typically assign an entire /64 subnet (which represents the first half of the address -- the first four groups, therefore xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::/64) to a single residential customer. Modern OSes will routinely cycle through IP addresses in a /64 range for privacy reasons, which is why a block on a single IPv6 address is ineffective. The OS itself is going to change the IP address of the device, usually within a few minutes, unwittingly helping the user evade the block. Therefore, a /64 range block should be considered the smallest block that can be effective against IPv6 users. It seems like a pretty huge space (indeed, it contains 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses!) but this is the analog of a single IPv4 address when it comes to residential customers -- it represents a single household.

Let me know if you have any further questions, just ping me here! --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Crazycomputers, I'm going to have to read and reread this to absorb the advice but I'm very grateful for the explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, that's correct. I wouldn't quite use the word "angry" ... I do get frustrated when I see a block of a single IPV6 address ... but on re-reading my message I can now understand why it sounded harsher than it was meant to. Also, could you please archive at least some of the old messages on your talk page? The amount of processing my main screen reader has had to do to it has crashed my browser twice now ... and I almost never have this problem, especially on my newer computer, not even on pages like ANI. I didn't mention it in my first message (last night my time) because I chalked it up to just having too many other pages open, but I had another browser crash just then. I could help you set up automated archiving, but that doesn't go too well with the manual archive boxes that you have. Graham87 05:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So it seems that you used to have automated archiving here but you removed it because the archive bot was moving messages to the wrong place. It was doing that because when you manually created an archive like here, you forgot to update the archive counter that the bot uses. My suggestion (which can be tweaked if necessary) would be to re-add the archive bot and make it archive messages that are more than 30 days old, rather than 90, as you had it before. Would that be OK with you? Graham87 06:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've adjusted a few of your talk page sections so they contain timestamps in Wikipedia's standard format, for the archiving bot Lowercase sigmabot III, in case you want to re-introduce it; sorry about the flurry of notifications that might've caused. Another archiving bot, ClueBot III, doesn't have that problem, but has other quirks so I prefer not to use it; it's just that when it fails, it tends to do so spectacularly badly. Either way, if you want to reintroduce automatic archiving, it's probably not a good idea to create manual archive pages alongside the automated archiving process. Graham87 07:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Graham, well, I used to have automatic archiving but then I discovered that the archiving bot wasn't archiving messages to the LAST archive page but to whatever page had room in it. I still haven't gone through my archives to move messages that were put in Archive 1 and Archive 2 into the correct archive page like Archive 10 and Archive 15. What a tedious chore that will be. The bot just put messages in whatever archive page still had "space" in it so they got all messed up and I went back to doing it myself every other month which I don't mind doing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately bots can't tell automatically where the last archive page is (given the number of weird and wonderful archiving systems that have been used in the past, that'd be an impossibility). Lowercase sigmabot III, the bot you were using, does not archive messages into wherever it can find room; it archives messages into wherever it's told to by the counter variable in the "counter=" text in the archiving code. If the bot creates a new archive page, it'll automatically update that variable; if you manually create a new archive page and forget to update the counter variable along with it, that's when problems arise. As people say: the great thing about computers as they do exactly what they're told to do; the problem with computers is that they do exactly what they're told to do. P.s. I am able to edit this page, but I'm getting a browser crash literally *every* *time* I save it here. Graham87 08:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

István Kecskés

Uh ... thanks for trying to notify me of something? It's gone now, so all I have to go on is the deletion logs, which suggest that it may have been a case where I was trying to resolve a dispute over diacritics or not or between different spheres of notability, or a hijacking, or removal of someone's work for their being a tendentious or banned editor, by making a DAB page. I hope whatever it was got resolved with coverage somewhere, but that's my bias showing. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Yngvadottir,

Here's what happened. I deleted a PROD'd article on a István Kecskés which left only one person named István Kecskés so there was no need for a disambiguation page. I have Twinkle set up to automatically notify page creators when I tag or delete a page but I didn't want to bother you about a disambiguation page that was needed when you created it but no longer. But I should know that even removing a message will still alert the editor that a message was posted so removing it really doesn't have the effect I had hoped. So, in the future. I just leave unnecessary messages up. Sorry for any confusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I figured as much, no worries. And I think it's always better to err on the side of notifying people; my deleted edit count keeps creeping up and I rarely know why. But I just hope it was truly PROD-worthy, because I'm fundamentally inclusionist. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Email

Hello Liz! I read you email and because my email contains my real name (which I would prefer not to publicly disclose) I'm going to reply to your email on your talk page if that's alright with you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Blaze Wolf,

That's smart. I created a GMail account just for my work on Wikipedia although it's gradually becoming my main account. You might consider doing that as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Ya I've thought about it. The issue is I'm too lazy (and also kinda too busy) to actually do so. Would you be alright with me replying to your email here? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I'd said it was okay. I'll be around, you can respond (or not) whenever you like. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning a lot more than it possibly revealing who I am. However I'm still going to choose to keep my birthdate public. I usually am a bit cautious regardless (hence why I haven't gotten my Discord account compromised from scams) but knowing this I will be a bit more cautious if someone wants to talk to me off-wiki with no clear reason (or I haven't interacted with them much on Wikipedia). I have a bit more I want to say, however I'm not going to per WP:DENY since it has to do with a user that was blocked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am comforted to see that you are cautious. On Wikipedia, you are working with a lot of adults (and mostly older adults), so when someone comes along, acting like they are your age, it might be natural to befriend them. But you don't really know who anyone is here. I have my photo on my user page but you take it on trust that this is actually me. There's an old expression/cartoon from the early days of the Internet, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" meaning that all you know about someone is how they present themselves online, you don't really know them. This is not only true on Wikipedia, it's the nature of an anonymous medium like the internet. Just know that should you ever need help or to talk to someone, there are lots of sources at the WMF that exist just to deal with these situations. You are not alone. Take care! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically the entire internet knows I'm a dog because I don't hide the fact that I'm a furry! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned right now. Someone managed to figure out who I am and contacted my parents about me. COuld I Get some assistance with getting in contact with those who I need to? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Blaze Wolf,

That's creepy. The WMF division is called Trust & Safety and there is information right here to email legal-reports(_AT_)wikimedia.org. Know that in this case, "child" just means any person under the age of 18 years, you are obviously not a child in maturity. Since they will want to know the editor responsible, I believe it is User:HowAboutThoseBulldogs, the same person who posted an inappropriate message about you on User talk:Barkeep49.

You should report this incident but I think, in this case, this person wanted to make a point about safety by showing you how they could figure out who you are, I don't believe they intended you harm like I was alluding to. But you should still report this. Let me know if you have any questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was indeed that same person. I've already let TNT know and they gave the info to Trust & Safety. Unfortunately I don't have access to my personal email for the time being (dunno how long) for personal reasons semi-related to this incident so I can't get into contact with them (i'm unable to access my email from the device I'm using not saying much specifics since I'm being very cautious right now) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Odd question, would included my birthday but not the year still be something I should avoid? It wouldn't necessarily reveal my age at all (you need a year unless there's some complicated math you could do) but I'd rather be a bit cautious if it's recommended I not do that. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mark A. Sammut

Hi Liz, I'm writing to you because you deleted Mark A. Sammut. I don't have access to the deleted article, and I'm no enwiki expert, but Mark Anthony Sammut should probably also be deleted. --Jaqen (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jaqen,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll look into this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz:, these are in fact two different persons. Please do not delete Mark Anthony Sammut, he's a relevant Maltese politician. :) --Dans (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

George Nicholas (animator)

Unless I'm missing something, the above article did not qualify for WP:G5 as the sock, who created the article, and the master were blocked (by me) at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23,

I agree. After looking at the SPI case, I didn't think so either but I decided to trust the opinion of the editor who tagged the page. I'm pretty strict about CSD G5s and untag pages I see that are mistakenly tagged with this criteria and I should have done so in this case and gone with my own judgment. Thanks for catching this mistake I made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand why you would trust the opinion of the tagging editor, and I have to assume that she just made a mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I shouldn't be butting in here, but I think that article should be moved back to draftspace regardless (it's completely unsourced). I would do it myself but it seems like a bit of a daunting task and I'd rather not screw it up on accident and leave a mess for someone to clean up. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The reality is if it gets moved back to draft space, it will probably languish there for six months and then deleted per G13. Also, the article is not unsourced; it has IMDb as a source. My preference is for someone to evaluate whether the subject satisfies WP:GNG and, if not, nominate it for deletion. It's not like he's a nobody. The issue is whether he's more notable than the many, many animators that are out there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. Didn't know external links are still considered sources. I'll make note of that for the future. I'll see if I can find anything on him ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have expanded the Wikipedia article a bit based mostly on an article in the Los Angeles Times published a few days after he died. There is plenty of information about him on animation websites but I am not sure which of those are considered reliable. The French Wikipedia has an article including an enormous unreferenced filmography. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

IS the French article itself mostly unsourced? If not then I could probably add a tag to the english article saying it can be expanded with info from the French article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

IMDb is the only reference in the French version. Not up to our standards. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok so pretty much as bad as it was before you added to it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, this was my mistake. I apologize. With the large number of sox blocked, with parallel contribs dating back to November, I didn't realize how recent the most recent block was. Thank you for catching my oversight, Bbb23. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: No need to apologize. I figured it was a mistake as I was confident that you know how G5 works. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's good, Tamzin, that most of us never make any mistakes! But hey, is it flattering to know that I trust your judgment regarding sockpuppets more than my own? Cheers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:2005 Shepherd Rams football team

Good afternoon Liz! I'm reaching out ton see if I can get your help, in deleting a draft page of mine that was submitted to AfC. I actually published the page 2005 Shepherd Rams football team, and this page can be deleted. Is this something you're able to help me with? Thank you! Spf121188 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I figured out how to put the tag on the page, so all is good :) Spf121188 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Spf121188,

 Done! Sorry to see your message a bit late. You know, I really recommend learning to use Twinkle, an editing tool that is very useful if you want to tag pages for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), it will take care of the tagging and once you set up your Twinkle Preferences, it will post a notification on the talk page of the page creator which is very handy. I know that this was your own page so this was not necessary in this case. But you can also use it to tag pages for problems or report vandals, it's very helpful if you see yourself editing a lot. Glad I could take care of this page for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all! I will certainly look at that, as I'm still kind of learning how to use different tools for various purposes. I greatly appreciate your help! :) Spf121188 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Martyropolis (502)

Hello Liz – I was patrolling the PROD list and noticed Siege of Martyropolis (502). It seems to have been PRODded over two weeks ago, but the nominator made some sort of mistake with the template, causing it to be listed as having been nominated on January 1, 1970! I'm not quite sure what should be done about it, so I figured I'd let you know. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Extraordinary Writ,

Yes, I noticed this and posted a note on their talk page asking them to fix the tag. I guess they never did. I'll go look at the page, thanks for the reminder, because of the tag mistake, the article doesn't show up on our list of current PRODs to evaluate or in the correct PROD category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the Christian weston chandler page

Hi - I just created the Christian weston chandler page, and had put a considerable amount of work into it, based on the fact a lot of new RS has now come to light since the last deletion, and previous RS had been missed. IMHO the article is notable as an extreme example of cyber bullying, and also as a one of the most documented people in the history of the internet. Both these notable features are supported by RS. Also as I noted it had a Speedy deletion tag put on it. As such, I followed policy and added a note on the talk page as to why it shouldn't be. However, it appears you haven't noticed that note and went ahead with the speedy deletion? If you could reinstate it so that other editors can have input into if it should be deleted or not, that would be great, thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Deathlibrarian,

I'm sorry that you put a lot of work into this article. But different versions of it have literally been deleted dozens of times. There have been many discussions about this article on noticeboards like WP:AN. Different versions of her name are protected from ever being used for article creation. This article would have been tagged & deleted within 24 hours of creation once other editors spotted it.

But if you disagree, please make your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Maybe the editors who frequent that forum will be persuaded by your argument and I'll be proven wrong. You can find previous discussions about this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian W. Chandler and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Weston Chandler. I think there are others, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll do that. I'd actually looked at the two links you point too already - one is a troll, the other one goes way back to 2009. As mentioned, there's a lot of recent RS published that wasn't in the previous articles, and I would hope that 16 years of working on wikipedia and 250 articles would indicate I'm not a troll! :-) I actually think this is an important article to provide a case study about extreme online bullying, as the subject is noted for. In any case, thanks for the advice about the follow up, Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Christian weston chandler

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christian weston chandler. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ibn Shakir Al-Ketbi (February 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ibn Shakir Al-Ketbi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ibn Shakir Al-Ketbi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Page move

Hi @Liz: what is the adequate way to move a page to draft space if the space is in need of incubation or expansion? I think the page Arz (rapper) is not ready to be in the main space Neoinsession (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neoinsession,

Sorry for the delay in my response. The script that many new page patrollers and admins use can be found at User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. It adds an option to "Move to draft" from the More tab at the top of the page. It has the advantage of not only moving the page but also notifying the page creator about the page move which is very important. The important thing to remember if you start Draftifying articles is that it is only to be done to relatively newly created pages, say those that were created in the past six months. Never move to Draft space an article that has existed in main space for years.

As for Arz (rapper), I'll take a look at the page. Hope all is well with you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you and have moved the page to Draft space. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz; in relation to the period when it is appropriate to draftify an article, I thought I would mention this RFC in case you had not noticed it, as it looks certain to pass and will impose a hard 90 day limit on draftifying. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I don't think it's been widely publicized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point; I'll go notify NPP and AFC. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz:

to draft

Does one need to have user rights (Page mover, Administrator, etc) to have a "Move to Draft" option?

to main space

Which group has the right to accept draft requests to main space? I thought it was page movers or pending reviewers but I saw an autopatroller moving pages, I spent some time studying the rights but it seems like I'm a little lost, if I may ask, am I missing something? Neoinsession (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neoinsession,

I feel like I'm being quizzed here. I'm not going to review policy pages before answering you so I'll be conservative and not talk about absolute rights but what I see as different responsibilities and privileges of different groups.

• I don't think you need any special rights to move a page from main space to Draft space. You should be an experienced editor and just going by the length of time you've been here and number of edits you've made, I think you qualify as experienced. You should be able to judge when an article in main space needs more time to develop reliable sources and be more complete and would benefit from spending some more time in Draft space. I will also say that you could see a "Move to Draft" as a way of saving a promising article from being tagged for speedy deletion. This is not the purpose of "Moving to Draft space" but it is a by product that it is much more likely for an inadequate article to be tagged for speedy deletion if it is in main space versus if it has been put into Draft space.
• What privileges Page Mover rights give an editor is the ability to not leave a redirect when they move a page and, I believe, they can move an article on to a page where there currently exists a redirect. An ordinary editor can not do either. If you do move a page to Draft space, you'll need to tag the original page redirect for speedy deletion, CSD R2 as a redirect from main space to other name spaces. Many editors find Twinkle to be a very useful editing tool to tag pages for deletion.
• Autopatrolled is something different entirely. This right is given to editors who have dependently written reliably good articles (I think the minimum number is 25 articles). Ordinarily, all new articles are reviewed by the New Page Patrol, mainly to ensure that junk articles aren't put into main space but they also can tag pages for speedy deletion if they meet any of the CSD criteria. If you have autopatrolled status, you can bypass this review by patrollers as you have shown that the articles you write are free from major problems.

I hope this answers most of your questions. But if there is a conflict from what I've said and what policy pages say, go with the policy pages! And if I'm incorrect, maybe one of my friendly talk page stalkers will correct any inaccuracies in what I've told you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• For BLPs, Neoinsession, even fairly experienced editors fall foul of the rules fairly often. Liz's summary of the facts about rights seems correct to me, but in the case of BLPs, if you don't have the kind of experience that tells you where the acceptability line is, you might find the AfC process worth following despite the time delays. It's a fundamentally more forgiving process than AfD. It's also obligatory if you have a CoI, regardless of experience. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chalst: thank you mate. Liz, as time goes by I happen to discover a lot of things in the Wikipedia since I last read the guidelines maybe 2 years ago, I found out that Kamo Mphela was violating the copyrights via copyright vio detector and I tagged it deletion which most probably happened and even though I might have done the right thing it kind of feels bad cause I happen to find more articles like Kabza De Small violating the rights above at least 80%. My question is, what must I do when I stumble across this? Tag it for cleanup or deletion? Neoinsession (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

AFD close of Aage Leidersdorff

Hi Liz,

I just want to ask about this AFD close, as I believe you may have over-weighted the WP:ANYBIO votes; the editors claimed that the award was significant, but without evidence, while evidence was presented against the award being significant. I was hoping you would be willing to reconsider your close and instead relist? BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BilledMammal,

I don't like to revert discussion closures because that means whoever dislikes the decision can simply challenge it to try to get it decided their preferred way. But, I'm also admittedly new to closing AFDs and there is no harm in relisting the discussion so I'll agree to your request this time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Content removal

Hi – a few hours ago you removed two lengthy paragraphs from the Book of Moses article, and another paragraph from Mormonism and Freemasonry, both times citing an apparently unrelated AfD result in your edit summary. Was this a mistake or am I missing something? Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dan from A.P..

No, it was a mistake. I thought the AFD closer tool was removing a link from the page, not entire paragraphs. I'll go through my contributions today and see if there are any other large edits like this. I appreciate you catching these errors. I'm still getting used to the process of closing discussions...I frequently use the Twinkle unlink tool with PRODs and I thought the XFDCloser tool worked similarly but apparently it doesn't just unlink the article subject but removes all mention of it from a page altogether which is much too much of a blunt instrument, more like a hatchet than a scalpel. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention so I can correct it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting for undeletion

Hello I saw you had deleted a page through afd process named Arham Abbasi. I want to expand the page as I saw there are a lot of news article on Google. And hence the subject is meeting WP:GNG as well as it meets WP:NACTOR. Here I am providing some news coverages below which show that the subject is notable enough right now. So I'll request you to please undelete the page. Thanks Articles- Times Of India, Hindustan Times, Telly Chakkar, Telly Chakkar, Times Of India, Telly Chakkar. There are lot of news article on Google. If you want i can copay and paste here. Trakinwiki (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Trakinwiki,

Actually, I deleted the page back in early January, the version you worked on was deleted by another administrator, User:Justlettersandnumbers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: the user Justlettersandnumbers deleted the page because I had created the page today. But I didn't knew that the page was deleted previously. So he/she deleted for G4. So now I need to edit and expand the deleted version. So I need the page to be undeleted. Can you please undelete the page or else give me some suggestions. Thank you Trakinwiki (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If your version was different than the previous version, argue your case at WP:Deletion review. I can't just undo an AFD decision to delete a page and that version wasn't even your version! The version deleted in the AFD was different from the one you created so restoring that version wouldn't help you and besides I can't undo it. Or ask Justlettersandnumbers to email you the content in your new version but I really have nothing to do with this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: thank you for your suggestion. Trakinwiki (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion survivor

Two things: first, there seems to be some template leakage, since the AfD is still listed in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) after closing.

Second, I'm wondering about the deleted content: while the consensus of the participants in the AfD was that we should not have an article by that name, two of the participants indicated that some of the content was usable in the encyclopedia, one giving the curious !vote delete and merge. Would it be possible to undelete to Draft:Abortion survivor? I'll put an AFCH notice on the page linking to the AfD and saying we should not have an article in mainspace by this title and then blank the page when I'm done. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Charles Stewart,

I thought the XFD Closer tool was supposed to take care of all of the details but I'll look into the category listing.

I'm not sure about draftifying the deleted draft. I'll revisit the AFD today and look over the article as well as the policy pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I consider the AfD discussion to have been raising TNT-level concerns about the article and I'm not requesting draftification for AfC-like purposes; I'd only use AFCH comments, not submission. I'd like to see the draft and decide for myself if the suggestions in the AfD that there was salvageable content in the article are true. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No hurry with this, but I just wanted to be sure this hadn't just dropped off your task list: did you get a chance to review the AfD? — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:All articles with excessive see also sections

Hi,

I see you deleted this category as C1. This is a cleanup category which is automatically populated by {{too many see alsos}}. It's nice that it got emptied, but it's inevitably going to get repopulated when articles are tagged, and helps to get this issue fixed. Any objection to undeletion? Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As it's been re-populated, I've restored the category page. I've also improved the documentation at WP:C1 to be explicit about cleanup categories being exempt (this is made clear elsewhere). Happy to discuss if you have any concerns. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward),

I'm sorry for the delay in responding, I seem to have missed seeing your messages. Yesterday was a little bit busy for me.

Looking at Category:All articles with excessive see also sections, I don't see why I deleted it as it wasn't tagged for deletion. Most clean up categories that I delete are dated (like "March 2021" or "February 14, 2022") so there is an AnomieBot message that appears on the page after the date has passed that says they can be deleted but that was not the case here. Thank you for restoring it. Looks like a mistake on my part. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all! I wonder if it might have been a bug in the bot. Thanks for replying. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves by User Rayver calilung

Hello Liz, need some help here since the editor you've blocked before was back again since his block expired and its doing again some disruptive page moves. I've reported the editor at WP:AIV but no response yet so I've decided to warn the editor though it was just ignored and keeps doing it. Please see these recent contributions. Regards VictorTorres2002 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, VictorTorres2002,

Looks like this chaos happened when I was sleeping last night and they sure did a lot of damage. I did a little bit of cleaning up. If you happen to have some of these pages on your Watchlist, please notify an admin (hopefully one who is awake!) if they return to repeat their destructive page moves. Thank you for your help in this matter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Liz, no problem! Glad I've noticed the disruption on one of the articles that was on my watchlist. Good thing that person who was intending of moving articles to other names (eg. ABS-CBN -> Help:ABS-CBN, etc..) was already blocked. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Therthally

Good luck with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop threatening to block me

I have posted truthful and well sourced information on my edit. Stop removing contents because you may know the person or want to protect her because she is also a woman. Elstonbrene (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elstonbrene,

The content you posted violates our policy on Biography of Living Persons. I don't know who this person is and have no desire to protect her for any reasons, I am just enforcing Wikipedia policy and telling you that if you persist, you will be blocked by an administrator. You have been given repeated warnings to stop so please do. We do not want to block editors from contributing but if they continue to violate Wikipedia policies after being warned, that is a step we must take to protect the project. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. The links are of the supreme court of new york and columbia and are truthful. All sources are reliable. Tell me why that violates wikipedia rules? You are for sure protecting people here. Elstonbrene (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What you are doing is gatekeeping and that is not accepted in Wikipedia otherwise this platform becomes available to tendencious people only. That is not the mission of this project! Elstonbrene (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said, read over BLP and that might help you understand better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules say: “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.“ Tell me why the supreme court of new york is not a reliable source??? Elstonbrene (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Tell me what is reliable source. If you think the Supreme Court of New York publishes garbage please make that clear. You have no rights to give me the warning as the sources are VERY reliable Elstonbrene (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are you deleting contents?

Why have you deleted the history of our discussion? Elstonbrene (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elstonbrene,

I haven't deleted anything, it's right above this discussion. I'm kind of busy right now, I don't have time to chat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Axolotls

Does that template not meet WP:CSD criterion G8, "dependent on a nonexistent or deleted page"? I don't see any reason not to speedy it now if there is an appropriate CSD criterion, regardless of whether or not it's already at TFD. There's really no reason in letting the TFD drag on if a CSD fits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TenPoundHammer,

Not exactly sure what you are referring to but I just got done examining 45 files that were tagged as PRODs. I'll take a look when I'm finished with what I'm doing right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to removing my {{db-G8}} from Template:WikiProject Axolotls. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TenPoundHammer,

Well, I reverted your reversion of my reversion so the page is back to where it was when I first saw it. Except for a few important CSD criteria, I think that deletion discussions should have priority over speedy deletion taggings. But that is my personal judgment, not any policy-based rule so I put your tag back. Maybe a different admin patrolling CSD categories will agree with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Gregg P. Sullivan

Regarding your deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg P. Sullivan: I am a VRTS volunteer in contact with the subject of this article, who us understandably confused about its deletion. He has offered to provide additional sources. Is it OK with you if I restored this article to draft space for further improvement? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Anachronist,

I have mixed feelings. I assessed the arguments of the participants in the AfD, I have no investment in whether or not this article exists. But the AFD nominator stated that the article had previously been deleted and only exists because of VRTS intervention and I don't think that the subject of an article should be able to appeal to you guys to revert an AFD decision, apparently, more than once. I hope you can see how this could spiral out-of-control if it wasn't just this one person but the subject of any article that gets deleted who could appeal to VRTS as a way to overcome a deletion decision.

That said, if you want to take responsibility for this instance, then you can restore article and work on improvements. I hope the subject won't be editing the article himself because of obvious WP:COI problems. And if it gets restored to Draft space and is immediately moved to main space, I hope Sullivan knows that it will be tagged for speedy deletion as a CSD G4. We have very active patrollers. The only way I know to overcome an AFD deletion decision is to work through AFC and get the approval of an AFC reviewer who will evaluate the new sources you mention. But it feels strange lecturing you, you already know all of this!

With all of these caveats though, I appreciate you coming to me and asking, it's a courteous thing to do and it doesn't always happen. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My recommendation to the subject would be that I move it to draft space (and I would EC-create-protect the mainspace title) on the condition that he improves it and submits it via AFC. I'll review the sources he provides and offer suggestions but I have no intention of writing that article.

Just to be clear, his initial contact was simply to ask why he couldn't find his article after it had been deleted via WP:PROD. I considered that a WP:REFUND request and restored it, recommending to the proposer to take it to AFD, which was done. After you deleted it, Sullivan didn't appeal to me to revert the AFD, I don't believe he's even aware of it, he just wondered why the article had disappeared again. It was my idea to propose draft+AFC but I wanted to check with you first as the deleting administrator.

Because most reviewers are extended-confirmed anyway, I find that create-protecting main space titles with ECP still allows qualified reviewers to create the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Elaine Elizabeth Presley

Hi, Liz I hope you're doing well. You had talked with me before, about my article on Elaine Elizabeth Presley. We spoke, along with the editor of her book and we have compiled a new bio on her for Wikipedia, and I wanted to share it with you and see if you can help us so it can stay on Wikipedia for a new page for Elaine Elizabeth Presley. We have more sources of references and cite,etc including documents that will be included in regards the validation of her being Elvis & Priscilla's oldest daughter. We have a letter from one of the VFW posts signed, her baptism record directly, from the Morman Church for their server from the Church citing Elvis/Priscilla as parents. BMI music listing, including names of Elaine & her sister Lisa Maire Presley for their song, "Graceland Anthem". Also, Humanitarian Globel Foundation, letter to Elaine Presley. We also have a legal document, from the immigration dept when Elaine came "home" to the US, from the UK that has Elvis & Priscilla as her biological parents. --Aaronpac1 (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Aaron Presley P. [[User:aaronpac1| Aaronpac1 (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aaronpac1,

These all sound like primary sources which are generally unacceptable. Please review Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is only interested in information that is verifiable through reliable, secondary sources like books, journals, magazines and major media company websites that have editorial review. We can not accept self-published information as it is considered unreliable.

And this isn't a matter of winning me over, but of abiding by Wikipedia policies. We have many editors who review all new articles that are put directly into article space and will tag any with inappropriate content for deletion and they use Wikipedia policies as their guide to this. My best advice is to work on a draft article in Draft space and submit it for review to Articles for Creation. The editors at AFC spend their time reviewing new articles and can offer you the best advice on what you need to do to have a successful article moved to main space of the project.

If you have general questions about article creation, editing on Wikipedia, conflict-of-interest and Wikipedia policies, you should bring your questions to the Teahouse, a forum that exists to help new editors with these subjects. The Teahouse is where I brought my questions when I was starting off as a new editor and you can generally get advice and support from experienced editors there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I use my sandbox

Hey Liz I hope you are fine and safe. Can I use my sandbox to edit Ayan (actor) to make further Improvements as sandbox is for experimental edits. If you say yes please send the link for sandbox where I can create the sandbox ( example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ayan_(actor) is the link for draft like this I want to get the sandbox link) Thankyou ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, २ तकर पेप्सी,

You can create your own sandbox but I made a page for you at User:२ तकर पेप्सी/Sandbox. I have found that it's good to put the "User sandbox" template on the page until you are ready to submit the page as a draft. Hopefully, this will prevent an editor from moving the page to Draft space before it is ready. I hope this is what you were asking for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes thanks Liz can you just re check the sandbox as the Infobox is not working or showing properly. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 23:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is embarrassing, २ तकर पेप्सी, but I tried to "fix" this infobox several times but when I previewed my changes, it made the situation worse! I'd bring this question to the Teahouse, I'm sure there will be an editor there who will know more about infoboxes than I do. Sorry I can't help you with this problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fox-eye lifting (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fox-eye lifting and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fox-eye lifting, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 23:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for deleted module code

Hello! I have been rather busy recently and I did not notice a module and template I made (Module:Polling table) was deleted for lack of usage. It was not actually an experiment and I wish it could have become an actual used module, so it's disappointing to see this work lost when I hadn't technically abandoned it yet. Since you are in the administrator group, if you can still access the old edits could you please send me the code (through pastebin or something else) so I can keep it for when I will resume work on it (someday in the future hopefully)? Thank you in advance! Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 23:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Julio974fr,

I'm sorry you weren't active when your template was being discussed so you could argue for it to be retained. I'm not familiar with how pastebin works but I could email you the contents of the last version of the page if you have email enabled on your account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes emailing is enabled, it would be perfect! Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 00:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, the email has been sent. I hope the formatting of the code is correct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Stereotypes of animals

23:48, 12 February 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Stereotypes of animals (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of animals (2nd nomination)

Remembering this page, I was going to add this wikilink into the article Anthropomorphism, but alas! the page is gone :-(. Indeed, I remember it being a laundry list, but it did contain several generic scholarly references. Please restore it temporarily into my user space, so that I can copy the references to use them elsewhere. (as for the deceased article itself, I was thinking that the place of its items is in the wiktionary; e.g., a meaning in "wikt:fox": "(slang, figuratively) A cunning person.") Loew Galitz (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Loew Galitz,

How about I email you the content? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(It was not set in my wp account, and I forgot my password! and cannot set it. I guess I cannot log out now :-( Loew Galitz (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Loew Galitz,

You can get into your Wikipedia Preferences and enable email. This is a good idea to do this, in case you do get logged out, you can get back into it through a message to your email account. It's very easy to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I forgot wikipedia password. It is required to set email. I do remember my email password so I can read emails. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, wow. And you probably need your old password to reset your password. That is a tight spot! I hope you don't get logged out. I will use this email address and then remove it from my page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I sent it to you. It's very long, lots of code. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion of my old brain. It seems I typed you a wrong email. Anyway, now I remembered both my e-address and wikipedia password, so I would humbly ask you to send the article via wikipedia mail (setting it required email verification, so I am sure it is set correctly). Loew Galitz (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Minds are a strange thing, I'm glad you remembered it. I was out most of the day and am just seeing your message so I'll send you the content tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. After looking at the page and remembering what I'we read recently, I realized it is a reasonable disambig page. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sharayu Date

As you said, "no more spammy" than a lot of stuff. This was in draft space. I would have declined it if it had been submitted, and it should still be declined if it is submitted without change. There are at least three ways to deal with spammy stuff in mainspace:

• a. remove the spam.
• b. tag it with any of various tags that translate to "spammy".
• c. tag it for AFD.

And spammy stuff in draft space can be declined or ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon,

I delete A LOT of pages. That's been my primary admin activity for a couple of years now. I don't think anyone could accuse me of being soft on pages that are unsuitable for Wikipedia. I just have seen a lot of promotional garbage in Draft space and it looked like this page actually had sources to support a claim of notability though I admit that I didn't investigate the quality of all the sources.

I also have seen "promotional or advertising" criteria used too much to delete pages in Draft space because it's one of the few speedy deletion criteria that is acceptable for drafts. I think that a lot of bad pages get tagged with this criteria to get rid of them when they might not be a perfect fit for this criteria. This page just didn't reach the bar for me on frivolous advertising. You say you'd decline it if it was submitted and maybe it will never make it to main space. But, for me, I need a good reason to delete a page, even an unpromising one so I untagged this one. Who knows, maybe the editor will improve it to become an acceptable article given some time. I've seen drafts that were one sentence turned into Start class articles so let's be optimistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Article not ready for main space

Hi madam, you instructed me to not move articles older than 6 months from main space to draft space. However, I keep finding articles I think they are not ready for main space and they are somewhat older, check out Eric Macheru, and before I cleaned it, it was written like a biography of a fictional character. Neoinsession (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neoinsession,

Cases where you find improperly sourced, older articles are when you should use Proposed Deletion (PRODs) or nominate the article at Articles for Deletion (AFDs). But it is easier to start with PRODding some articles. In those cases, any editor who disagrees with the deletion can remove the tag and you have to provide a justification for why you believe the article should be deleted and it should be based in Wikipedia policies, like Notability or issues over reliable sourcing. But it's important with PRODs that you check the page history, articles can only be PROD'd once so if it has been tagged with a PROD before, it'll need to go to WP:AFD. At AFD, you're expected to have done a WP:BEFORE search to make sure that the subject really is not notable. On the other hand, if the article is just poorly written, you might spend some time working as an editor and improving the article.

If you aren't familiar with it, you should learn all about Twinkle. Twinkle is an editing tool used by editors to tag pages for deletion and it makes things very easy, you don't have to worry about finding the right template, there is just a drop down menu and you select what you need to do. Just make sure you set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then Twinkle will post notifications for you on the talk page of the page creator, a necessary step in every process of deletion on Wikipedia. It really simplifies things and I encourage editors to use it. If you want, it will even maintain a log for you that records all of the pages that you have tagged for deletion...I've found it useful to review those logs and see if articles have been recreated or if I judged an article differently from what other editors thought. It all helps you become a better editor. I hope this is useful to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Brihans Natural Products

I nominated it for AfD. The IP 2405:201:1006:E03A:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) that was highly interested in topics related to this and had voted to draftify in the AfD was caught up in a what appears to me, a non-admin, to be a completely unrelated block, early on during the discussion. They could've created a new account, but their lack of participation later told me they perhaps didn't wish to. I wanted to note this in the AfD page but forgot. If possible, I request you to add a WP:REFUND note (I understand if you don't, since there were multiple del votes) or consider it favorably if they request later, as they are a competent and productive editor. Hemantha (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hemantha,

I'm not really sure what you are asking me to do so I will look at the article and the AFD and see if your request makes more sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry! An IP participant at the AfD wished to draftify so they had time to search for offline sources. They were caught up in a wide IP block for unrelated reasons (I think) and weren't able to participate later. I only wished to note the circumstances, so that any WP:REFUND request from them will be considered favorably. Again apologies for taking up your time somewhat unnecessarily. Hemantha (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

APL

Greetings, Liz! I have checked in and saw my article has been deleted despite my objections to it. The cited reason, G4, does not include articles which are different from the old ones, or that had their errors fixed.

"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." I am happy to answer any questions or criticism regarding the page, but it should be judged as any other article, as I have worked on it from scratch, with nothing to start with but the old citations and infobox. I have added around 10 citations to it to account for the previous criticism.

I ask for the deletion to be reverted, as it does not conform to the speedy deletion guidelines of wikipedia, and for any constructive criticism to be delivered on its talk page so that I may work to improve it. Sincerely, Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: Per the standard conduct, I wish to inform you I submitted a deletion review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_February_20 I do not know how this notification is to be done, I hope this is sufficient. Sincerely, Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Andrei Zhdanov,

Before I do anything you have to give me a link to the page you are talking about. And I'm going out to dinner soon, so it might take me a while to reply. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. Excuse me, I am new to this wiki thing :P https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Party_of_Labor&action=edit&redlink=1 Have fun at dinner! Sincerely, Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Dinner was nice. But I think that now that you have started a Deletion Review, that changes things a great deal. This is now an official, week-long discussion on whether the article should be restored so it's not a matter of me just undeleting it for you. I have commented there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you had fun at Dinner! Worry not, I have checked the clauses for Deletion Review before my submission. The article can be undeleted until a concensus is formed regarding the final vertict on the delete. Furthermore, it can be speedily overturned exactly if you just undelete it. I respect you and your tireless work in improving this project; With this in mind, The course of action I would suggest is restoring the page until a consensus is formed, while pushing for a speedy overturn to save time. "Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate." "Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the TempUndelete template, leaving the history for review by everyone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion Sincerely, Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy for you

Nice to see a woman working on Wikipedia. Neverrunoutofgreatmovies (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are more of us than you think. Many admins and editors who go by gender neutral usernames are actually women. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion on article deletion policies

Hi, User:Liz, I just wanted to get your opinion on – and maybe help with – this case: My article Other, Like Me: The Oral History of COUM Transmissions and Throbbing Gristle had been proposed for deletion by user Donaldd23 (whom I won't tag here for good reasons), only two hours after it had been given a notability tag by another user. Wouldn't it have been fair at least to give me some moderate amount of time after the article had received the notability tag, instead of confronting me with a seven day deadline? (Which could have collided with my possible being on holiday, ill, or offline for any other reason – gladly it didn't.) I had contacted Donaldd23 about this (and tagged you in my post on his talk page) and told him that I find his working method unfriendly and unccoperative, but received no earnest answer from him (he deleted my inquiry in the meantime, which can be only found in the history). Is there any WP discussion consensus that deletionist users should at least give an article author some moderate amount of time to improve their article before they are subject to possible deletion by e.g. first leaving a notabilty tag (which had been done here, but not by Donaldd23), or do I have to accept this strict kind of method? (Which I still, as I've said before, find arbitrary, unfriendly and uncooperative.) Many thanks --Robert Kerber (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sachhi Saheli

Good Lord, Liz. It verily drips promotionalism. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Deepfriedokra,

Well, call me an optimist. You're an admin, go ahead and delete the page if you think that is the right call. I never said I'm perfect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, if I tag it, it's for double checking. I don't delete my own tags usually. Now I guess the AfCers can look at it. Oh, well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

American Embassy School

because I'm not sure whether you're a ping person, User_talk:Star_Mississippi#American_Embassy_School has a question for you. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 17:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Have a look

User:२ तकर पेप्सी/Sandbox first of all the IP marked the page for Speedy deletion where the article is being ready for the mainpage. How come someone tag the page for this! Will it be better to protect the page to prevent further IP vandalism? 19:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

We're careful about only protecting User pages for limited amounts of time in cases of severe disruption so I don't think this one edit warrants semi-protected. And rest assured, admins review pages tagged for deletion so there is little chance that an admin would delete a page based on a random IP's tagging. If you start feeling harassed in the future, return and we can revisit the issue.

Please remember to sign your posts so I can see who I'm talking to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Tiny question about your closure of Articles for deletion/The Book of Common Worship of 1946

Hi! Sorry for the slightly anxiety inducing title here; I think the closure was right and all. I was just trying to seek a clarification. The AfD was closed by you as a redirect, which is what I !voted for so I very much have no issue with that. I do have a question; both myself and the other person who asked for the redirect were advocating for redirecting it to Liturgical books of the Presbyterian Church (USA)#Book of Common Worship (1906, 1932, and 1946) whereas your close was just to retarget to the page without retargeting to a section. Would you mind if I retargeted to the specific section as that is where the book is mentioned? Sorry for this question which is likely overly cautious, I just did not want to go against AfD consensus derived via closure to edit something like this without at least clarifying with closing admin. TartarTorte 03:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TartarTorte,

Feel free to make the redirect more precise. Yours has been the most polite challenge to an AFD I have closed so no worries there. Stay well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Diff/1073455442. Reminds me of another big fan of yours; the country and timeframe match, but some digging through their contribs makes me think it's a coincidence. Still... It's weird. Also pinging Anachronist. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tamzin,

I have mixed feelings about an admin having "fans". With my work with expiring drafts every day, I post an awful lot of talk page notices and I'll often post a welcome message and "Come to the Teahouse!" message at the same time if the User Talk page is otherwise blank. So, someone could be partial to me because I was the first person to come to their talk page and welcome them which is fine.

OR, it could be that they were doing something against the rules and I didn't come down hard on them, which is not fine. Often, I've found, it's because I didn't take in the extent of what they are trying to get away with, I was just looking at one small piece instead of the big picture of their entire contribution history.

When I look at SPI reports, I think you clerks have a very interesting job, evaluating the scope of an editor's contributions and judging them alongside the work of past, blocked editors. I'm sure you all have methods that no one outside SPI-world knows about but it sometimes seems like you have a sixth sense for sniffing out paid editors and sockpuppets in a way that most of the rest of us don't have. Or I just go above and beyond with assuming good faith, I dunno! But thanks for the head's up on these two editors, I was unawre of the situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned you and Anachronist on my talk page as I changed my username to Anachroliz which is inspired by you two. (You two are the only admins where I came and you two guided me what to do what to not.) ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 21:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, २ तकर पेप्सी,

I hope you won't be offended but it is simultaneously flattering and kind of weird. But, let's go with flattering today. ;-) Glad I could help you in the past. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

sorry if you mind something, should I request go lack with my original username? ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a big confusing because you are still going by २ तकर पेप्सी, at least here. Is that an alternate account? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No no User:Anachroliz is the account after changing the username. It's maybe confusing for you as I haven’t changed my sign. It's still my old username.... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 22:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Liz and Anachronist: Sorry for disturbing . FYI Anachroliz aka २ तकर पेप्सी is CU confirmed and blocked for sockpuppetry per 22 Feb. 2022 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousIndiaz. He/She was actually telling lies about not doing paid editing. As per my understanding, Ayan Nayak is also fake, he never acted in the films with notable roles (I'm not pressing this fact because its very time taking to present evidences and I have more important real world). Anyways Ayan Nayak is fully protected due to WP:PROMOTION and spamming. I feel they may come back in future. Most of the time you did not believe me because I am an IP. Anyways I am here to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Thank you everyone for the co-operation. Thank you 2402:3A80:6BE:DC75:B4BC:35B3:B6FC:9A5A (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

About Notre-Dame brûle

Hie, I'm responding about the message you let on my page about About the article Notre-Dame brûle that I just worked on. I'm not to sure why you think I did a "cut-and-paste move" or why it registered as it so I'm just gonna explain what happened. I first began to work on the page while at a café. They had problems with their wifi, so I ended just posting what I did with the idea that I'd finish it back home (since I had finished my coffee). Back home, an hour later, when I reopened my computer to finish things, it's to discover than someone had moved the page to Draft:Notre-Dame brûle. I began to work on the page but revalidating the page didn't work the first time because "Notre-Dame brûle already exist" (they had just made a redirection to draft or something ? I'm not sure). The link to reestablish the page from the Notre-Dame brûle history page didn't work either as, stupor : someone else had canceled the page.

Since it didn't let me finish on the draft/rename it as a mainspace page/, I copied pasted the work I just did on a new page , spend an hour adding some new information while previsualising with regularity. When I tried to validate, the system asked if I wanted to abandon because "the pagehas been canceled" (Oh, really? never noticed...) or if I really, really wanted to create the new "Notre-Dame brûle" page, so I clicked "yes".

Those kind of things wouldn't happen if people waited just a couple of hours after the creation of a page before moving it from mainspace to a draft or weren't so hasty into canceling a page moved to a draft but the complete history of the page (creation/moved/cancellation/creation) is still there. --Zeynel (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Zeynel,

You are describing messages you received while you were working on your computer which, obviously, I can not see so I have no response to. Would you like me to move the Draft back to main space? What you describe is a "cut and paste" move, I'm not sure why you discontinued working on the Draft and pasted it into a different page on main space rather than moving the Draft back but please do not try explaining to me what you saw on your computer!

I was just trying to get a message across that it would be preferable for you to work on the version in Draft space and eventually move it back to main space rather than to cut and paste a new version on a different page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As I just said, the system didn't let me move the Draft back. Believe me, I TRIED. Several times, and even TWO different ways, BOTH from the draft and the history in mainspace. Nothing worked. And NO, do NOT try to move the draft, better cancel it, or do you want to CANCEL the hours of work I did on the actual page ? ! ! The main problem is that several persons were too eager to move things to draft/cancel pages, instead of waiting a couple of hours after the creation of a page as someone might still be in the process of working on it. (it was 20:14 when I first created the page, 20:59 when a first person moved it to draft, 21:09 when another cancelled the original page) --Zeynel (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you are getting angry with me, I just made a suggestion. I have no control over what editors do. I just wanted to give that notice about cut & paste moves to you, you are free to edit either page to your heart's content, I have no more involvement in this matter. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Question 3

So, a while ago, I obviously didn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and I just thought it was a place for sharing knowledge, not a place for storing verified, encyclopedic knowledge. I got very annoyed at User:Materialscientist after they deleted my page (Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals) which was created by me, and that was obviously the right thing to do regarding the purpose of Wikipedia. However, please could you do me a favor? Could you please view what was written on that page and give it to me so I can put it somewhere else where it will be appreciated? If you do this, I would be so glad, as I don't want to lose all of that knowledge.

Binary198 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Binary198,

This is confusing, I looked at the deleted page Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals and all it contained was a personal message from you saying you created an article that had been deleted. There was no other content there. Your only other deleted edits were to an article Sbiis Saibian which was deleted for being promotional so that can't be restored. So, I don't see any other edits from this deleted article that you refer to, maybe you wrote it with another editor account? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's weird. Maybe try the link Ultimate, solid and more types of cardinals instead? I don't know. Regarding Sbiis Saibian, that's fine. I obviously didn't understand the concept of *notability* when I wrote that :D Obviously I now am much more experienced now, as I am administrator on another MediaWiki wiki. Binary198 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Liz, I remember now. I cut'n'pasted most of the content from Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals into the new page Ultimate, solid and more types of cardinals (which also got deleted). Could you please give me what was written on the latter page so I can put it somewhere? Binary198 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed PROD tag on Rajen Sharma

The tag was removed by a user who was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet, and all of their intervening edits were reverted for block evasion. Is that still a valid removal of the PROD tag? —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, C.Fred,

Well, he wasn't blocked as a sockpuppet when the tag was put back up because I came from his contributions page to the article that was PROD'd and that wasn't the deletion reason. I think ordinarily, his edits could be reverted but now that I have removed the tag, I don't think it can go back up. Damn, bureaucracy can bite. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You're Invited! Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia

On, Friday, February 25, 2022, Oregon State University will be hosting an online editathon focused on Black history of the Pacific Northwest. You can learn more here and/or register here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Garbage state

You may want to add a rationale for closing as Delete, if you think there was consensus. It does appear that It's a negative twist on the true nickname of New Jersey which is the Garden State., which did not come up in the discussion, is actually your POV, and so a WP:Supervote. If this was inspired by the title of one of the articles that came up, that vote was not for delete, and the article doesn't talk negatively about the term Garbage State. Jay (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted my closure and someone else can come to the same conclusion I did. I'm biting my tongue so I don't say something I regret. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Angus Taylor (philosopher)

Hi Liz; I've restored this (as per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Undeletion) as I believe Taylor notable. I'll aim to get some book reviews up establishing that he meets WP:AUTHOR, but, in the mean time, if people are concerned they can take it to AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Josh Milburn,

You don't need my permission to restore a deleted PROD but thanks for letting me know. It looks like you went ahead and later deleted it so did you change your mind or was the article that was PROD'd just not very helpful? Thanks for dropping by! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz; I realise I didn't need your permission, I just thought it polite to let you know! I still believe Taylor likely notable (by the letter of at least some relevant policies), but I contacted him and asked if he had a list of reviews of his book (to save me delving into the archives...) and he said he'd prefer if he didn't have an article. Since his notability is borderline, I thought it best to re-delete in the spirit of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Of course, if anyone has any worries about this, we can put the matter through the appropriate procedures. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Permission

@Liz: I want to know that actor Susovan Sonu Roy can that page recreate by Extended Confirmed User ? 2409:4060:2E15:5B56:0:0:5888:5104 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2409:4060:2E15:5B56:0:0:5888:5104,

I think there is a mistake in the protection here so I've asked the admin who protected the page about it. If it continues to be protected, you'd need to have a user account to edit it but Draft space is available to work in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You won't be able to create it in draft either. We've WP:SALTed the article and the draft due to users abusing multiple accounts repeatedly attempting to publish the article, which clearly did not meet our notability guidelines. I'd suggest finding another venue to promote this individual. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Ohnoitsjamie. I'm sure that's not the answer they were seeking but better to know exactly what the situation is and what is and what isn't possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Ohnoitsjamie: @Liz: Who said that this Actor is not notable ? See this link https://g.co/kgs/Biqwb1 ... You can get all details and the actor done several TV shows I'm not promoting but I'm asking it with proper evidence.

Features for new users coming soon (and mentors, like you, wanted!)

Hello. As you're currently a host at the Teahouse, I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each users will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.

• Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
• There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
• Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.

To spread the load on our current list of around 65 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse and elsewhere, and I've had just the one in the last 3 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here.

If becoming a mentor and helping new users on their first few days here interests you - just as you already do at the Teahouse - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences.

Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nick Moyes,

This all sounds interesting, Nick, I didn't know anything about this project. If I understand you correctly, ALL new editors will see a Homepage tab but only 10% will be offered mentors, is that correct? I think it would be great if there was something like an automatic User talk page that was created for all new editors with a Welcome message, I know that there are Teahouse Welcome messages but that's only to a small percentage of new editors, I guess ones that have made Contributions. I never thought of an "Impact" feature but I guess those aspects are important to some people in this age of social media. How do you determine their "suggested edits", is that through AI or something? Will there be a general announcement about these features in the Signpost? I think these changes would interest a lot of current editors.

To be honest, I didn't know I was still listed as a host at the Teahouse, I helped out there frequently around 2013-2016, then I took a two year break from editing Wikipedia and I haven't been there much since I returned to editing in 2018 but I guess they didn't remove me as a host! I have a list of daily tasks that keeps me pretty busy right now but I'm in the process of reassessing how I spend my time on Wikipedia so I might sign up in the future. I appreciate you informing me about all of this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz, and thank you for signing up! I hope you find the expereince worthwhile. To answer your questions: Yes, 100% rollout to every new account once the RfC is closed (aiming at 7th March, I believe). But only 10% of those new accounts will automatically get a mentor. The rationale is that we don't want to swamp mentors, and the proportion getting mentors can be scaled back/forwards according to demand and availability of mentors.

As well as the manual welcome messages we might leave after people have visited the Teahouse, many do receive an automated welcome from Hostbot, run by JTMorgan, after their first few constructive edits - but this only goes to a proportion of new users. (I have an alt-account created a few weeks ago, and am still sulking that I haven't yet had such an automated welcome message there!)

I think the Impact features is really quite a neat idea. Yes, people do value feedback on how they're doing, and this a a good way of showing it, I feel.

I can't comment on whether the Signpost will carry a feature - I suspect it will. (There will, hopwever, be some host interviews in the next issue to mark the 10 year anniversary of the Teahouse. There has been talk of banner publicity for the new Growth Team features, though I'm not sure if that will actually go ahead. All key discussions about the en-wiki rollout are at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features.

Whilst you have not been hugely active at the Teahouse recently, I must take responsibility for you still being listed there. But I did so quite intentionally. I maintain an Excel spreadsheet at home of all Teahouse hosts, new sign-ups and past helpers. I try to welcome every new host who signs up, and remove any of those who have not edited even once after 6 months of doing so. For past active hosts, I take a much more lax view (my records show you last edited there in Dec 21). But I also leave in any host whose username helps demonstrate we aren't all white, male and northern hemisphere based. So, where I can ascertain it, I positively discriminate towards female, young or southern-hemisphere based editors, whilst still also trying to keep the host list reasonably up-to-date. I regard it as the first place a developing editor might like to gain some further involvement and responsibility within this project without actually needing a WP:PERM, so there's no big deal if we don't keep the host list bang up-to-date. I also see the Teahouse as a means to develop the skills and courtesy these new mentors we will need, where it's more of a 1-to-1 interaction, with little oversight, and a greater need for the right kind of encouragement.

It's always important to get the balance right in what you commit to here, so I wish you well in that and hope we all find the new mentorship scheme a great way to increase editor retention. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nick Moyes,

Thanks for all of the additional information. Even though I might not answer many questions at the Teahouse these days, I do feel a deep connection to the place. My main job here lately has been taking care of expiring drafts and if there is no other message on a new editor's talk page, I often post a "Come to the Teahouse!" message. Seriously, I have used this template tens of thousands of times a year and in my personal messages to new editors, I always point them towards the Teahouse. I don't think there are metrics of this but I often wonder out of all of those thousands of invitations I post, how many of these editors wind up visiting the Teahouse....I'm not sure how the hosts feel about me directing so many inexperienced editors to go there but the Teahouse helped me out so much when I was first starting to edit that I think it's a great place to send editors who have questions about Wikipedia policies and practices.

There is a lot of frustration when you are a new editor and you keep being corrected about things you don't do right or don't know or things don't go your way and you are reverted and the Teahouse was always a calm place where I could vent my frustrations and have someone calmly explain to me why things are done the way they are done here. That's a priceless resource! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm really glad you do leave those messages, Liz. I think the Teahouse really is the best place to direct inexperienced users to. I wasn't aware of it for some years after I started, and would have welcomed its support - especially ponting out to be that there ws a 'Cite' button and that I didn't have to manually copy someone else's reference and then edit it to make it work for me. But I'm the kind of person who likes to take things apart and learn how they work, so mostly I stuck at it and am self-taught. Not everyone feels that way, and most simply want to make easy changes easily. Hopefully this extra level of support will give them added encouragement and support. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Closure

Hello,

I was wondering, would you be willing to close Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather#Redux:_New_RfC_(February_2022)? The discussion was initiated on February 6 and the RfC itself has been open for nearly two weeks. There hasn't been much participation during the past several days and it appears the consensus is clear. Nonetheless, I feel it would be controversial for me to close it. Noah^Talk 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hurricane Noah,

To be honest, I have only closed one other RFC and it was for your WikiProject when the decision was basically already agreed upon so it was uncontroversial. But you asked me to help and I'd like to accommodate your request. In closing RfCs, you can't please everyone but you don't want people contesting the closure and asking for it to be reopened, that just causes disruption among the participants. And editors contesting the closure can happen when the closer isn't experienced.

So, I'll look it over today and if I'm confident that it is a straight-forward call and the consensus IS clear, I'll be happy to help. My only initial question is the length of time it has been open, it seems in my experience that some discussions run as long as a month. But if there is a clear consensus, I guess it can be closed earlier than that. I'll see what I can do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hurricane Noah,

I read the entire discussion and closed the RFC according to the opinions expressed at the bottom of the discussion. There was a general consensus. Unfortunately, there is a problem with the formatting of the closure that I have not been able to fix. There is an {{abot}} at the bottom of the discussion but subsequent comments on different subjects are included in the closure of this RFC when they should not be and I don't know how to remove them. Are you adept with WikiCode? I used the closure tool and there seems to be the correct code at the top and bottom but then other discussions have been included in the RFC closure. My apologies for not knowing how to repair this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Kirkland

How could you close the discussion as delete without looking at the article's history? Did you not see the significant expansion which occurred eleven hours after the last delete !vote? ✗plicit 02:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

I assessed the arguments given in the AFD. That's how I come to my closure decisions. Would you like me to revert my closure? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted my closure and relisted the AFD for more discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I was about to post my response, but was met with an edit conflict. It seems that you feel your actions were justified, but you reverted your closure and relisted the discussion solely because on my message. It leads me to wonder if you considered the crux of the issue. Did you check the page history and do you feel that your deletion was still appropriate given the circumstances? ✗plicit 03:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

I stand by my closure at the time. But as an admin who has only recently started to close deletion discussions, I acknowledge that I may lack the long time experience to make a perfect judgment call which is why I am open to reverting my closures when I'm challenged. Since you implied there had been recent changes to the article that would influence editors voicing their opinion, I was open to relisting and extending the discussion for another week.

But I'm not going to make a "super vote" and overrule the consensus of the editors who had made their opinion known at the time I reviewed the AFD and I saw that as a consensus to Delete the article. I see now that since you have posted your comment there, several participants have changed their opinions so it was a sensible call to relist the discussion. As it looks now, this AFD will probably now be closed as "No consensus" unless there is a new influx of editors voicing their opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, looking at the editing of this article, the page creator has been blocked from editing the page for COI editing and there are some other suspicious new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

• From the team: Selection of a new Signpost Editor-in-Chief

• News and notes: Impacts of Russian invasion of Ukraine

• Opinion: Why student editors are good for Wikipedia

• Special report: A presidential candidate's team takes on Wikipedia

• In the media: Wiki-drama in the UK House of Commons

• Serendipity: War photographers: from Crimea (1850s) to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022)

• Technology report: Community Wishlist Survey results

• WikiProject report: 10 years of tea

• Featured content: Featured Content returns

• Deletion report: The 10 most SHOCKING deletion discussions of February

• Recent research: How editors and readers may be emotionally affected by disasters and terrorist attacks

• Arbitration report: Parties remonstrate, arbs contemplate, skeptics coordinate

• By the numbers: Does birthplace affect the frequency of Wikipedia biography articles?

• Gallery: The vintage exhibit

• Traffic report: Euphoria, Pamela Anderson, lies and Netflix

• News from Diff: The Wikimania 2022 Core Organizing Team

• Crossword: A Crossword, featuring Featured Articles

• Humour: Notability of mailboxes

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:REFUND

Hello, Liz! Can you please restore Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test? It was part of a contentious ANI a decade ago and probably should not be deleted. It redirects to the page I userfied quite some time ago. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Talkpage stalker here: totally your call Liz, but I oppose this request. We do not keep redirects from talkpages to other namespaces, especially not the user or usertalk namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bison X,

I'm sorry but we can't have redirects from main space to User space. It's not a matter of what I can or can not do, if I restored the page, it would be tagged for deletion and deleted by another admin. It's not a personal choice, it's policy. Read WP:R#DELETE and Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. It's a Speedy Deletion criteria, CSD R2, Cross-namespace. This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mainspace is defined as The main namespace is the default namespace and does not use a prefix in article page names. ... The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: * the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be. Since this was in the "talk" space, CSD R2 does not apply as it specifically is for "main namespace." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and will not restore a page that I think will just be deleted. I think your best bet is to request restoration at WP:REFUND and put forth your argument there. There might be an admin working there who agrees with your interpretation of policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I had to do this 10 years ago when it was restored, only that time it was taken to ANI. Technically, REFUND says If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you try to discuss but are still unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here., so I'll have to go to DRV instead. There is a lot of history to dig up, so it'll take me awhile to gather all of the evidence from the various archives. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bison X,

Well, I appreciate you coming to me first. But the thought of being brought back to Deletion Review for the third time this year fills me dread. Take as much time as you want to put together your case! I've only had negative experiences at Deletion Review so the odds are probably in your favor here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bison X,

I cave. I don't want to go back to Deletion Review and get another administrator colonoscopy. Although I'm sure that now I'll get complaints about restoring these two pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I just spent the weekend drafting a RfC so I, too, was dreading spending another few days drafting a DRV. So I greatly appreciate the restoration. However, When I looked at the redirects' histories, I fully expected to see someone had put a speedy tag on them. Can I ask, how did you come across these? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasted your time. But it might come in handy if the pages get tagged for deletion. You know how page patrollers can get, they can be zealous so this issue might not be completely resolved for all time.

Regarding how I came across the pages, every 6 hours, AnomieBot publishes a broken redirect list, a list that several different editors and admins regularly check...sometimes the broken redirects get deleted, sometimes they just need to be corrected. So I saw the pages on this iteration of the page. And I regularly delete cross-namespace redirects from articles that are moved to Draft space (there is a separate list on THAT subject every night) so the pages struck me as being inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Aha! A user moved the page in my user space from "User talk" (where I like to keep my sandboxes) to "User" before I moved it back a little under 3 hours later. So you saw it when it was broke. Ironic, it was unnoticed for 9 years and 49 weeks, but in the 3 hours it was mucked with, viola! Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Jans der Enikel

Hi Liz, I see you deleted the on-going GA process from Talk:Jans der Enikel. As I don't have a lot of experience of GA yet, could you explain this to me? Has the GA proposal been rejected or is there something I should be doing? Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doric Loon, the problem was with the reviewer, who wasn't doing the review. So the original review page was deleted, and as I imagine you've noticed, a new reviewer has opened a new review. At this point, all you have to do is to respond to the issues raised by the reviewer. I hope the new review goes more quickly this time! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for explaining. I was wondering why nothing had happened. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up after deleted GA reviews

Liz, many thanks for all the work you've been doing when GA review pages need to be deleted, including today's Talk:William Chaney/GA1 and Talk:Jans der Enikel/GA1 (the latter has already attracted a new reviewer, which is why it has a blue link). In addition to deleting the review pages on reviews that never got started, you've also been removing the transclusions of those review pages from the article talk pages, which also helps.

While you're at the article talk pages, if you're willing, it would be great if you could do one final step: delete the "onreview" status value in {{GA nominee}} while leaving the required "|status=" parameter in place. This is the final piece of cleanup that needs to be done. I've already done it for these two, and I'm happy to continue doing so, but I don't always notice when it's needed. (What does catch my attention is the WP:GAN history; in this case, it showed both of the articles as being On review "by Example"—see 04:41 this morning for the relevant entries. That's always an indication that the review page has disappeared, but the GA nominee template still has a status of "onreview".)

Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BlueMoonset,

Thanks for telling me about that, I have no involvement in GA or FA so wasn't aware of any extra steps that needed to be taken. I'll try to follow your instructions next time. It took a while before I realized that it is okay to delete incomplete review pages if the review is cancelled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hi Liz, can you please look at this article, I seriously doubt that it's ready for live space. Neo the Twin (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neo the Twin,

This page has been moved around a lot today but can now be found at Draft:DiepCity (South African TV Series). It can stay in Draft space until it is improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes

Modussiccandi

BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Followup to Question 3

Regarding the deletion of Sbiis Saibian, that's fine. I obviously didn't understand the concept of *notability* when I wrote that :D Regarding the page I asked about earlier though, I remember now. I cut'n'pasted most of the content from Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals into the new page Ultimate, solid and more types of cardinals (which also got deleted). Could you please give me what was written on the latter page so I can put it somewhere? Binary198 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Binary198,

What you have to understand is that there is a different standard of quality for articles that are put directly into the main space of the project. Articles put into main space are reviewed and tagged for speedy deletion if they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for article sourcing or completeness. That is why we encourage editors to create and develop articles in Draft space or User space like their Sandbox, where they can improve articles over time and submit them to Articles for Creation for review. In Draft and User space, articles do not have to be perfect, there, they are a work-in-progress. They can still be deleted if there is copyright infringement or if they are seen as overly promotional but they are not held to the same standard as main space articles.

Can I restore the article and move it to your User space? Please note the reason it was deleted was because the tagging editor thought it was a concept you made up. This means that the page will require substantial reliable sources to establish notability if it is ever to be moved into main space and not be deleted again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz!

> there is a different standard of quality for articles that are put directly into the main space of the project

Yes, I fully understand that now. Maybe not back then though.

> Can I restore the article and move it to your User space? Please note the reason it was deleted was because the tagging editor thought it was a concept you made up.

Yes please, that would be very good.

Binary198 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Umm, Liz? Can you please restore the article and move it to my user space? Best wishes, Binary198 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Binary198,

Sorry, I was distracted. The page is back at User:Binary198/Sandbox. Thanks for the reminder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Great Liz, thanks for doing that! For some reason most of the content is empty, but nevermind. Maybe the old link (Ultimate, solid and gargantuan) was actually the correct one, and the stuff I was looking for was just hidden in the revision history. Hmm... Maybe you could check? You don't have to, but I would appreciate it. Sorry, am I being annoying? Binary198 (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there was less content on that restored page than I was expecting to see. But I looked into your deleted contributions, you didn't have much, just Sbiis Saibian, a biography, and Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals which only contained a comment from you about losing an article. There was nothing else there that had been deleted.

I see a couple of possibilities. Either you wrote content and didn't "Publish changes", you didn't save the edit. In that case, the content can't be recovered. Or, you were editing with a different account, like you weren't logged in and were editing as an IP editor. Did you have a previous account? If you were editing as an IP, that could be very difficult to locate. Or, the content is obscured because of later edits to the page, it is buried in the page history. I'd look carefully through your Contributions and your subpages. But there is nothing else in your contributions that was deleted, just those two pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just in case you are curious, I restored Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals and moved it to User:Binary198/Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals so you can see the content that was deleted. Except for Sbiis Saibian, you have no more deleted edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Weird. Nevermind then. Thanks for your help anyways. Binary198 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD tags

Please stop aiding vandals by putting them on articles that have been vandalised. If you persist in this I will have to raise an issue at WP:ANI, and will ask for at least your admin rights to be taken away. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Phil Bridger,

Can you be more specific? On which articles were the tags inappropriate? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The one where I contested deletion today (you should have had this watchlisted and known) was Chaehoi Fatihou, but there are many others where I don't have time to restore the sources that were deleted, including today and many previous days. You may well nominate that particular article for deletion on the basis of lack of notability, but it does not qualify for WP:BLPPROD, which says, "review the biography's history to confirm that it has not been vandalized especially if sources have been removed, and there is no more suitable referenced version to revert to." The same goes for many other articles that you have put this tag on. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Champions League

Please don't do mess i again and again and you do whatever you want Divyakaran Singh Joshi (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Divyakaran Singh Joshi,

I don't know what you are referring to. Is there a particular article or draft article this is about? Can you provide me with a direct link to the page? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

About CSD:G13

Hello, Liz, sorry for interruption.

In the CSD instruction, I found G13 is suitable for Draft namespace have not been edited by a human in six months.

However, if a user used other kind of namespace instead of draft, see User:Zezen/Draftbox5 but is actually a draft page, could this kind of CSD be applied to that kind of page? Or WP:XFD should be used when intend to delete this kind of page?

Thank you Pavlov2 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yugosphere

I had started work on turning Yugosphere into a stand alone article but die to the RfD on it I couldn't delete so posted it underneath. Would it be possible for me to find it again so I can create the page ?

Lankyant (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lankyant,

I'm not going to be all judgey but it's not a good idea to spend time improving a page that has been tagged for deletion that no one has supported keeping. But I hate to see efforts at improving content wasted so I've restored the page and moved it to Draft space at Draft:Yugosphere. PLEASE just don't turn it back into a redirect. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It was because it was supported for deletion that I decided to start working on it, appreciate it Lankyant (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

RfD relist

Not a big deal obviously, but for your relist of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_4#Gamma-amino_butyne_acid, why couldn't this have been closed as delete per WP:RGUIDE #3: "If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.? Closer's prerogative I guess, just curious your thoughts. Cheers! Mdewman6 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdewman6,

You may very well be right. But what I've seen lately is there are now just a handful of admins closing deletion discussions and I saw a lot of discussions that needed closures and so I closed them or relisted them. They may not all have been perfect decisions. But since you brought this one to my attention, I'll reexamine it.

If you could drum up more participation in RFD discussions by other editors, it would make these decisions much easier. It's a challenge to make a decision when there are only 1-3 editors voicing an opinion and each one has a different idea on what should be done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your nomination, I really would like to see at least one more person express an opinion about your proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries! I figured it was something along those lines. Always better to err on the side of more discussion over deletion if consensus isn't immediately clear I guess, or is just WP:SILENCE. I definitely appreciate your work at RfD and elsewhere! Mdewman6 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

DominosThermometer Hostility

Hello there Liz, I noticed that this user who you previously confronted a couple of days ago is being very hostile and rude towards me, I noticed that you did warn them about being rude towards admins and other people, but they didn’t seem to get the message at all. The user is practically accusing me of all sorts and I’m afraid it will get worse for me and other people. For example, when I edited Linda Carter, they said in there summary “don’t talk SHITE” when I never was, that was just plain rude. So I went to the talk page and noticed all those previous warnings just to ask “why are you accusing me” and then they just erupted fast in rage for no reason, I wasn’t trying to stir up any trouble or anything at all. Just thought I’d tell you since you where on the page too. WikiFlame50 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely no rage at all. You’re quite lacklustre in your editing abilities and your knowledge of where aliases should be and I was trying to explain in language you'd best understand as you have a history of abuse and shouting. Apologies if you've changed your way of communication. Please be wary of where you are adding aliases in the future. Regards.DominosThermometer (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You just had to stalk my summaries didn’t you. How rich. There you go again, accusations accusations. Please stop telling lies saying that I’m the hostile one when an admin can easily review your talk page and be able to identify your own wrongdoings in terms of communication. WikiFlame50 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, WikiFlame50, I was going to simply suggest you stay off their user talk page except to post necessary notifications but it turns out that DominosThermometer has been indefinitely blocked by another administrator. I don't think I would have done this myself but it does solve the immediate problem that you came here with. My general advice, should this happen again is if you find a dispute has gotten personal and off-topic, disengage from the editor and focus back on content. If the dispute persists over multiple articles or talk pages, then ask for administrative intervention. But sometimes, just putting distance between yourself and the other editor is the quickest solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I did put distance in the end. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Petr Nesterov

Hello there Liz. An article I created about the Bulgarian tennis player Petr Nesterov was deleted in the past, but today he made his debut for the Bulgaria Davis Cup team which from my understanding should make him notable by the WP:NTENNIS standarts. Is it possible for that page to be reinstated or would I have to make it from scratch all over again? Kr1s71an (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Ayan Nayak

@Liz: User:Anachroliz has now engaged in page-vandalism and block evasion. They are now busy adding 'Ayan Nayak' in various articles like [12], [13], [14], [15] and also submitted User:Anachroliz/Sandbox per [16]. I understand that blocking the IP might not help as they will come up with new IP but at least can you WP:NUKE User:Anachroliz/Sandbox as a WP:PROMOTION and WP:HOAX piece or any other criteria. Thanks 2402:3A80:1A4E:B619:CCCE:35B1:8CD7:A8 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin closure by involved editor

Hello, I see you've recently closed RFDs so I bring this to you. I noticed that an RFD I participated in, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Abeceda, was closed (less than 24 hours after the RFD was initiated) by a non-admin who had also !voted in the discussion. As I understand it from WP:NAC, only uninvolved editors are supposed to close discussions. Should it be reopened? Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I Cannot Find the "Draft:Abu Torab Fatemi Mehra" as notified. thx!

Hi.

I spent considerable time on this deleted document Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UserCmehrasandbox.jpg

Please resolve ASAP.

Thanks!

Cmehra (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Cyrus C. Mehra

Hello, Cmehra,

If you look at the page, Draft:Abu Torab Fatemi Mehra, you can see that it was deleted for copyright infringement. You should talk to the deleting administrator, Deb, if you have further questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Will do. Thx. Cmehra (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Bots and Template

• Hello Liz, a question for you ma'am, how does one create a Bot account/user?

I think I have a perfect idea on where the bot would be of use.

• I created this template which I do not know if it was good idea or not, I've waited for it to be review, moved to draft space or rather deleted in a short amount of time but no measures where taken thus far. My question is, is the template a good idea or it has been avoided by editor/administrators for certain motives? Neo the Twin (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neo the Twin,

I know very little about bots and templates. But if you want to run a bot, you need to get it approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. You can find more information about templates at Wikipedia:Templates. There are editors who spend most of their time working with templates and their advice would be worth more than mine.

If you have questions like this in the future, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where there are more editors who have a greater pool of knowledge than I do. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about Potash Twins

This is meant to be a question, not a statement, or a claim that you made a mistake. You declined the G5 tag I put on Potash Twins as not ban evasion. I understand that G5 can be complicated, but would like to know why this was not within the meaning of G5. I know that edits made before a sockpuppeteer is blocked do not count as G5. In this case, CrystalizedCheese had already been blocked when the article was created. Did you decline teh G5 because NebraskaJazz had been created back in 2012 as a sleeper account?

I think I will use a PROD because the socks have now been blocked. And I would appreciate a clarification about G5 (and I know that it has exceptions, or perhaps that it is for exceptions). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert,

This is a confusing case because typically, with CSD G5s, the sockpuppet account is created after the sockmaster has been blocked. G5 is a speedy deletion for ban evasion. So, technically, I guess your tagging could be correct because NebraskaJazz did create the article after CrystalizedCheese was blocked. But NebraskaJazz was a ten year old account while CrystalizedCheese has only been editing for 3 months so I would judge NebraskaJazz as the actual sockmaster. And in the SPI case, NebraskaJazz was only judged to be "Possilikely" to be CrystalizedCheese and I'd prefer to see a stronger confirmation. NebraskaJazz was only confirmed to be AugustusBlue1888 and that account was not blocked so there was no ban evasion there. So, I guess I prefer things to be a little more clear cut and am glad that another form of deletion was found. I hope this better explains my decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. As you said, it is complicated, and speedy deletion is for uncomplicated cases. With all of the socks blocked, the PROD will delete the article in a week unless the PROD is removed either by a neutral editor or by another sock. If it is removed by a neutral editor, then the article can be considered on its merits. If it is removed by another sock, then another sock gets blocked, and notability can be considered by AFD. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert,

So much effort has been expended to both keep and delete an article on this subject. I wonder if paid editors realize that their persistence usually ends up with the page title being protected from ever being created at all! I'm sure their clients would be unhappy with that result. It's better to have no article YET than have the possibility of a future article being zero. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

How to disclose Conflict of Interest?

Hey how to disclose Conflict of Interest can you give an example of someone article from that i can see how to. I just read the policies of the conflics of interest article doesn't help me well. Will you Please Dr. G K Goswami (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. G K Goswami,

That is not the correct page to read, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has information on how editors here deal with COI issues and there are instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI on how to disclose a conflict-of-interest. I hope this helps.

If you have questions in the future about Wikipedia policies, you can ask at a talk page and the Teahouse is a great resource for answers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why did you blank my user page?

[17]

Seems an odd thing to do? Was it an accident? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, EnlightenmentNow1792,

I don't remember what led me to blank your User page on February 20th. I sometimes blank, rather than delete, User pages if there is inappropriate content but there was none here. My apologies to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey!

I noticed you undid my request on the DanTDM talk page. How come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8900:55FC:111B:EAB1:A935:77EB (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2603:8081:8900:55FC:111B:EAB1:A935:77EB

If you are also 2603:8081:8900:55FC:6D64:785F:B61:210A, you had been doing a lot of vandalism with that account so I reverted your edit. Looking at it today, I don't see anything wrong with this particular edit so I reverted myself. But please stop vandalizing pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Matthew Rojansky

Hi Liz. You deleted this as an expired Prod back in 2016. He's been in the news a lot since and I'd like to work on the entry. Could you or one of you page watchers please restore it? Thanks very much. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy,

 Done Happy to. Good luck with the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the version restored is from 2021. I thought I saw that an entry was deleted in 2016 but maybe I mosread it or there was an earlier version? I don't know the answer but I did notice a discrepancy from my statement that it was deleted as an expired prod in 2016 and the article's history. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your deletions

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Template:Negros Island Region

You deleted this template despite the fact that it still in use, contrary to the nominator's statement.

• File:CongTV, photo with Angelo6397, cropped.png

You deleted this file, despite the fact that it was used, contrary to the PROD.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. C. Agrawal (2nd nomination)

You closed this discussion as soft delete despite the fact that it survived the previous AFD, making it ineligible for soft deletion.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Karma

You closed this discussion as soft delete despite the fact that it was previous nominated for deletion using PROD, making it ineligible for soft deletion.

If you could stop abusing your admin tools, that would be great. ✗plicit 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,

It is always such a pleasure when you come to my talk page to chat with me. It's like we've become old friends.

I will check on these cases and make corrections, if I made a mistake. And I know if I do make an error, and even you make errors, Explicit, that you will be there to gently bring it to my attention and help guide me to become a better administrator. Take care! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I believe I mentioned earlier to you that I'm new to doing admin work at deletion discussions (just since January or February) so it shouldn't be a big surprise that I'm not perfect. But it looked like there was a need for more admins to assist there so I'm helping out as best as I can and learning along the way. And I wouldn't call occasional mistakes "abusing" admin tools, that's pretty harsh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Portland Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon: March 12, 2022

You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Stale sock mess

Hello, I want to ask you about an article and if speedy deletion G5 applies to it or not. Emil Mammadov was once created by EXParen and was deleted later, then recreated as a draft by Vuqi777, which is suspiciously their only edit. The draft was later moved to mainspace by KhosrovAO. Both EXParen and KhosrovAO are sockpuppets of Elshadiman, who still creates new sockpuppets from time to time. Does G5 apply here? And what should I do if I encounter similar confusing cases where speedy deletion might or might not apply? (Besides jumping ahead and tagging, I've learned enough to not do that anymore). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Prem Pandey

Hello Liz ! Recently, you had deleted the article which i have mentioned on title. I think redirect would be a better option than delete where as the films or tele-films played by him is notable and well recognized in the context of Nepal and anywhere else around the world as well as he had won several awards also which has been elaborated in well recognized news portal of Nepal and as per WP:ATD. At last, I respect your every decision/action/edits but this time I have little bit concerned about this. If still you think that delete is a best solution then I will not say anything about that. Hope for your positive response. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fade258,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I see no problem with you creating a redirect for this person so go ahead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Liz No worries about that. If I create the redirect then there would be a some problem. So, I request you to create redirect as you are the administrator who had deleted this article. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

OE1995

Hello, Liz. Following a discussion at ANI, admin TomStar81 has temporarily blocked OE1995 (talk · contribs) for recreating deleted articles. But they resumed the same after the block expiration. They recreated Ravanasura which you deleted which was subsequently salted by TomStar81. Now they re-created it again as Ravanasura (film), same is the case Faria Abdullah. I've notified this to TomStar81 on their talk page but felt to inform you as well, since you previously deleted and salted their page Kabza (upcoming film). I think it reached a point where no amount of protection would stop them and an indef block (or atleast partial block from creating new pages, if possible) may be the only solution. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ab207,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and, especially, for supplying so many details. I'll look into this today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

About your close at AfD

Hey Liz. I just wanted to ask if you could elaborate your reasoning for the "no consensus" close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Bukuru (I was the nominator). IMO it was fairly clear from the discussion that none of the keep votes offered any policy-based explanation for their keeps, as the WP:NFOOTY SNG that was cited is due to be significantly reworked as a result of this RfC. Also, to quote the explanatory notes at the top of WP:NSPORTS, of which WP:NFOOTY is a part: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. I did a check of Burundian media and a general WP:BEFORE and founding nothing that would allow this to pass WP:GNG, and most of the "Delete" votes shared this policy-based reasoning. Since you did not write much in your closing note, would you be willing to offer more insight into your reasoning? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Indy beetle,

At your suggestion, I added a statement to my closure decision. I don't think you'll be satisfied with it so feel free to take the AFD to Deletion review. Since the sports notability criteria is currently in the process of being reevaluated and rewritten, the participants there might find grounds to overturn my decision which, of course, I'll accept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. That said, I probably will take it to DRV. Nothing personal, but it will be helpful to see what the wider waters are for navigating these things in the future. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 11 if you're interested. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Indy beetle,

I understand. Thanks for letting me know. Six years as an admin, I had never been brought to Deletion Review. Now, in 2022, it's my third trip. I guess I'm not just taking on the uncontroversial cases any more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Indy beetle,

You didn't tag the AFD with a Deletion Review notice so I took care of that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This was a tough close, and, as you said in the DRV, likely to have brought criticism no matter what the result was. ––FormalDude talk 06:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks 4 deleting my draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydroow (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcoming suggestion

Hello! :)

You recently wrote Removing CSD tag and blanking page. It doesn't need to be deleted. Try welcoming them. as a summary on a revert you did on me on an IP's talk page. I'm not sure if you use SWViewer but the web app doesn't really have a blanking option for newly created pages. You can either let the edit go through or mark it for deletion if it is considered unproductive.

Also, I'm confused. You write Try welcoming them. but you don't do any welcome beside blanking the page. And who exactly should we welcome? As far as we can tell from the contributions, that IP had literally only 1 contribution and that was those random characters it had written in its talk page. - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Klein Muçi,

I went to my Contributions and did a search for "Welcome" and found that I posted 20 Welcome messages to User talk pages in the past 5 hours alone. I post thousands of Welcome messages and "Come to the Teahouse" messages, I thought I'd leave this one for you. I encourage you to Welcome every new editor that you post a warning notice to. I think it's important for new editors to not just have warning messages on their talk pages when they start editing but also guidance on how they can find help. And, yes, I have welcomed editors who only have made 1 edit.

I edit on a desktop so I'm not familiar with SWViewer so I don't know the situation for editors who use mobile devices. I'm sorry if I didn't appreciate the limitations you face. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem. But I'm not sure if we should welcome IP users who only have less than 10 unconstructive edits. I could of course be wrong. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Chahat Pandey satisfies WP:NACTOR with her multiple lead roles

Chahat Pandey has done multiple lead roles in notable TV shows/dramas that are required to prove notability. The draft also has in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Plus, the wordings I have used is the same as the article of Aishwarya Khare. Infact, I copy-pasted a lot of words from that article. So how is it possible that no one noticed that Aishwarya Khare's is written like an ad while giving invalid judgments in this draft. I strongly believe the reviewers was following WP:COI and simply give invalid reasons only and only to decline the draft. So, I kindly request you to please review Draft:Chahat Pandey 61.3.231.132 (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 61.3.231.132,

I don't review draft articles for the WP:AFC so I can't help you out here. It would be best if you addressed your questions to the reviewer, Nomadicghumakkad. I'm sure there is a link to their talk page on their review.

If you have general questions about editing on Wikipedia and article creation, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ma'am, the latest reviewer has declined the submission again saying that I did it on purpose to evade my block. I promise I had no such intentions. I know I am blocked but if you look into my edits. I usually never login in to do edits here in wikipedia. I always edit anonymously making my ip visible so I don't really understand what does my block has to do with my submission? Anyhow, if it again some silly rule in Wikipedia, I'm okay with it.

• However, I wanted to know if I can submit the Draft:Chahat Pandey once my block gets over tomorrow? Because I personally feel that reviewers themselves don't want the article to be published!! The very first reasons they gave during my first submission were very "invalid".
  • Also an "administrator" should review this draft because the mainspace article is protected by admin JBW such that only admins in Wikipedia can "move and publish" this article in it's mainspace
    • Believe me Ma'am it seems more as though there are some people here who do not want this article to be published at any cost when everything in it completely proves that Chahat Pandey is notable actress to have an "independant wikipedia article". 61.3.231.132 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

RDRAFT CSD

Regarding WP:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Polar Bear (film), I can restore it, but I had pinged you to know your opinion on whether drafts that were moved to articles, can be deleted on user request (regardless of whether the requester was the substantive contributor). Jay (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

I didn't foresee a problem with this obviously, or I wouldn't have honored the deletion request from the page creator. The draft had been moved to main space and the page creator requested that the draft redirect to Polar Bear (film) be deleted. I don't see why an IP editor would want this draft redirect restored and go to WP:REFUND with this request. Draft redirects are frequently tagged for deletion as CSD G6, uncontroversial deletions, which is not correct per WP:RDRAFT...I always untag these pages but some admins do fulfill these requests and see them as unnecessary redirect pages.

But I assumed if the page creator requested the page deletion, that this was an acceptable exception to the rule of keeping them. I don't think a draft redirect needs to be restored but if you want to go by the letter of the law, please honor this request from this unknown editor who is somehow familiar with WP:RDRAFT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't get the answer to my query so I've asked at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#RDRAFTs. However for this specific case, G7 (under which you deleted this) says for redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move, which this was not. Jay (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

Well, User:Cardei012597 was the primary creator of the article and he requested the page deletion. Yes, he didn't move the article but I think that is a technicality. Out of all of the requests you see at WP:REFUND, I don't know why this odd restoration request by a logged out editor for a draft redirect has caught your attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

G7 specifically talks about the substantive contributor in case of any kind of pages, but talks only about the mover in case of redirects. So this is more than a technicality, but this may be subject to interpretation and can be clarified at the CSD talk. I go through all requests at Refund; I didn't resolve this one as I was waiting for clarification as I haven't seen a request for RDRAFT deleted via G7 in the last half year (unless I missed any). Jay (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

Okay, so this is all about you seeking clarification on some aspect of policy that you are unsure about? I can understand that, even though I think it's unlikely that you will encounter this particular situation again at REFUND. I mean, why does this IP editor want this page restored? Any way, it was just beginning to feel like you were planning to take this incident to a noticeboard or something. I mean, I can simply restore this page myself if this is going to become a big problem.

Any way, I lost an hour of sleep last night so it's time for bed. Good night. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

why will I take you to the noticeboard, you were my Guru at REFUND when I started in October. Again, this is not about the restoration or the IP editor, it is about CSD and RDRAFTs. Good night. Jay (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, Jay, that is a relief. If you look at my talk page, you'll see an admin who comes to me with every mistake I make and tells me I'm "abusing your admin tools". And, after 6+ years of basically no problems, I've now been taken to Deletion Review three times in 2022 which feels like an admin colonoscopy (even when editors endorse your action). It can get very personal and critical there, I feel like I'm back at my RFA which was brutal. But I'm trying to focus on the work and not be oversensitive about criticism. I think I'm a net positive here but I'm not perfect. Any way, I hope you find your answer. Night. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I had gone through your RFA where the contention was more about content editorial skills than administrative ones. As long as the discussions are about policy and process, it should not be seen as personal. Jay (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Category:LDS temple map

Thank you for your request for speedy deletion of Category:LDS temple map. I realized this initial category page wasn't worded the way it should have. I saw no option for move page and didn't know how to request speedy deletion. I do confirm the request for speedy deletion. Thanks again! -Dmm1169 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dmm1169,

Well, the great thing about CSD C1 empty category taggings is that categories like Category:LDS temple map sit for a week in case an category has been emptied "out of process". Sometimes, editors empty out old categories and move pages to a new category they have created which is not ideal when you have long-standing category hierarchies so these actions need to be reverted. But I found a script that shows any recent activity on a category, pages that have been added or removed, and this category shows no activity at all which means that any pages that it contained were deleted.

If you ever want a category renamed, merged or deleted, please put in a nomination at Categories for Discussion. The process can be slow but if the nomination is approved, there are bots that will take care of the recategorizing work which, in some situations, can be very involved. If you expect to do any more tagging of pages for deletion (or tagging for any other reason), Twinkle is the tool that most admins and many editors working in new page patrol use. It's a silly name but it is very easy to use, it will post a notification to the page creator on your behalf and it works with all forms of deletion, CSD, PROD or AFD/TFD/CFD/RFD/etc. It's very handy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you like a new userbox?

NSThis administrator is no longer closing sports-related AFDs because of the ongoing drama associated with them.

(My sympathies on the Rachelle Bukuru debate) Stifle (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stifle,

I've been an admin since 2015 and had no reason to ever go to Deletion Review before. Now, in 2022, I've had deletion decisions brought there 3 times! Either I need an admin sabbatical or I've moved on to taking on more controversial decisions. The odd thing is though that the cases that have been opened at WP:DRV were decisions that I thought were uncontroversial while other AFD close call closures have not been.

I have no problem with the consensus being that I made the wrong decision, as long as I learn from it and don't repeat it, but it seems like some of the comments aren't about the deletion decision but about the admin and they can get personal. It makes me understand why some admins don't bother to engage with discussions at DRV when they are notified that one of their decisions is under review.

I don't know if I will stay away from all AFDs involving sports but I have not taken action from some CSD G4s which I see lingering for days before some admin reviews them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

3 relists

Doing 3 is not recommended (see WP:RELIST) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AssumeGoodWraith,

Message received. I will just let another admin handle those cases that seem unclear to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AssumeGoodWraith,

Looking at AFD pages today, I see other editors and an admin relist 3 times so I assume that recommendation is more of a guidelines than a policy. But I will cease doing it unless I think it is necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz

Sorry to be come and go, since our last exchange on 14 January. It has been a challenging and busy time. Today, I would just like you to look in on one reversion and exchange that I have had with another editor, who seems to be objecting to my editing as an IP editor. (He seems to be demainding, that from this status, any change I make be discussed before making it, that is, that the "edit boldly" direction does not apply to those that do not log.)

The editing in question was to address the fact that on comparing sources to article content, in the Influence section here, WP:VERIFY was releatedly violated. So, in the edit, citations were completed and checked, citations were moved to be only where they were accurately placed, a table was used to replace mis-stated box numbers (theretofore not appearing in any appended source as stated), and the list of data from RT itself were corrected and sourced (before only appearing as WP:OR). The reversion is here. Bottom line, I found that the numbers stated were not in the sources cited, that sentences to which sources were appended were not really drawn from them, etc., and corrected these WP:VER violations. (On a deeper level, the earlier content and tone differed from the principle cited source, Forbes, and that was corrected using a blockquote, so that the writer's actual words could be seen.)

Beyond the IP issue with me (which I infer, based on the knee-jerk revert and overly negative, unwelcoming response), the single complaint that actually surfaces, is that I am condescending in my edit summary (which in defense I would say simply states the issues I found), and that I use in-text notes to further clarify the issues I see. You know that I have been here decades—I can share again, privately, my former login if that is necessary—and that I do not usually have this trouble. I am hoping a word in this fellow's ear, to take a second look, and not to "throw baby out wth bath water" (to review the edit, line by line, keeping the vaild, and only reverting if I have made a mistake). But as you will see, I have been my usual-scholarly-careful, and the text that is the result of my edit homes precisely to the articles cited, and as well, cites sources for earlier appearing information that was pure WP:OR.

The in-text note redaction is not an issue—those are intended for other editors, to use/do with as they please. It is to the overall reversion, and removal of the WP:VER-corrective edits, to which I strenuously object. Cheers, will look for responses here. 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S., I like your leading your page with the COVID box. Every little bit helps. Thanks. 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73,

You have the right to edit logged out, as an IP editor, but there is baggage that comes with that. For one thing, I'm not sure who you are or what we have talked about in the past because you don't have a consistent username that I can easily remember. Also, some editors have a bias against IP editors because, from what I've heard, not all IP editors are vandals but most vandals are IP editors. I don't know if that is accurate but there is a perception problem and suspicion that exists on the part of editors who do a lot of vandal-fighting and patrolling. That's not about you and your contributions but just comes with being an IP editor. I edited for years as an IP editor before but I finally created an account because being anonymous seemed to hamper my communication with other editors, there was a lack of trust there. But it's your choice, of course. I'll try to look into this and see if I see any problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73,

It looks like you weren't doing simple copyediting or fixing typos but leaving messages for other editors telling them how they should approach editing this article. This is a discussion that is better done on article talk page than in "hidden messages" that editors may or may not see. Your requests might be correct ones but I agree that you should initiate a discussion on the talk page if you want other editors to avoid problems that you point out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Gary Popkin

You deleted this article back in February. Can you email me an export of the edit history and a .txt file of the current version?

Thanks! — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 22:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AMK152,

As a contested Proposed deletion, I can restore the page for you, either in main space or in Draft or User space. The article can still be nominated for deletion but proposed deletions can be restored. I'm going to remove your email address here for privacy's sake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, I had worked on improving the article and would rather take that information and maintain it elsewhere, but I didn't get a chance to save it because I was unaware that it was proposed to be deleted. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 13:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Just following up on this. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 22:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please Unblock My Sandbox

Hello Liz I am Currently working on a class midterm by submitting a Wiki page on the deaf holocaust and you have deleted my sandbox. Can you please clarify this. --Deafhistoryspring2022 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Philip Cordero

Hello, Deafhistoryspring2022,

You are not blocked and your sandbox is not "blocked" (and it can't be blocked). The only content on that page was a broken redirect which we delete. I can't see that you have made any other edits unless you edited with another account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Dynasty Sport

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi Liz, I've seen that in September 2021 you deleted a page about [Dynasty Sport] and I was hoping to have it restored! I was tasked with re-writing it myself, but I'm also a paid employee of the company. I know wikipedia's policy around neutrality and thought perhaps if it were restored that would help negate that conflict? Thanks in advance for your help! Jayvonlondres (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jayvonlondres,

I assume you are talking about Draft:Dynasty Sport? This article was deleted at the request of an editor I surmised was the page creator based on their IP address. Would you be this IP editor? If you work for this company, you have a clear conflict-of-interest and should not be editing this draft article. You would be limited to making editorial suggestions on the talk page. I left a message about managing a conflict-of-interest on your User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for the prompt reply!

That request certainly didn't come from me! I won't be editing anything to do with this page/draft at your recommendation.

What I would ask, is that the information on the page from September was restored, or if it were only draft, then published?

As I understand we once had a wikipedia page, which was then deleted. So was investigating what happened to it! Thanks for your help @Liz Jayvonlondres (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jayvonlondres,

I have restored the draft because I can't be 100% certain that the deletion request came from the original page creator. I reverted to the last version that was reviewed by Articles for Creation, which is the group of editors who review drafts and make suggestions on whether or not they are suitable to be moved to the main space of the project. Since the main space article was deleted through an Articles for Deletion discussion, there will have to be AFC approval to get an article on the company back into main space.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or conflict-of-interest guidance, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. I can try to help but at the Teahouse, there are more editors and administrators reviewing questions so there is a larger pool of experienced editors whose knowledge you can draw on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks for all your help! Jayvonlondres (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hamid Noury and Trial of Hamid Nouri

Liz, I'm not sure whether we spoke about Draft:Hamid Noury. The article was created by Arad8086 in May 2020, speedy deleted in January 2021, and draftified by you in response to a REFUND request, which may or may not have been by me. I've been improving it in the expectation that he would become clearly notable after the expected verdict in his trial (April?). Checking for new sources today, I discovered Fad Ariff created Trial of Hamid Nouri in November 2021. (Hamid Nouri redirects there; Hamid Noury has not been recreated as a parallel redirect. Both versions of the name are used.) I haven't looked at the sources for that article, so have no opinion on which is better, but I think they should be hist-merged in mainspace under whichever title, or if you and the deleting admin, Fastily, still consider Nouri/Noury not notable, the trial article should be deleted on those grounds as a later creation on a non-notable subject. My opinion is that he's notable, but then that would naturally be my opinion, given my inclusionism, and is why I've spent a lot of effort on the draftified article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Hmm, it may have been created as a draft and be purely an example of G13 deletion without examination on the merits? I can't see any other edits by the creator. So since I no longer add "submit" myself, since that would cause me to receive the credit for the article creation, maybe the decent thing is to regard my work as wasted and have you histmerge to Fad Ariff's article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Yngvadottir,

There was a bit of an edit conflict so I might be responding to your first message rather than your addendum.

You know, I'm not a content creator, I mostly work in maintenance activities, dealing with expired drafts and empty categories, along with taking care of a few PRODs and deletion discussions. When I look at Draft:Hamid Noury, the only deletion I see is a CSD G13 stale draft deletion so it wasn't deleted on notability grounds, Trial of Hamid Nouri has never been deleted, Hamid Nouri, as you say, is a redirect and Hamid Noury has never been created so unless I'm missing something that Fastily knows about, I don't see any deletions based on notability that might cause problems.

As far as History Merges, I've only done that twice and I believe that the edit histories of the two articles can't overlap which is the case here. We have a few admins who do most of the history mergers that are requested and maybe they could finesse this. I guess my question for you is, is there the possibility of two, separate articles, is merger the only option here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like some of the admins who handle a lot of our history merges are Primefac, Tavix and wbm1058, so maybe we can get their expert opinions here on what is and isn't possible with these two articles, one in main space and one in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:BLP1E. The biography in draft space only has a brief sentence about his career, the rest is all about the trial. If he is independently notable for more than just the trial then I'd advise keeping them separate, but as there is only one overlapping edit I can history-merge the draft into the article, then if Yngvadottir wants to resurrect some of that into the current version then the Pagestats should give attribution to the original authors. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you offering your opinion, wbm1058. Let's see what Yngvadottir thinks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, both. I did too much before coffee this morning and shouldn't be relied upon for higher-prder thinking. If it weren't for my own conscience issues, I might have mainspaced the article long ago; the trial has received a lot of coverage. For the same reason, I haven't even cast an eye over the "Trial of ..." article to evaluate whether the one I worked on is better referenced or otherwise preferable, or even whether the "Trial of ..." article is on the wrong side of BLP; he's still on trial. But I would expect things to look quite different after the trial ends: if he's convicted, a lot more information about him is likely to be made public, enabling an informed decision about what the title should be, and there won't be the BLP issue there is at present with having an article about someone, or even someone's trial, who is accused of serious crimes; if he isn't convicted, for whatever reason, we will likely be contravening BLP by having anything except passing coverage in one or more other articles, and that was the other reason I wanted to wait till after the verdict came down. But we're here now, and we have an article. My issue with my conscience that prevents me from creating articles in mainspace is entirely my issue, and so unless the "Trial of ..." article contravenes BLP, which I have no reason to assume it does, I sadly think it's best to junk my work, which probably differs in its referencing mainly in the use of Swedish-language sources that nobody else can read to evaluate: mainspace the draft then redirect it to the "Trial of ... " article. Neither article creator did anything wrong, and that's how the drafts space was intended to work: divert the poorer attempts by new editors and then get rid of them if nobody on the AfC reviewer list notices and cares within 6 months. Somebody eventually wrote up the topic, sorry to bother you all. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC) ... Done, with a note on the talk page, and two mentions of Arad8086, who had an all too typical experience when they dipped their toe in. I followed "What links here" and found it was indeed me who requested undeletion of the draft, presumably after seeing a BBC article and wondering why we didn't have coverage. I should learn to keep my nose out. Sorry again for all the trouble. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Toxic Avenger (2022 film) § Switch title to (upcoming film) instead of (2022 film)? Possible merge?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why you deletion page simply ?

It's very difficult to create Page again. Also it's important page about on that particular production house KVN Productions Dinerock (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dinerock,

I recommend you work in Draft space and submit your draft to Articles for Creation. Articles put directly into the main space of the project are subject to review and evaluation for speedy deletion.

If you have questions about article creation and Wikipedia policies on deletion, I recommend you take them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

link=User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Deletion of Draft:List of sex symbols

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at [[User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Deletion of Draft:List of sex symbols|User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous]].
Message added 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus,

Okay, thanks for letting me know, I don't check in to Meta very often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Wrestling

I removed a couple of speedys on wrestling articles you tagged. They may or may not survive an WP:AFD but if you think they should go, that is probably the better path. I think they have to much for an A7 speedy. Jeepday (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jeepday,

That's your call. Maybe CSD G11 was a better fit as the articles, if I remember correctly, were unreferenced and promotional. But thanks for looking them over, that's why I tagged them, to get a second opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Montreal Metro stations

When you deleted {{Montreal Metro stations}} you left redlinks behind. Please fix. Useddenim (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Useddenim,

Yes, I see the problem. I'll see about fixing that. I'm not sure why the redlinks were removed during the closure. Thanks for alerting me to this problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:PCM Rfd

Hi Liz, I was suggesting a retarget for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_11#Wikipedia:PCM, and the only participant just said they agree with me. Nobody mentioned deletion. Can you take another look at this? I assume you were just cruising along closing discussions. Thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdewman6,

I'm willing to revert myself and relist this but I am confused. What did you think you were proposing in your nomination? Redirects are typically brought to RFD to propose them for deletion. Were you asking for it to be retargeted? Because sometimes it if the new target is unrelated to the previous one, it's better to create a new redirect than retarget. But maybe you could tell me if I misunderstood your intention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was suggesting retargeting. Many redirects are brought to RfD with the proposal it be retargeted rather than be deleted, as it says at the top of the Rfd page: "If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target" (hence "Redirects for discussion", not "Redirects for deletion"). I also don't think it needs to be deleted first with a new redirect created in its place. It would be simpler and better to just preserve the history of the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood your intent. I'll make the change. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdewman6,

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Britain has been nominated for deletion

Category:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Britain has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Iocane RfD

Hey again Liz, not sure what happened, but it looks like Iocane and Iocane powder are still tagged for RfD after your close at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_13#Iocane and haven't been retargeted yet. I could fix them, but wanted to make sure there wasn't something systematic or weird happening, so figured it best for you to take a look. Thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdewman6,

Yes, I noticed there was a problem with most of the closures on that page so I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser to see what the problem might be. The closer tool we rely on is closing the discussions but not deleting or retargeting the pages. It's working at AFD so it just seems to be an issue with this RFD page. I'm going to wait to fix this so that the tech folks can see the problem but will handle things manually after someone replies to my post there. Thanks for note. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Amber Briggle AfD close

Hi Liz, I'm writing to follow up on your no-consensus close of the Amber Briggle AfD. I am hoping to better understand the reasoning for the close, because the neither the nominator or any of the initial delete !voters responded after I added sources to the discussion and then expanded the article. The keep !votes that followed my !vote cite WP:HEY and the sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Beccaynr,

I really don't want to be brought back to Deletion Review again on a Non-consensus closure so I have reverted my closure and will let an admin with more experience review the arguments. I made a judgment call but if you want it reviewed, I'm fine with letting someone else who has been doing this longer than I (2 months) evaluate the arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz, I appreciate the undoing of the close and I respect your judgment call. I had been hoping to discuss the close with you because I have sometimes seen closes point to a lack of response to sources added to a discussion, essentially according the earlier !votes less weight (e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21]). Anyway, thank you again, and I look forward to seeing you more at AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Beccaynr,

In my brief time helping out a little at AFD, I've been impressed by the legwork you do during a deletion discussion, tracking down sources that might sway opinion. It seems like most people just quote a policy and say that an article does or does not meet it. Your effort at working to keep decent articles that need a little extra help is evident and appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! My main reason for participating in AfD is to find articles to work on - it's my favorite field of squirrels. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that is cute, I've never seen that page before. I used to work with baby squirrels when I was younger, at a wildlife clinic, so I'm partial to them even though as adults they are pretty, well, squirelly when they are confined. They need to be free, running here and there, to and fro! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! and very cool about working in a wildlife clinic - I researched squirrels a bit last year when I was curious about the rather loud commotion outside - they can be quite expressive! Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Psychological operations (Russia)

Red Orchestra won. I don't need this draft. Delete. Best regards --Pavlo1 (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pavlo1,

That's unfortunate. All folks were asking for was better referencing. I was hoping that it could be improved and moved back into main space at some point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about a user

Hey Liz, I have concerns about the way that this user has been addressing others in their edit summaries. They're undoing revisions by other users and making nasty personal attacks against them. I'd go to ANI with this, but have never reported there before and would like to be a bit more discreet. One of the users who was attacked says this is the work of WP:BKFIP. Can you help? Helen(💬📖) 17:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Do japan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has repeatedly tried to change the wording at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to effectively state that face masks are not effective. I and other editors have reverted them. I left standard warnings on the user's talk page, and was greeted with this unpleasant response. Instead of making an entire AN/I out of a long term (but largely inactive; their edit history still neatly fits on one page of <50 contribs) editor, I figured I'd take my chances at suggesting a WP:NOTHERE indef block directly with no objection to an unblock if the editor agrees to behave and not make more personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bhavika Sharma

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bhavika Sharma. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stifle,

Back at Deletion review, oh joy! Well, thanks for letting me know. I'll see if a comment is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I see now that 5 or 6 different admins have been involved with deleting this article over the years. No objection to draftification, in fact I deleted a stale draft of this title that could be easily restored without much review but it had very little content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Edgar Lungu Cabinet 2021

Good afternoon, I hope that you're doing well. Thank you for responding to my nomination for the speedy deletion of Edgar Lungu Cabinet 2021 under CSD A3. If you don't mind, may I ask for the reason that you disagreed with my nomination as you didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary?

My grounds for which I felt satisfied to nominate the article for speedy deletion under that criterion were that the article only consisted of templates with no other content and that the content felt more appropriate to be included in an already established article addressing a more generalised subject area.

I note that I've informed the author of the article on their talk page to disregard my nomination notice. I hope for your understanding and thank you for your response. Have a good day. Brandon.b2005 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Brandon.b2005,

I want to apologize for not leaving an edit summary, I usually don't simply revert an editor without an explanation. I received a note that this article had been reviewed and approved by an experienced new page reviewer so I didn't think speedy deletion, especially A3, was appropriate in this case. I'd use WP:PROD or WP:AFD for this article if you believe this article should be deleted. Again, I'm sorry for not being more informative when I undid your CSD untagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I understand. Thank you. Brandon.b2005 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Refund request

Hi Liz, could you refund Draft:Shooting Star (spacecraft)? I hadn't seen it before, so I'd like to see if I can do anything with it. If I decide it's not worth improving, should I tag it immediately, or would it be better to leave it for awhile? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BilCat,

I restored Draft:Shooting Star (spacecraft). Because the page creator had been blocked for copyright issues I ran the page through our copyright analysis tool and nothing popped out as a copyright violation. If you don't need the page, just let me know and I can delete it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Per the most recent review, it's definitely written like an advertisement. As far as I can tell, it's still an active project, but most of the news reports online about it are at least 12 months old. While it's more work than I want to do, I might be worth keeping the draft active for 6 months. But the final decision on that is yours. BilCat (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of relic redirects after a move from Draft to mainspace

Hi Liz,

Back on the 8 March you kindly posted to my talk page here about my failure to tidy up after accepting a Draft into mainspace by not tagging the relic redirect as a CSD.

However, following your kind advice, I did exactly that at Draft:Hallel College only to find it reverted here with the summary Removing CSD tag, we leave redirects from Draft space to main space. I am confused. I am happy to tag relic redirects from Draft space as CSD. Equally I am happy to leave them alone. I guess I just need to know which is right and which is not. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion note

I replied to a comment you made at User_talk:Styyx#Tagging_pages_for_deletion, but I know you don't get pings so I thought I'd leave a non-templated {{talkback}} note. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

Thank you, I appreciate you letting me know about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Kitten

I was wandering around my watchlist and happened upon this page as I was just click-click-clicking through pages.

And I usually disregard cutesy kitten image works as ignore worthy lol.

But. that. one. is. awesome.  : ) - jc37 03:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, jc37,

Oh, in my edit notice? I forgot where I got that one from. It's not original with me! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.

This one, that I saw near the top of this page : )

And well, nice find then. Definitely was my laugh-of-the-day : ) - jc37 03:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my God, I have two kitten pictures! The internet has won. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

roflmao.

Assimilation by kitten. Oh does!  : ) - jc37 04:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Jhilna

Hello Liz, Could you please take a look at Jhilna? The village probably exists (there are 64K village in Bangladesh) but i don't see any WP:SIGCOV about this village. I added a notability tag but article creator keeps removing it. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, আফতাবুজ্জামান,

I think we have a very low bar for notability for places like villages and towns, I'm not an expert on geographic articles but I believe there just needs to be evidence that this is a location that has been occupied by people for a significant period of time. We even have articles about ghost towns which are completely unoccupied by people! You can find more information on this at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places, take this as your guide.

You approached the editor on their talk page, that was a good step. I can't translate their response to you but I hope it is not rude. I think you need to not get into an edit war over this little article, maybe come back to it another day. You can't let wanting to be "right" lead you to into bad conduct like edit-warring over a tag. You were a responsible editor, you tried to engage the other editor in a discussion, I think you can let this go right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with LTA

Don't really love reaching out to admins directly, but 2A02:587:C23D:F500:4DC:1A21:EEA:118C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an LTA, WP:LTA/WKHF. They seem to be traveling Greece, as this IP and their last one geolocates to there. Urgent block needed as they are section blanking. wizzito | say hello! 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the /32 is pblocked. Perhaps a temporary /32 block is needed? wizzito | say hello! 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Still vandalizing. Can someone please, actually help? This is urgent and other editors can only take so much having to revert them. wizzito | say hello! 06:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The /32 has been blocked. Thank you and I'm sorry for my panicking - this was pretty urgent as they were section blanking though. wizzito | say hello! 06:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wizzito.

 Done I hope that helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You block a huge percentage (maybe a 30% or 50%) of IPs in Greece from editing all pages for 2.5 months! Do you think that this is a logical, and harmonized with Wikipedia's policies, decision? --2A02:1388:2081:FE44:74A5:3800:AEED:B779 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to correct this. There was a lot of vandalism going on but I wasn't aware of the collateral damage. I'm looking for a solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, see also:

• User talk:2A02:587:A78:6D00:6442:9BB0:56BA:93F7
• User talk:2A02:587:A6D:300:2D22:BA7B:56A4:8450

--2A02:1388:2081:FE44:C4F6:DFC2:9C97:60B4 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

+ Request for unblock --2A02:1388:2081:FE44:F188:1108:44D3:AB1C (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged uncontroversial deletion

Unless you object (or want to do it yourself) I intend to revert your deletion of Talk:Fractal antenna/Archive 2. This is not uncontroversial, at least with me, as the user who put it up for CSD knows full well, see User talk:Sawol#Cluebot III archiving rate changes. The user created the duplicate themself by manually archiving this, thus overriding Cluebot III and the archiving settings on the page. SpinningSpark 19:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Spinningspark,

Of course, restore it, thanks for letting me know. I have just been working since this summer with Sawol as he has cleaned up after mistakes made by Cluebot, where single messages were placed on different archive pages rather than consolidating them in an organized way. I didn't know that their work was considered "controversial", it seemed like a remedy to a bot problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up Cluebot III's mistakes isn't controversial, but this wasn't a Cluebot mistake. My issue is Sawol's attempt to enforce their preferred archiving rate on pages they have nothing to do with as an editor. The double archive was mot caused by Cluebot, it was caused by Sawol changing Cluebot's settings and then manually editing the archives themself to comply with the new settings. SpinningSpark 08:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, speaking generally, not about this incident, I've found with many experienced editors, including myself, that sometimes you can spend so much time working in a very specific area, that you trust your own judgment over others, whether they are bots or other editors. Most of the time, your judgment is sound but it can occasionally lead one to take shortcuts that, in hindsight, aren't wise. It's how some of our most prolific editors can find themselves eventually blocked. It can be a challenge when you are experienced but you have to always be open to being challenged and be willing to explain and justify your editing decisions, no matter how many years one has been at work here on the project. Everyone needs to be willing to look at the choices one has made and say, "I see I made a mistake" when that is an appropriate conclusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

• From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

• News and notes: Of safety and anonymity

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps

• Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks

• In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff

• Recent research: Top scholarly citers, lack of open access references, predicting editor departures

• Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond

• Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now

• Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon

• Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors

• Traffic report: War, what is it good for?

• Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine

• Gallery: "All we are saying is, give peace a chance..."

• From the archives: Burn, baby burn

• Essay: Yes, the sky is blue

• Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja

• On the bright side: The bright side of news

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion oversight

Hello. It seems you forgot to delete the redirect here after closing its RfD. Veverve (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Veverve,

Oh, I didn't forget, the XFDCloser tool we use for closing deletion discussions was not working on RFD pages last week. I posted a lot of notices at the XFDCloser talk page about it. I was leaving the undeleted and untagged redirects for the developers to see. I have to go back to the talk page and see if the issue has been fixed. Only on RFD pages, it wasn't affecting AFD and TFD. I haven't closed any RFD discussions since then. But thanks for bringing this to my attention so I could take care of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Special Purpose Regiment

I see this was just closed as redirect. I believe this was done in error, as the request mischaracterized the article, but I am sure you are probably not the person to talk to about that.

I would like, if you please, a copy of the text of the article, which contains a lot of cited work that is not currently at the English wikipedia.

The article you have redirected it to is ferociously guarded by editors who are determined that this military unit will not be discussed as a military unit, but as its ancestor organization. Meanwhile however, parts of it can surely be used to improve related articles such as the Siege of Mariupol, no?

Also, this article is currently the subject of a case against me at ANI, where it has also been misportrayed. I am contemplating seeking discretionary sanctions against the AFD requestor for the mischaracterization. If I do, it would be useful if the evidence that it is not in fact an editorial had not been disappeared.

So. If you aren't the person who can get me a copy of the text, can you please tell me how to do so? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elinruby,

I'm sorry you are not happy with the AFD closure. But Azov Special Purpose Regiment has just been turned into a redirect, the page history has not been deleted. You can go into the page history, select a version, and hit Edit and all of the content will be there for you to copy, you don't need any copy sent to you, you can go back to the beginning of the article creation or the latest version. Let me know if you need more of an explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, don't think so. I will send up a flare if I do. Thanks for the speedy reply. Elinruby (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to do a quick reality check: I assume that this happened because of the number of votes? ie does not second-guess the honesty of the request? Not trying to give you a hard time; just want to make sure I understand what happened before I go explaining it to anyone else. Thanks again Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Category talk:Nigerian science fiction films

Hi Liz. I'm perplexed as to why you've restored this page. It has never contained any content, and I count zero significant inbound links. -FASTILY 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fastily,

And I was going to post on your talk page, actually I wrote out a long message and then deleted it before posting because I thought I was going to start something up which I try to avoid. Why are you deleting blank talk pages? They aren't orphaned talk pages, they are just empty. I see no reason for your deletion and especially don't know why you would delete User talk pages. There need to be exceptional reasons to delete User talk pages. None of these pages are causing any problems. You ask why I restored them and I want to know what possible deletion rationale would cover a blank talk page. There are times when talk pages are tagged for deletion and instead of deleting the page, I just "blank" it and remove the content because I thought there were no issues with a blank talk page. Any way, I just restored the category talk pages because I work a lot with categories and their deletion seemed particularly pointless.

I want to say that I have a lot of respect for you, Fastily, and all of the work you do. I just don't understand this particular mass deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I too have a lot of respect for all the work you do. To be clear, I'm not advocating for the deletion of talk pages in general, but rather blank, single-author pages. There are a variety of reasons to delete such pages. These are usually created by error/accident (e.g. MediaWiki server error, faulty bot/script, bad huggle warning), in which case G6 is immediately applicable. Furthermore, there are technical reasons to delete, as they can cause database reports to take longer to generate and needlessly increase the size of database dumps. Also, non-existent category/project/template titles are an invitation for bots/editors to add WikiProject assessment tags, which are easier to find when they don't exist. Regards, FASTILY 04:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Metaphors of Memory

Hi Liz. Hope you are keeping well. I observe sometime back you deleted Metaphors of Memory. I understood that it meets Wikipedia policies on articles relating to book WP:BK. However if you want to give suggestions to improve it and make it ready for main space, kindly suggest. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gardenkur,

This article was deleted in an AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaphors of Memory, and will not be restored. I can't simply revert a consensus decision to delete an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 29

Hi Liz, one of your deletion discussion closes has been questioned (not by me). All the best—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, S Marshall,

Oh, well, thanks for letting me know. This AFD was plagued with socks so a new AFD isn't an unreasonable option. I predict the same result but I won't be closing a follow-up AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

State legislators

Is there any way to avoid these being deleted as drafts? I am working my way through the ones I started from Mississippi but it's going to take some time. Thanks for your consideration. I apologize if it's time consuming or disruptive. I would like to avoid having to restore them individually. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, if you get a message that says a draft is about to be deleted due to inactivity, then you can simply make a single minor edit to the draft, and it will stay around for another six months. If you want to develop such articles more slowly, use your personal sandbox space instead, and you can move that content to the draft space when you are ready to submit it to AFC. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

And if I don't receive a message that a draft is abiut to be deleted? State legislators are notable so why are we deleteing drafts of them? I work in draftspace because I'm prevented from working on these entries in mainspace, but at least it's an area where anyone can contribute. I don't want to work alone on subjects in my userspace. That approach runs counter to all the principles of a Wiki and Wikipedia. These entries should be in mainspace where anyone can work on them but the powers that be on Wikipedoa have made it VERY difficult to include notable African American.subjects. It's a shame. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I'm of two minds about this. I know you create a lot of draft articles and I think the whole delete-refund cycle reminds you that they are there, out in DraftLand. I think you start so many articles that you lose track of them all until they are deleted and you get notifications. I'm sure going to WP:REFUND is a hassle but otherwise I think you would lose track of many articles you started but forgot about when other articles kept you busy.

That said, I can see that you started all of these articles on this particular day, probably when you discovered the images on-line, and there is no way you can complete dozens of articles in a week. So, I'll treat these the way we treat articles that are tagged as "Promising", I'll delay the dreaded CSD G13 status for one six month period. But a couple of things. I posted that notice about the SDZeroBot list of G13 soon drafts so that you would be reminded that, yes, these pages are out there. So, please don't forget about them now that they have a reprieve. Secondly, you'll need to tell Explicit about this as well. Between the two of us, we handle about 90% of the stale drafts so if we both are treating them the same, you're likely covered. But I have noticed lately that he has been making minor edits to some of your drafts to avoid their deletion so maybe this is a discussion you two have already had with him.

Any way, does that sound okay? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I had a bit of an edit conflict. Yes, Cullen328 is correct, you can make a minor edit to the page to keep it from being deleted. In fact, that's all that I was going to do.

But on the subject of notifications, you have to be careful. We use FireflyBot for 5 month notifications but, for some reason, FireflyBot will only post a warning once. If a draft gets to the 5 month period, FireflyBot posts a notice, then you make a minor edit, you will not get another notice from FireflyBot in another 5 months. I wish it would give multiple notices but it doesn't. Also, I post notifications when I delete a draft (or any page) but this is not true for all admins and for all editors who tag pages for deletion. This is an issue I can get worked up about but apparently, giving notifications about deleting pages to page creators is not mandatory (although it should be).

As for your personal restriction, I think it might be time you appealed it. It's been a couple of years now and there's always a chance that it could be lifted or at least adjusted to not be so restrictive. It couldn't hurt to ask. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

revdel

Can you revdel 1080057319 as it has a sexy word. Thanks Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rusty4321,

That diff takes me to a revision of the entire page and not to the particular edit you want deleted. If you can't figure out how to do this, just give me the time of the edit. I looked and didn't see anything obscene that should be deleted, just vandalism. "Sexy" words don't usually get revision deleted. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Montreal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Montreal. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hi. Want to let you know that a deletion review has been asked. Many contributors, including myself, have fed this list with enthusiasm and rigor for years.

Hello,

Thanks for letting me know. Please post new messages at the bottom of talk pages, per our custom on Wikipedia. I have moved it for you. Also, sign all talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) so that your signature and the time and the date of your message appears. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In need of ANI intervention

Hello. I have opened an ANI here. Could you have a look at it and, if possible, impose sanctions where needed?
Last time I opened an ANI for this user, no action was taken until three days later after I asked some admins to have a look at it, so this time I decided to start asking sooner. The admin Ymblanter does not want to intervene for - from what I understand - ethical reasons. Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Veverve,

I'm sorry for the delay in seeing and responding to your message but it looks like the problem was resolved at ANI, I hope, to your satisfaction. I sometimes get busy and neglect to check my talk page and I apologize for that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Indigo Muldoon hoax archival

Hi, I'm reaching out since you were the one to carry out the AfD for Indigo Muldoon.

It seemed to me that the consensus was deletion (in the sense that the article is no longer in the main namespace) and moving to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for archival. CompliensCreator (who originally discovered the hoax) has created Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Indigo Muldoon based on a snapshot of the page, but from what I understand the accepted hoax archival procedure is to restore the original (so that the revision history is available) and move it to the subpage.

Thanks. aismallard (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, aismallard,

I've dealt with a hoax article before and those weren't the steps that I took (I think I created a separate page on an archive site) but I need to look into this a bit more. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We wish you a merry Christmas

We wish you a merry Christmas×3 And a happy new year the tithings we bring to you and your king we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year................ .......😍😍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.227.134 (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 41.114.227.134,

I think you need to buy a new calendar. But thanks any way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Boy Advance family

FWIW, I've implemented the redirect to Game Boy Advance#Revisions that was proposed in the discussion. It'd be reasonable to restore the history under that redirect, per WP:ATD-R: while everyone agreed that a standalone article shouldn't exist, the nom first listed the redirect target, and no one opposed it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jclemens,

I read the consensus as one to delete the page but I have no objections to turning it into a redirect instead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There's absolutely no question most people just opined for straight deletion. However, per WP:NHC "... discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy...", WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", and WP:DGFA "When in doubt, don't delete." Redirect, though numerically quite inferior in the discussion, is actually the policy-based outcome. Redirection certainly isn't opposed to deletion in most cases, but when we leave the realm of things covered by CSD's G10-11-12, where the title in question often should be salted to deal with the underlying issue, it becomes obvious that a redirect is often the best, most encyclopedia-friendly way to remove the content, while leaving it accessible to non-administrators should there be a desire for later reuse.

I've been suggesting this in DRV for some time, but it seems to be lost in the shuffle, so I'm approaching admins individually, on articles where I have zero involvement or emotional stake in the outcome, to try and get us (as an encyclopedia-building community) to better implement our deletion process as written, even when simple deletion is clearly fastest. Thanks for listening. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A big lump

Liz, perhaps my next sculpture-related draft after Statuette of the lady Tiye has been the one I talk (possibly too much) about in Draft talk:Jade Mountain Illustrating the Gathering of Scholars at the Lanting Pavilion. When I first encountered the draft it was very promising and very problematic. Now it's much improved, yet in a few, newly added places acutely problematic. Perhaps I've gone about this in the wrong way. I've a hunch that you could sort it out. And I have a second hunch that you'd enjoy the draft: certainly I do, or anyway the great majority of it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary,

I'm not clear on what editor or adminning thing you are asking me to do. Or, if you are just sharing your sculpture-related draft, I'll give it a look. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SHAREDACCOUNT possibility meets a possible WP:C (in expression) IR issue meets the possibility of WP:HOUNDING (by me, and if so, then only in that talk page) meets a draft about a carved lump; and come on, admit it, carved lumps beat Gameboy stuff and the like. I don't think that any administratifying is called for; it's just that you are experienced, have your head screwed on right, view stalled drafts sympathetically, and may be able to make sense of snippets of prose (and luckily they're only snippets) that don't make sense to me. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: Vexations is (or possibly are) onto it, so you needn't be vexed by this remarkable rock. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to end my involvement in that article. I have the impression that the student who is working on it is struggling, and clearly frustrated by our efforts. There may be more than one person writing though that account, but I'd rather see them get some help. I'm not sure if this is still required: The student is a participant in https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Concordia_College,_Moorhead/ART_365_-_Renaissance_and_Baroque_Art_(Spring_2022), which has a Assignment End date of 2022-02-26. Vexations (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I might simply remove the bits that make no sense, promote the result, and wish it well. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I support that. Vexations (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Done! -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for popping up in my watchlist everyday and cleaning up the files! --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Minorax! You know, I can not figure out what time zone you live in because I see files PROD'd by you at all hours of the UTC day and night. Maybe you just don't sleep? Or, like many, when plagued with insomnia you edit? Thanks for the barnstar! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I live in a +8 and I do have some trouble sleeping :> --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

H808Beats

The article was draftified mid-AfD without community consensus. What's the procedure here?-KH-1 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, KH-1,

That is bizarre, I've only seen this done by page creators, and very new ones, who want to bypass an AFD discussion but Akevsharma was not the page creator. I have posted on their talk page asking them to revert their move. If it's not done by tomorrow, I'll move the article back but I'd like to give them a chance to repair the damage. Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnny Plescio

Hello Liz I really do apologize, as you saw I didn't agree with the decision made by the other editor, I would have just moved it out of the draft space but I don't know how to do that to be honest. I also do not know how to combine page histories ,I apologize tho truly as you saw though it was justified other people reviewed the article and it was accepted it was just that one editor being silly.CanadianHistorian(MMA & History) (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

re Jonathan Pershing

Hello Liz. Have you read WP:POLITICIANS? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism in Rohitha Rajapaksa

Hello,

I'd like to inform you (as you're one of the recently active admins and I do not yet know where to report this), that the page Rohitha Rajapaksa appears to be under massive vandalization by multiple IPs: Besides some reverts and one (seemingly unsourced) contribution, all edits to that page after this one appear to have been done to insert (supposedly) Sri Lankan insults and to add unsourced information about that person's family being corrupt.

I do not have any knowledge of Sri Lankan politics nor of their insults (the most I could do was confirm they were insults with urban dictionary/google), but the vandalism there seems pretty significant.

(actually as I was writing this another user reverted the page to the revision I linked, although the page appears to still be being vandalized so I will still make this section)

Thank you for your time. 2804:F14:C060:8A01:2C92:228A:7828:ED9C (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)}}

Update: Seems another admin solved it after the user who reverted the 40+ vandalism changes asked for the page to be protected. I won't delete this as I don't know if that's how things are done, you're welcome to though. 2804:F14:C060:8A01:6084:9868:98AC:FCDF (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Víctor Jara songs

Thanks for performing the move. I didn't want to make a request out of laziness. The original category name had a typo. --Bedivere (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick vandal block needed

Jackthekim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Liz, I noticed you on the recently active admin list (and AIV is a bit underwatched at this hour). If you or one of your friendly talk page stalkers with the special buttons are around, would you mind blocking the above-noted user? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aoi (青い),

It looks like this editor is already blocked. I don't visit that noticeboard much but I will check it out. By the way, what is this "recently active admin list" you speak of? Just curious. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, I appreciate your quick reply! (And sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else need to keep a close eye on the AIV board, definitely no one is under any such obligation!). Regarding the "recently active admin list," This is the tool I was referring to. I find it useful when it's an odd hour of the day and there is something urgent that needs attention, especially since I am not super familiar with IRC. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's not how I took it. That's an interesting tool, I've been here years and I never knew about it. I think it tracks edits, not admin actions as it is missing an admin I just noticed had deleted a page. It would be easier to track editing behavior than logged admin acts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:people of Malay descent

Hello Liz

I noticed that you added a quick deletion template to Category:Moroccan people of Malay descent and you were reverted by the ip [22] of MohdFajar243 [23]. I found ou that his IPs were adding the Category templates to different pages without any reasons. Another one of their IPs is [24].197.153.6.83 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 197.153.6.83,

I will look into this, thanks for the head's up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

antineutronium

You deleted the page "antineutronium" with a reference to a defunct (non-)discussion from April 2020, but haven't participated in the current discussion for April 2022. Was this in error? If you haven't already, please review the discussion at "Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 4#antineutronium" and add any relevant input you may have on whether the redirect page should be restored or kept deleted. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Barrie (band)

Hello! Few hours ago I speedily tagged Barrie (band) with A7, but the user contacted me saying that he disagreed with the speedy deletion. I have rechecked the source he provided on the Talk page when he contested the deletion, and in my opinion, the only sources that establish their notability is this Pitchfork article. It is also my opinion that this article is not in-depth enough to establish the notability of the band itself. Other sources provided by the editor creating the page is just their discographies which in my opinion does not add to their notability. What do you think? Do I did right with the A7? Thank you! SunDawntalk 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

All the links are from websites that have wikipedia pages. They are music publications like NME which are well established. I've even included an article from the New York Times. Metrotitan

Userfy request

Liz, could I get a userfied copy of the deleted 2020 draft: Sinsemilla Tips for potential content rescue/integration with the new article of the same name? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bri,

Sorry for the delay, I'll take care of this tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness poster.jpeg

Hi Liz. I declined the speedy on this title. Why did you still delete it? -FASTILY 05:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fastily,

Oh, my, that was my error and I restored it. I must have had the page open on a tab and then returned to it after you untagged the page and acted on the tag. I didn't refresh the screen and see your action. I just thought it was an unneeded redirect. This should teach me to not extend my work to the File area where I have less experience. I appreciate you catching my mistake and letting me know so I could restore it, thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hello, I saw your comment on my talk page — thanks for informing me of that action, I will log onto my regular account when talking to someone on their talk page or any talk page in general.

Anyway, I was wondering if I could have this old user page of mine (now redirected) deleted? The whole reason why I changed my username was because I no longer felt comfortable using my real name, and I was concerned/and convinced that I was being stocked on external social media pages. I don’t feel comfortable with it being a redirect — I’d rather it just be entirely deleted.

If you could point me in the right direction to have it deleted, that would be helpful. Thanks --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about why Charissa (Musician) page was deleted

Hi Liz,

I just wanted to kindly ask why my Charissa (Musician) page had been deleted, and what can we do to improve it and make it better?

Thank you.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

G5 decline

You decline here is frankly pointless. Only the sockpuppet happened to create and expand the article so far thus it should be deleted per G5. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Are you going to respond or I should raise this issue on WP:AN already? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Why would this need to go to AN? The next step would be to just send it to AfD if you would like to see it deleted. This page had edits Special:Diff/1066228023 and Special:Diff/1075865055 by two different editors after the sock creation, thus making it G5 ineligible. -2pou (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Those edits are minor, not major enough to take responsibility of entire article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Abhishek0831996,

Sorry for my delay in responding to your message. I either seem to see my talk page messages right away or it takes me a while for me to get to them.

CSD G5 is frequently misunderstood. Please read over WP:G5, it is not page deletion merely because the page was created by a sockpuppet but because the sockmaster had been blocked and the sockpuppet was being used for ban evasion. Yes, the article had been created by a sockpuppet but if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammad Chaudhry and the page history, you'll see that the page was created before the sockmaster was blocked. So it's not a situation of ban evasion. Muslim Kids TV was created by User:RaheelAnsar on December 27, 2021 and the sockmaster wasn't blocked until January 25, 2022 so they were not evading a ban when the article was created.

For CSD G5, you need to look at the SPI case, the block log for both the sockmaster and sockpuppet, the date of account creation of the sockpuppet and the date that the article was created (and also whether other editors had contributed to the article). CSD G5 usually fits for long-time sockmasters who have recently created new sockpuppets and when they are the only contributors to the article but it often doesn't apply to new SPI cases when the sockpuppetry is first found because the sockmaster isn't blocked until recently and so their sockpuppets weren't being used for ban evasion but just as illegitimate sockpuppet accounts. Also, if you go through my talk page and talk page archives, you'll find I've had this discussion often with editors so it's a frequent mistake page taggers make. You can take this to WP:AN if you want but I think it would just be energy on your part that you could spend on more productive activities.

I apologize again for you having to wait a day for my reply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: The SPI says "This appears to be a fairly prolific UPE or group of UPEs." Just because the master account wasn't caught because of 90-days limit of CU record, it doesn't mean that this person wasn't evading block on an already banned account. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical redirect

Hi Liz, the page Traditional Sunni–Salafi relations was only created in the last 24 hours when a relatively new editor made a controversial page move that has now been reverted. Now normally I wouldn't even be worried about whatever lingering redirects were out there, but in this instance, the editor who tried to move the page seems to have gotten the thoroughly wrong end of the stick, and the destination of the move (and now redirect) is actually nonsensical relative to the original name of the page and its contents. This is why it and its talk page were tagged as CSD R3 - because it is a complete misnomer. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A7 on Andrea Martínez

Hi Liz -- I don't feel particularly strongly either way, but I declined the A7 a minute before you deleted the article. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Espresso Addict,

I must have been acting on the page seconds after you. You took first action so I reverted myself and restored the page. Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It's unlikely to survive long but I think it's important to maintain the A7 threshold as distinct from notability, and I tend to think that recreation after a prod deletion implies that the prod was contested and escalation to AfD is indicated. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk)

Re removing erroneous redundant redirect at Hittite Empir

About my attempt to remove the erroneous redundant redirect at Hittite Empir [25]: I will read the instructions at How to list a redirect for discussion and go through the procedure to get Hittite Empir discussed. I realise it is not a recent creation, but it seems an obvious typo, and there already exists a proper target ("Hittite Empire") for redirection (everybody was very lucky to get "Hittite" spelled correctly). I really think there's a bit of a case for Ignore all rules here. I'll look at improving things tomorrow, then, if you haven't in the meantime seen clear to reversing your reversal. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Spider eater

Hi! I've noticed that the page Spider eater got deleted per G7 a month ago. Sorry, that may come across as a weird question, but did I really ask for it to be deleted? I have no recollection of the context any more. – Uanfala (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Uanfala,

You were not the page creator, User:Zxcvbnm was and they asked for the page to be deleted. The rationale was "Nothing left to disambiguate now that the D&D monster article was soft deleted". It looks like Spider eater (Dungeons & Dragons) was the only article on this disambiguation page and it has been turned into a redirect. The other listing was simply "an organism that feeds on spiders" and was linked to Arachnophagy so I don't think the page really fulfilled the purpose of a disambiguation page once the D&D page was gone as an actual article. I hope this answers your question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Liz pretty much summed up my line of thinking. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz, I may have things awfully mixed up, so I'm sorry if this is incorrect, but I do seem to distinctly recall creating such a disambiguation page myself. Would you mind restoring it please? From your description it seems like a standard dab that disambiguates an informal term for an arachnophage and a fictional monster (it's completely irrelevant if this is not a separate article but a redirect to a page with relevant content). – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, so you don't seem like you're interested in responding any further. Here we go again: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 8#Spider eater. Liz, why do I always have to go through all this rigmarole for such simple cases? – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I just got back home. I'm sorry it wasn't swift enough for you, Uanfala. You seem very impatient and I gave you a very thorough answer. Good luck with your deletion review of a disambiguation page that probably could have been tagged CSD G14. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I only noticed that you were hard at work closing discussions and deleting pages in the meantime, and it didn't occur to me that you may be in a situation where you're at ease to do these things but can't answer my request.

You brought up WP:G14: the previous issues I've had have involved exactly this criterion. To quote from the policy, it applies to disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages. From your description, I infer that the page you deleted disambiguated not zero, but two extant pages, so this criterion shouldn't apply. – Uanfala (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Relativity

So if by chance everything in the world relates Then what?.... Your definitions are absolute.. What was my definition on theory in life as we speak encyclopedia so my book comes out and it will here next couple weeks then can I say what I had to say. Because it be apart of history right? I'm just wondering Crsvncnt (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Crsvncnt,

Can you tell me what you are talking about? Does this concern an article or draft? If so, please give me a link to the page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Worker Bee

Hi Liz, great work on deleting all those old drafts. I see them showing in on my watchlist. Keep up the good work lass :) scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, scope_creep,

I didn't expect compliments from you, I sense some of my AFD closures don't sit well with you. But I appreciate the kind words. Stale drafts and empty categories are kind of what I do these days. Not exciting work but pretty predictable and steady....every day, there is somewhere between 150-250 drafts that expire and need to be put away until someone wants to revive them. I like to work at WP:REFUND when I have time because it's where editors go to get back drafts that want to work on...kind of balances out all of the deletions I seem to do these days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wunder (Gamer)

Hello, while it was not my page, I was wondering if you have to ability to give me access to the article Wunder (gamer) (deleted yesterday). It was already on my list of articles to improve, and I'm confident I can take the page to a minimum of start-class. I take my first break in a couple months and my timing couldn't be better. Thanks for your time Chaddude (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Chaddude,

I don't ordinarily restore articles deleted through AFD but this discussion leaned toward weak delete. Can I ask that you submit it to WP:AFC when you think it is ready? Because if I restore it and you move it directly into main space, it'll get tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. There is no point in restoring a page if it just will be immediately deleted again. If you get a positive review from AFC, it'll help it keep from being deleted again. And, I'd like to restore it to your User space if that's okay. Let me know if these are conditions you can accept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to think I have a decent amount of experience creating esports biographies from scratch Hans Sama Ssumday Vulcan (gamer) Licorice (gamer) as well as seriously improving standing articles that are close to deletion status Bwipo Impact (gamer). I hope you could take my word that I can bring it up to main space quality within a couple hours of it being in my user space. If not, and you really want an AFC positive first then I would reluctantly accept those terms as well. Thanks either way Chaddude (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Chaddude,

 Done You can find it at User:Chaddude14/Wunder (gamer). Please read over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunder (gamer) so you can see the arguments for why some editors thought it should be deleted, it would be great if you could address their concerns. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again! Chaddude (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)