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!

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

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.

Restore the article Stephen Zechariah

Hi there, I have recently came across on the article Stephen Zechariah seems deleted. And I also saw that the article was created by a suspected user/banned user. But I strongly believe the person in the article is completely notable to WP:NMUSICIAN and they added the reliable sources in the reference. So, respected Liz, kindly restore the article Stephen Zechariah. ButterSand0 (talk)

Not done as you are also a blocked editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft (game) R3

Hi, Liz. I saw that you deleted Minecraft (game) under CSD R3. It's my understanding that that was a redirect to Minecraft. Such redirects are normally allowed as {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Would you mind restoring it? If you feel strongly about it, you can always take it to RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry for the delay, Tamzin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

or

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

template.

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But How?

Why you delete Category:Wikipedians who use Android 10 this is not for vandalism or disruptive behavior please explain me as soon as possible. Thank you. HEA42DAVFA (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion by Category:Wikipedians who use Android 10 HEA42DAVFA (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HEA42DAVFA,

Did you read the notice that was posted on your user talk page? That's the first step you should take. Empty categories are deleted unless they fit a small number of limited exceptions (category redirects, disambiguation categories, categories being discussed at CFD, etc.). This is true for all categories no matter what subject they are about. If they are deleted after being tagged for 7 days for being empty and are later needed, they can be recreated. This has nothing to do with vandalism or disruption, Wikipedia just does not stock up on empty categories that are not being used.

Please do not add pages to this category unless they are relevant. Random pages added to empty categories will be removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I didn't want to take this to a noticeboard to avoid the lengthy heated debates that would probably arise, so here I am. Is the following statement appropriate for a user page? This user supports man/woman marriage as the definition needed to protect the integrity of the family, preserve the true meaning of marriage, and keep it as a child-focused institution. – ².O.^Boxing 10:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Squared.Circle.Boxing,

It is important to see isolated quotes in context. Can you provide a link to the page? Sometimes a user talk discussion should occur and other times a noticeboard discussion is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert – ².O.^Boxing 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

Hi, saw you listed as a resource per How to request Revision Deletion. Would you look at this and decide whether it should be revdel'd? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bri,

Revision deletions are often judgment calls but this seems disruptive to me so I went ahead and deleted it. Thanks for removing it and bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empty categories

My first question is, since when has there been a "seven days" rule on deleting categories that are tagged for speedy deletion? It can't be called "speedy" if there's a "you have to leave it there for a week" rule, and has to be renamed to something else.

My second question is, then what am I supposed to do in situations like Category:Swedish expatriate sportspeople in the Faroe Islands, where the use of a "fooian fooers" template in lieu of direct category declarations is causing the autogeneration of a non-existent Category:Swedish expatriates in the Faroe Islands parent category, whose status as a redlink is in turn causing it to appear on Special:WantedCategories — but precisely because that category is being autogenerated by a template, there's no category declaration to remove, and thus it's impossible to clear it off WantedCategories by any other method besides immediate speedy deletion? The answer to that isn't, and can't be, "just leave it sitting on WantedCategories as kludge to be worked around for seven days" — if Category:Swedish expatriates in the Faroe Islands is sitting there today, then I have to do whatever is necessary to get it cleared today, and can't leave some entries on that list sitting around for seven days as "non-actionable items". Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Editor tags on my Talk Page from new accounts

Hi Liz. Thank you for blocking Иван8 for their vandalism of my Talk Page, I greatly appreciate it.

Another new account has done the same, so I was wondering if you would be willing to block them too please? The account is AndrewRyan214. Thanks, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle,

I gave them a temporary block and a warning. I'm sorry you've had to put up with this harassment. I can also semi-protect your talk page for a while if this persists with other accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! If it happens again, I will take up your kind offer of semi-protecting my Talk Page. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. Another one just popped up from a new account, so it would be great if my Talk Page could be semi-protected. Would you be able to do this for me please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle,

I don't know if it is the same person but I've given the page temporary semi-protection. I hope it helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was quick, thank you so much. None of the accounts so far have been autoconfirmed, so I think this will be a great help. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry to both you, but my poor Talk Page has become a target for vandals again: Special:Contributions/Andy1292111, Special:Contributions/Lev19861, Special:Contributions/Armensar81, Special:Contributions/Acushian, Special:Contributions/DroopyPoopy, Special:Contributions/Ron4554 and Special:Contributions/Kevinhodges.

Could you please consider adding the semi-protection again? Thanks, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just moving this old topic to the bottom, in case my new reply was missed) MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle,

You shouldn't have to put up with this, I have semi-protected your user talk page for a week and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Armensar81 on your behalf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your efforts with this. I really appreciate you creating the sockpuppet investigation on my behalf. Hopefully the folks over there can find a pattern there to stop it popping up again in future. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Stevelmans

Dear Liz, Thank you for support WUKF page a this is a great organization. Reza Goodary's article has credible sources approved by WP:News sources. Unfortunately, the article was not confirmed by one of the users yesterday. Please kindly help for approve. (1), (2), (3), (4). IRIB, IRNA, ILNA are in the list. Also IPNA is Iran Pro Sport News Agency (5) and BORNA News Agency (Reputable news agency affiliated with the Ministry of Sports of Iran) (6). Also It is news from official website of Ministry of Sport Iran (7) (Link open only in Iran). The Reza Goodary (رضا گودری) article already approved on The Persian Wikipedia. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MMA Kid,

I don't review articles, that is done by the good folks at WP:AFC. I recommend you talking to the reviewer for tips or going to the Teahouse which is a resource for new editors to ask for advice or visit Articles for Creation. I'm an administrator and spend most of my time on administrative tasks, not content review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts, that's a project for editors interested in martial arts. They might have some resources for creating strong articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for response and help. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WUKF

Dear Liz, The WUKF page nominated for speedy deletion again. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MMA Kid,

It looks like WUKF is a redirect page you just created. Did you mean another page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Yes. I mean is World Union of Karate Do Federations. Regards. MMA Kid (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, this page isn't tagged for Speedy deletion, Proposed deletion or an AFD. It's had no activity since I removed the CSD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

Hi Liz, I was wondering if you could please redact revision ID 1043430816 on the page Rickey Brady. What the IP editor (2600:1700:64F0:2A20:D194:2B00:6808:EA20) wrote about Brady was pure libel. It falls without a question under criteria 2-- grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Thanks, Helen(💬📖) 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HelenDegenerate,

Sorry I'm just seeing this. Looks like QEDK took care of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi there! Hope you’re well. I saw your note re my article and I would love any suggestions you may have how to have it post properly as I’ve for years edited revised reposted and been denied over and over regardless of the facts and other credits on wiki that are accurate it’s really strange to me it keeps getting rejected as many other people with similar background have similar worded articles and they’ll allowed and validated even. I seem to keep attracting rejections here and unclear entirely why. Happy to make edits needed just unsure how to do more than I have repeatedly done. Thank you for any suggestions in advance and your time / attention. Wolfstarmoon (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wolfstarmoon,

I assume you are talking about Draft:Tom Syrowski? I deleted the draft simply because it had gone 6 months without any edits by human editors (not bots). You can get it restored either by asking me (or any administrator) or by going to WP:REFUND.

I don't review content creation, I handle administrative tasks but I think it's unusual for a recording engineer to have an article on Wikipedia unless they are particularly notable. You can receive some editing help at a number of pages including Articles for Creation, WikiProject Music or, especially, the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My ip is a VPN

The ip that i'm editing from right now is a proxy ip, can you block it?

Hello, User:1.53.126.126,

You are asking me to block your account? From what I can see, you are not a proxy account but maybe one of my lovely talk page stalkers can check this claim out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's proof: https://www.vpngate.net/en/ (you can see that the ip on the page). Also here: https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/1.53.126.126

Hello, Enwiki~enwiki,

Okay, thanks for the link, I've never seen that website before. And I've never had an editor come to my talk page, asking to be blocked. And I've never made a block on a proxy IP so I'm not sure of the appropriate block length but I gave them a week. If any admins visiting this page think this is a sinfully short period of time, please correct the duration of the block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for a good admin

Andrybak has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Being an admin can be tiring and tedious. Put the mop away for a while and have a pie. Thank you for contributions to the project! —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, andrybak, that's very kind of you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quitento

Hello there. You have deleted the article Quitento, which was prod-ed. However, I contested such proposed deletion by providing sources in the talk page. Granted, I should have added those to the article, but it's clear it complies with the general notability guideline. Please restore it. Kind regards. Bedivere (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bedivere,

I'm used to editors simply removing the PROD tag if they disagree with the proposed deletion. It has been restored upon your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Liz. No worries! I'm just accustomed to the Spanish Wikipedia procedures in these cases. Proposed deletions are discussed on talk pages and these tags can only be removed by admins or the user who tagged the article. Anyway, good to know. And thanks for restoring it as requested. Kind regards. Bedivere (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the English Wikipedia, editors can remove speedy deletion tags and PROD tags but they are asked to provide a reason and improve the article if they do so. The restrictions that exist here is that editors can not remove speedy deletion tags from pages they have created and no one should remove an Articles for Deletion tag until the discussion has concluded. Now that I write this all out though, I can see why this system is confusing to newer editors, especially if the procedures are different on their home Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Katharine Towne

Hi Liz, I am not sure reverting to an earlier version is the best thing. The last submitter did add some additional sources (they were not formal citations but nonetheless something). In addition, it removes my decline and comments providing my reasoning for the decline along with some guidance. Granted, I am new to AfC so could be completely wrong. S0091 (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

I'm not sure what to do, I haven't run into this before. Everything that I reverted to was in the page history that had been restored. I re-added your AFC decline to the current version.

Maybe Anachronist can assist...should I revert my reversion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment there. I think the version you restored has better content and formatting than the original submission, but the original submission had better sources (while the one you restored has none). I merged the contents of both versions, so now the sources are back as external links. If they were incorporated into the article as inline citations (which is the responsibility of the submitter to make that effort, not me), we may have something worth publishing in main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks to both of you. S0091 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your merging magic, Anachronist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no magic, just manual effort. The submitter has some work to do, particularly learning how to cite sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for clearing out the promo and hoaxes I've found at Category:Stale userspace drafts. Your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MrLinkinPark333, but as far as I'm concerned, you did the heavy lifting, going through those old drafts. That's unseen and thankless work that is heroic to me. It's kind of like wandering into uncharted territory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Jasim Muhammad al-Jaburi

Hello can you please see if this article which was proposed for deletion actually meets the criteria for deletion. Please see my message. 197.52.65.201 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 197.52.65.201,

Proposed deletion is for uncontroversial deletion. If you disagree with the nomination, then you can remove the PROD tag from the article. In my experience, a good proportion of articles that have been de-PRODded are then nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion. That action prompts a deletion discussion where you could make an argument for whether you believe the article should be kept or deleted. Right now, it only has an PROD tag which can be challenged by any editor. If you do remove the PROD tag, please respond to the deletion rationale in your edit summary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, so can I remove the PROD tag without making the User who nominated it for deletion keep nominating it for deletion again and again, because I was just reading the reason for nominating it for deletion and I said that It was a bad reason because Rewards for Justice and the FBI are reliable sources and It has other refs not only Rewards for Justice and the FBI. So then the User who nominated for deletion should also see the article Abu Muhammad al-Shimali which all of its refs are based on Rewards for Justice and FBI. 197.52.65.201 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If a prod is removed, it can't be added back. However, there is an expectation that if you remove the prod, you will improve the article in a way that addresses the concerns. Once the prod is removed, if the next step is to start a discussion at WP:AFD if someone still believes the article should be deleted. I have removed the prod tag, with my reasoning in the edit summary. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to Anachronist, 197.52.65.201. At this point, you can not stop an editor for nominating a page for deletion, but you can work improving the article so that other editors agree with you that it should be kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County

Would you mind explaining why you deleted this page? It doesn't seem to be standard practice to delete WikiProjects, especially speedily without any discussion, and your deletion left several traces behind, including hundreds of articles still tagged as belonging to the project. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pppery,

Oh, my God, I have no idea what happened here. Thank you for bringing it to my attention so I could restore the page. There is no reason to delete a WikiProject main & talk page unless it is a result of a WP:MFD discussion and the general opinion there is to prefer to turn inactive and defunct WikiProject pages into redirects to active ones. I do know that UnitedStatesian and I have been cleaning up empty categories that were never used for article assessments but those are categories not main WikiProject pages. I'll go through my Deletion log for the past few weeks and make sure that this mistake didn't happen twice. I am very thankful that you came to my talk page and allowed me to rectify my mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this myself, somewhat ironically, when doing a similar bit of maintenance (cleaning up "WikiProject X <members/participants> categories" for defunct/nonexistent projects). Also remember to restore any redirects and subpages you deleted, which appears to include Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County/Articles, Wikipedia:ALVA, Wikipedia:Albemarle, and Wikipedia:ALBVA, and their talk pages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went back to August in my Deletion log and I just found those redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County/Left and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County/Articles which I have restored, all of the rest were empty assessment categories from inactive and defunct WikiProjects which is what we were focusing on. I don't know how this random Virginia County WikiProject got in the mix. Strange but I found Wikipedia talk:ALVA had been tagged for speedy deletion but none of the others were. The rest is all on me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Houghton

Thank you for restoring this page. Is there a tag or chit or something I should attach to the page to indicate that it is beyond the reach of a G4 speedy? Chubbles (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chubbles,

I don't know of an appropriate tag but there are hundreds of templates and tags on Wikipedia. I posted a comment on Missvain's talk page so she might know or you can ask at the Teahouse, I've almost always been able to get an answer there. Sorry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoca

Don't fret, this wasn't a draft but an article an admin decided wasn't good enough. Spoiled the whole clogs ecosystem but I cleaned up after whoever it was. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Martin,

If you want to continue to work on Draft:Zocca (shoe) just let me know or you can ask at WP:REFUND. Drafts deleted due to inactivity can be restored today, tomorrow or next year if you find some better sources. One of the few kinds of page deletions on Wikipedia that is easy to reverse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I mentioned another editor had put a bit about zocas onto the main page instead of its own page as is done for all the different types of clogs. I moved the information off to restore the clogs page and I was sat on by an admin so just cleaned it all up. That's why my name was on the stub. As I said, don't fret about it, admin action had condemned it 6 months ago. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Faster than Thunder

Hi Liz. Would you mind taking a look at this? Perhaps there's no real harm since there's no RFA for this user, but it might be seen as misleading. In addition, based on these, this might be a WP:YOUNG editor who might mean well, but might not realize things like WP:REALWORLD; at the same time though, it also kind of seems like this isn't a completely new editor based on some of the technical things they've been trying to do so far. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#User:Faster than Thunder and WP:CIR for more on that possibility. Maybe the ANI thread should be re-opened to see if it can be more formally resolved? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marchjuly,

I posted a message on their talk page. They've only been editing for two weeks, for me, it's too soon to issue a block for competency when it's actually inexperience. I read that ANI thread and there was some question about socking and that's more of a concern to me...if they start being disruptive, I suggest contacting a Checkuser. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz. I think you message is probably fine for now. FWIW, I first came across the account because of this edit, which seemed to a bit too BOLD for a major policy page. I only saw the ANI discussion after I first posted here. It seems that there are probably a number of others (including admins) already watching the account; so, perhaps someone will indeed step in if things start getting too disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headcount Index by Parish in Antigua and Barbuda

Hi, you removed my CSD tag. The text and table for Headcount Index by Parish in Antigua and Barbuda are fully copied from here on page 25. Citing (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Citing,

As I said in my edit summary, if you looked at the source, it says it was published in 2007 and the chart on the article says the data from 2011. That is why I PROD'd the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I had tagged it for speedy deletion as an unambiguous copyright infringement -- the text is almost a word-for-word copy of its source. I'm not sure why Earwig is showing it at 0% because it should be closer to 100%.Citing (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You've got mail. - wolf 20:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thewolfchild,

I don't see an email message. I don't check it very often but I did tonight and I don't see anything from you. Did you use the link on the left or an email address you have? Did you send it today or a few days ago? Let me know and I'll investigate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and "b". I'll just resend. - wolf 14:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still nuthin'...? - wolf 04:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, I'll check right now. My apologies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thewolfchild, I've responded. Sorry for the delay. Nice to hear from you! Let me know if you don't get my response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not interfere or I will.

I do not need your mindfulness diatribe. I will not assume good faith, as you have attempted to intervene in a scenario in which your elderly assistance is clearly unneeded. I have put three tags, as they are necessary. Your asinine contribution has done nothing and thus, it is highly advisable you retract your choice and do not engage with me on this platform anymore. If you continue, I will seek higher authority in legislative manners. Not a threat, it is a promise. Gongfong2021 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gongfong2021,

First, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this about an article? A talk page comment? I make hundreds of edits a day I have no clue what this is about.

And second, if you continue like this, insulting people at random, you will find yourself blocked. We believe in civility at Wikipedia. That's not a threat or a promise, it's a fact. I've seen plenty of people like you and they don't last very long here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is this regarding Chemmalai Maha Vidyalayam? If so, then you must be User:JohnDVandevert. Why are you signing messages Gongfong2021 instead of a regular editor signature? That's why I didn't recognize your name. That is deceptive...you should use your current username so people know who you are. And sorry for "engaging with you on this platform" but I usually respond to messages on my talk page. Especially the crazier ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've gone through your edit history, John, I've found 5 or 6 other editors you have ordered to "not have contact with me!" including Ponyo and Cabayi, two other administrators, so I'm in good company (wait a second, I tripped over my walker, I'm such an old geezer). I do not think you will make a good Teahouse host with that attitude (nice photo though). And someone thought you were a sockpuppet of John from Idegon who was a good editor but who shared your surly attitude.

Well, this was one of the more peculiar introductions to new editors I've had but back to the actual work of cleaning up this project....I look forward to hearing from "higher authority in legislative manners", it will be interesting to find out who the hell that is. Bye. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this

I presume in the short while Ashleyyoursmile was here you both had mutual respect for each other and I’m pretty sure her exit subconsciously upset you. I’m not sure how I missed it, perhaps at the same time frame when I had sustained a knee injury. Coming from BN I saw your input and i can tell this hit you hard. Hopefully she’d be back. Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Celestina007,

Welcome back to my talk page. Unfortunately, lately we have only interacted at ANI which is a place I try and stay away from these days. I spent my early days hanging out at ANI, trying to mediate conflict, but now I like to stick to the work.

I'm not sure I'm "upset", emotionally, I just think it's tragic. Ashleyyoursmile was like you, a workaholic, and I cleaned up a lot of pages from vandals she reported. She was tireless. And, unfortunately, at least one of those people came back to the project and made it their mission to malign and insult her very personally and graphically. We had to do a lot of revision deletion. And this was before she became an admin so there might have been more after her RfA that she quietly cleaned up herself without mentioning it. I don't know if this is why she left but, if it happened to me (and it was much worse than the message above this one), I would have had second thoughts about being here. And having her departure come after she had weathered an RfA, which, for me was a very unpleasant experience, it must have been serious. Editors usually don't come back after a vanishing and I think someone as active as she was would just have to cut their ties. It reminds me of an outstanding Indian editor we had who had to vanish after he was personally threatened in his off-wiki life. It is so unfair and it seems to happen to the best people, editors who stand up for Wikipedia pillars.

But we really don't know why she left and I expect we never will. But I hope WMF & Wikipedia finds better ways to protect their editors who come under fire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the circumstances are but I was sad and disappointed when I learned that she had retired. Really too bad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It really is awful, I respect her decision all the same. I really was routing for her to become a celebrated sysop just like you. If what was intended to be a hobby that brings you happiness is doing the inverse of that, then dropping it is a good idea. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Celebrated"? LOL, there are those who would disagree with your evaluation. I keep busy but I just hope to be in the top 50% of admins, better than average. I could have benefited from your support at my RfA which was a squeaker! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who doesn’t appreciate you, clearly do not know about your works at G13's, you carry about 90% of the workload there and this is not even an exaggeration. But yeah! I get your drift. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pist Idiots

Hi Liz, I saw you deleted an article on Pist Idiots back in August and dare I say accurately. I am Australian and listen to a lot of music and have never heard of them. They released a debut studio album this week, and according to ARIA, it's on track to debut inside the ARIA top 50 albums this Friday. https://www.aria.com.au/charts/news/amyl-and-the-sniffers-steps-pist-idiots-aiming-for-top-tens-on-this-weeks-aria-charts

As such, I went to create a stub article in preparation and saw it had been deleted by yourself. Are you able to un-delete or send what was done, I can do some research, add some content and make it notable for Friday, assuming their album does debut inside the top 50. Thanks Tobyjamesaus (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tobyjamesaus,

I checked and it was a completely blank pages. Nothing there. So, I can say with 100% confidence that your version will be an improvement! I generally advise folks to start in Draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation for review...you have a greater chance of it surviving editors who patrol new pages if you get a review from the AFC folks. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - a blank page??? Oh Lordy... Ok thanks. Yeah, well, I planned on working on it for a bit first. I've created quite a lot of pages, so I am fairly familiar with what makes something notable :). Thank you though. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Abdulrahman Akkad

Hi user:Liz, how are you , I think this article is promotional Article ,can you look into it, and if you want delete it and delete the promotional links Social Media stay safe --Hasan AB123 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Liz,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Batch deletions

Liz

Thank you for your entirely reasonable comment on my talk page. I have only one comment to make.

Oops! ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthony,

And thank you for your very reasonable response! I've made the same mistake...and other admins, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page Rise Up Dubai

I saw that you put the Speedy deletion nomination in that page, which is entirely necessary and you did that. But the page author/creator is removing or playing with the tamplet by renaming it. I just re placed the speedy deletion nomination tamplet but he will do that again. So please do something, otherwise he will not Stop doing disruptive editing Jogesh 69 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jogesh 69,

Thanks for the alert. I'll check on the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Stricagnoli

@Liz: Hi liz , i hope you are keeping well, you helped delete an old draft of mine last year, i worked on a very simple short new version a few months ago that one of the other editors that previously rejected it said was better, it was then rejected for a few reasons, so the newest editor gave some pointers for more context and citation. I was working on that while not to make it like a resume, i was nearly ready to put up the new draft for review when it was deleted without notice, that editor was a bit rude and i didnt find it on the deleted log and dont know how to get it back, I am always willing to work on things but i thought this was a little harsh can anything be done?. thanks for listening Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mickmonaghan343,

You're going to have some problems here. Draft:Luca Stricagnoli was deleted as being promotional and another version was previously deleted in a deletion discussion in 2020. I think your best bet, if you don't want to start from scratch, is to ask the deleting administrator, Bbb23, to "userfy" it, that is restore it and put it in your User space, like your Sandbox where you can work on improving it.

Alternatively, you could file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review, arguing that it shouldn't have been deleted but I'd recommend contacting the deleting administrator directly and making an appeal to them. Don't argue with them, I'd say that you are aware of the problems that existed with the draft and you have some ideas on how to fix them (which is honestly what you just told me). It never helps to be polite...administrators' goal is not to make your life difficult but to remove content that they believe is unacceptable from the project. If you have ways to fix the problems they saw, mention that. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks for your message and advice, i asked to userfy it but im not to hopeful as i got a bad vibe about this editors attitude compared to everyone else who have been very helpful.Below is what was said and no reply since.

Hi Bbb23 I was in the middle of editing my page and you deleted it, I have been working on this a long time and was following guidance from another mod on how to fix it and get it approved.The last mod told me to find more citation and that does make it a little one sided but he rejected the unbiased original one for lack of context , can you reinstate it please and i would appreciate your adviceMickmonaghan343 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC) .

My advice is to do something else on Wikipedia besides promote Stricagnoli. The only thing you've been doing for the last three years is work on that draft, and all you've achieved is an advertisement.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zakarid Armenia

Hello, I require your help at Zakarid Armenia because there is a person who reverted my Afd for the third time already. SonofJacob (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salts and ACPERM

Hi, Liz. Thanks for deleting Ziaul Hoque Polash. I noticed that after deleting it, you salted it too. However, when you salted it, you protected it against creation by non-confirmed editors (I think I've seen you do that before). Given WP:ACPERM forbids non-autoconfirmed editors from creating pages in the mainspace anyways, I think you meant to put it under extended-confirmed protection. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sdrqaz,

You are correct. Thanks for noticing and brining it to my attention. I'll fix that right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Borthwick

Hello, Liz. Just wondering, did you notice that I had disputed the speedy deletion tag for Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster) on the Talk page? Moonraker (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moonraker,

Just a cursory look at the old version, prior to the first deletion, and the last version of this page, but the references look similar to me. The AFD was just closed in January 2021 so it was not that long ago. But taking into account your years of experience, I will restore all edits and move it into Draft or User space (I'd recommend User space) for you if you wish.

Since you have autopatrolled status, this might sound silly but the only way I know to get around a recent AFD deletion decision is to have an AFC review and approval. Otherwise, if you move it back into main space, even with improvements, it will probably just be tagged again for deletion (and it might be tagged in Draft space which is why I recommend moving it to a User page). Let me know what you think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, helpful reply. Well, yes, the references are mostly the same, and they are good ones. I have a saved version in user space. You may see my point that one AfD decision (a bad one in this case, in my humble opinion) can’t be for all time. Perhaps an AFC review is the way forward, but on the other hand is there an AfD review, and is there any time limit? Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by User:Pitzzaboy. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Tartan357. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you ! :D

The furret lover (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The furret lover. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

Library design improvements deployed
New collections available in English and German
Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Extension of Full Protection for the Kisii people Article.

Hey Liz,

Thank you for protecting the Kisii people article which was being vandalized through blanking and deletion of content. However, I'm requesting you to extend the full protection of the page to 6 months or indefinitely because the article seems prone to vandalism. I'm sure once the current page protection is removed, there are still going to be more attempts to vandalize the article. I believe long term protection of the page will be very beneficial in preventing future vandalism. I will appreciate your extension of full protection for this page. Thank you! Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nyanza Cushitic,

The standard approach to protection is to have the duration and level of protection the minimum possible to avoid disruption, especially for full protection which doesn't allow any editors to edit the page except administrators who are not supposed to use their status to change content in content disputes.

I would feel more comfortable if you posted your request to extend the protection to such a long duration at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for increase in protection level. Administrators who patrol that noticeboard have a better feel for what an appropriate level of protection would be and for the length of the protection. Until that decision is made, I'll make sure that the article is not the site of an edit-war. But admins kind of specialize in these tasks and I'd rather have an admin experienced in this to make such a big decision, especially since I imagine that full protection for six months would be a decision that would be appealed. I don't think I've run into full protection of an article for such a long period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you for your suggestion. Can you please block Wojak6 from editing this article? His edits are very destructive and vandalizes articles. His vandalism actions on the Kisii people article were very unacceptable and destructive to the article. This editor has done serious damage to many articles and needs to be blocked indefinitely to stop vandalizing articles. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyanza Cushitic, are you discussing your differences on the article talk page? Could you invite other editors to participate in the discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion of "Draft:Shorash Baker"

Hello Liz,

I've read your comment about the deletion, I want to address to you the subject personally. we are "Kurds", we are already being suppressed by the dictatorships, if you do a simple google search about "Afrin City" you will see the pictures of bombing and destruction. The Turkish media and it's huge online army is trying with all its resources to eliminate our presence on land and online... therefore, I was not able to gather enough "satisfying Media links, resources" for this article, because they make sure that our culture, artists, names, etc.. get played-off.

However, the artists I tried to make an article about, "shorash baker", if you do also a simple google search about his name, you will find his official record label, Spotify verified artist profile, verified artist YouTube channel, etc.. Please consider this subject, and the circumstances about this small occupied city, at least to have its people's and culture online.

Thank you.

Hello, Xelilof,

This draft was deleted because it hadn't been edited in 6 months, not for any political reasons. With no activity after 6 months, drafts are considered to be "abandoned" and are deleted. If you want to continue to work on it, I can restore it for you or you can make a request at WP:REFUND. I didn't make any judgments about the notability of this person, that is done by reviewers at Articles for Creation. You should discuss their review with them.

When you make a talk page post, please sign it with 4 tildes (~~~~) so that it includes your username, a link to your talk page and the time & date of your message. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion of "Jashmir"

The article "Jashmir" was removed for copyright infringement after it was run through a plagiarism scanner. The page on the website that was supposedly plagiarized was created after the Wikipedia article, not vice versa! Whoever wrote the article on that website simply copy pasted the Wikipedia entry.

Please review the deletion. Thank you! Moonswimmer Mooonswimmer 16:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mooonswimmer,

You were absolutely correct here. When I looked into this case, it was very strange, Enverceylan, a new editor, asked another editor to tag it for a copyright violation (he asked several editors to do this for him), and after you reverted this tagging, another brand new editor reverted you. Have you had contact with Enverceylan? He tried writing an article about himself at Enver Ceylan but I can't see why he was so insistent about this article being deleted.

I'm sorry for not being more thorough when I checked this article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good day

Hi,Mrs Liz.I just saw your sentence I wish we had more editors with knowledge of that country to evaluate the notability of Azerbaijani athletes and the quality of the sources used.If you need any help with this, I'll be happy to help.As a sports journalist in a famous news agency in Azerbaijan, I have some knowledge about these issues. Good day again. MuradAli2000

About deletion of Anup Shukla(More Than 10 Years Old Page)

--AnupShukla (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC) hi Liz On September 22, 2001 I suddenly came to know that my page which is more than 10 years old has been deleted,I don't understand why and how this happened,I think this page got deleted due to some misunderstanding,I would like to tell you that this page was not created by me,I have done many international projects,Any updates that have been made are done by the same people who were involved in some way in the international project,I feel very unfortunate that such an old page has been deleted in such a way, I feel as if injustice is being done to me,So I request you to restore my deleted page I will be very grateful to you. my page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anup_Shukla IMDB -https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3754623/[reply]

About Deletion of Shakir Subhan

Hello, Article about a youtube vlogger Shakir Subhan has been deleted by you, a day ago. The reason you said was recreation of already deleted page. So my reply to you is, article firstly created by someone who wrote in a bad way, that why it got deleted by other user. But later, i created it most perfectly with additional references over 27 News think so. Still it got deleted by you with reason "Recreation". I was created the article as Shakir Subhan (Mallu Traveler), but someone renamed it to Shakir Subhan. Whether its recreation or not, the article i provided was perfectly Written about a well Notable youtuber person. I request you to recheck again & bring back the same article to wikipedia. Otherwise i need to be suggest same article to other extended confirmed users to bring back it... So thanks for your time to read it & hope your reply Xavier 500.30.10 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans

In the media: The future of Wikipedia

Opinion: Wikimedians of Mainland China were warned

Op-Ed: I've been desysopped

Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages

Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators

Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings

Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?

Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11

News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund

WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:Susovan Sonu Roy

Hi Liz, I'm pretty confused here. They're obviously a sock of [1] and [2]. This thing quacks like crazy. Waggie (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Waggie,

I don't see what you are seeing but I'm not familiar with every sockpuppet and every article. I suggest bringing this to the attention of one of the admins who has blocked the sockpuppets as they will be familiar with their habits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured a quick look at the history of the deleted article and talk page history would have made it clear (I can't link to them for obvious reasons. It's OK, though. Although, maybe leave it for a different admin if you're not familiar? That said, it's your tools and your prerogative. Please have a good day/night! Waggie (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Namchak Tsasum Lingpa (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.rangjung.com/book_author/chokgyur-lingpa/. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Namchak Tsasum Lingpa may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Liz! It was coming up as 88% on Earwig. Bkissin (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, Bkissin, I look at hundreds of CSD G13 drafts every day and if one looks especially promising, I'll submit it to AfC for review. I didn't stop and analyze the content. Sorry to take up some of your time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can answer a question for me, Bkissin, it seems like notices like this should be directed at the page creator, not the individual who places a submission tag on a page. I've also been congratulated for successful drafts that I didn't write, I just put an AfC submit tag on the page. I always thought that the page creator should get a notice like that, not me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I used to do the same thing around the G13 drafts! Unfortunately Liz the same thing happens to me. I think it's an issue with the Helper Script. I'll bring it up on the AfC talk page and see what people know about it. Bkissin (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Template:Star Wars drafts

Hi Liz. You deleted this under G5 because of the user who created it was violating a block or ban. Even though that was the case, I believe I had made some edits to it and was one of the editors maintain it etc. Can this be recovered? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Favre1fan93,

I thought the primary contributions were from the sockpuppet but I'll track it down and look at it again. Other editors can have made some edits to a page and it can still be deleted, for me, it's whether the sockpuppet was the primary editor in terms of content added to the page. It's a rather subjective opinion by the admin looking over the page, I've seen some admins delete pages where the sockpuppet only created the page and then made no further edits to the page but I look at whether they were the primary content contributor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thank you. If I personally recall, I do believe the sockpuppet did create the bulk of the edits, and my contributions could have been minor afterwards. If you can't restore it for the reasons you stated, is there a way at least that the wikicode for the table could be copied, even into a personal sandbox of mine, so I could restore the template properly? I do find it a useful template, and I could start from scratch, but I know I might miss some elements that were in the previous version if I did. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Liz:. Just wanted to follow up on the possibility to restore this template or at least salvage the coding? I have since realized/remembered that the template helped autocategorize articles into Category:Star Wars drafts and now that cat has essentially been emptied as a result of this template being deleted. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something.

I just noticed that some of WoW's old contributions are now back in the contributions log. Is this a mistake or did an admin intentionally do this? 69.117.241.47 (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Willy_on_wheels~enwiki 69.117.241.47 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, just realized this was a different person. 69.117.241.47 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was looking at both accounts and couldn't understand what was going on...but slightly different usernames. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Levi Sharan

Hi Liz. Thanks for your tireless efforts working on WP.

You removed the {{db-afc}} tag at Draft:Levi Sharan because "it's not been six months since the last human edit. For today, that would be March 28, 2021". The last edit (prior to my tagging) was May 9, and this was not a meaningful/real page edit, but merely a page move to correct capitalisation. The last real edit on this page was December 29, 2020. It would certainly qualify for CSD#G13. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, P199,

One other admin and I review anywhere from 200 to 300 expiring drafts each and every day of the week and we don't make distinctions between "meaningful" edits and those that are just cosmetic. We just see when the last edit by a human editor was done. The quality of an edit is a subjective judgment that would vary too much among administrators. We just go by the calendar and discount edits by bots. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your incredible hard work, but in this case you may need to show some leeway, especially since you are suggesting that the next time this draft may come up for deletion is March 28, 2022! And only because requesting deletion was a human action by me! That is utterly defeating the purpose of this process... Thanks again. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your inaction sacrifices proper application of WP policy for expediency. This is not right... Please take appropriate action. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, P199,

I don't understand the urgency you are feeling about the deletion of this draft. Is there a problem with this specific draft or is this your opinion about stale drafts in general? If you have problems with Draft:Levi Sharan, you need to let me know what they are or you can consider another criteria for speedy deletion that might fit. If you want to challenge Wikipedia policies and how they are practiced, you should start a discussion and present your argument at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and see if it resonates with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benahficial Creed

How you are doing, I, Benahficial Creed in the flesh, well, in the pixel. Lol. I, Benahficial, as know as #ItsCreed, would love some help with my wiki page, please. Benahficial (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benahficial,

I recommend visiting the Teahouse for help, there are very experienced and friendly editors there who can answer any questions you have. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lil bit can u give me your thoughts? Benahficial (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your draft to User:Benahficial/Sandbox as it shouldn't be on your main User page. You have no sources, you need to have substantial coverage in newspapers, magazines, books, mainstream websites (and social media doesn't count) in order to be judged to be notable. You have to have a notable career to have an article on Wikipedia. If no one has written about you, it's too soon for you to have an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore talk page of premature deletion

Hello! I noticed that you accidentally deleted the page University (film) before the PROD expired and you also ended up deleting the talk page as well. Could you restore the talk page as well? (not sure if there's anything that was of note on it before it got deleted) ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blaze The Wolf,

Done Yes, that was my mistake. There is a list we use, User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary, and typically, those PRODs listed at the top are the ones coming due in the next hour or two. I thought those listed at the top were for today, 9/22 but they are for tomorrow, 9/23. I've never seen such a gap in time before in the listings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Wonder if you somehow got through all the PRODs for today. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good job Mohammed12313893 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure how I earned this but it's always nice to get some appreciation. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao, perhaps because you are internet famous & a Wiki celebrity? Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.

Current and upcoming events

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

Drive and Blitz reports

June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis.

New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive).

Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aj Raval Article

Hello, I noticed that you deleted the AJ Raval article because it was created by a user who was banned/blocked.

Leaving aside the blocked user for a moment, that article had an extensive deletion discussion which resulted in no consensus and ultimately resulted in the article not being deleted. I am confident that the subject is notable (and there have been some articles/references that have come out since that discussion which further buttresses their notability).

Therefore, I would like to request that you restore the article. Alternatively, I can recreate the article, though I am unsure how to retrieve the previous version. Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G5

I have undeleted Draft:Istana Gedung Dalom 2, Draft:Islam in Lampung (2), Draft:Islam in Lampung, and Draft:Gong Gajah Mekhu, which you deleted as WP:CSD#G5. While they were created by sockpuppets of Dedy Tisna Amijaya, G5 requires pages to have been created in violation of the sockmaster's block or ban. This was not the case, as the master and their puppets were simultaneously blocked on September 29 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dedy Tisna Amijaya/Archive#29 September 2021. G5 can not be applied before that date. This was also explained to the IP who tagged these pages as well. ✗plicit 03:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback @ MISSION 33 Talk Page

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at MISSION 33's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Click here to see the Discussion →MISSION 33 (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibiza

Hello, Liz. Can you check my first stub-article User:Владлен Манилов/Ibiza (Philipp Kirkorov and Nikolay Baskov song)? I think it fits the criteria WP:NSINGLE. The song reached a place in the national charts. Kiselyov wrote about the music video. I want you to check my English in the article and correct it if there are any mistakes. Can this exist as a stub in the mainspace? Thanks. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 05:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion Daura, Nigeria

The Article Daura already exist and I unknowingly created another Daura, Nigeria. Therefore you can go on with the deletion. Thank you Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz (Jesy Nelson song)

There are two versions of this article, one of which is spelled Draft:BOYZ (Jesy Nelson song). There has been vandalism; I have tried to revert some of it. The two versions should probably be merged. I think that the proper place is in draft space, because the song is not yet released. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg26 93 and "Back TO Christ" promotions

Thanks for dealing with those. There's one more at Draft:Back To Christ but I didn't know if it could be speedied. Meters (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meters,

Yes, I saw that page. You know, admins differ in their judgments of pages and, for me, although that draft will never be an article, it doesn't have any unacceptable content on it that would warrant a speedy deletion. I'm not sure what CSD tag would even be appropriate.

Yesterday, I had to restore a lot of just crappy articles & drafts that I deleted because I misread an SPI report. I couldn't make any sense of the writing, it seemed like nonsense to me, it wasn't coherent in any way. But it didn't violate any of our guidelines as long as it wasn't in main space. I think I might tag some of the pages for MFD but the bottom line is that we see a lot of content that is junk or misplaced and, in many cases, we wait for CSD G13 to kick in to delete it because there isn't a CSD criteria for just bad writing. We don't even delete drafts that are not written in English. So, we live with the criteria that we can use.

Of course, you could tag that page and another admin might find grounds to delete it. But I didn't see any CSD criteria that fit, in my judgment. Thanks so much for paying attention, especially on a weekend. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I thought about the criteria, too. Meters (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Grand Prix

Hello Liz. I'm a little confused by some recent actions of yours relating to the Mexico City Grand Prix. See my comments at Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship#Piped links and also User talk:Island92#Mexico City Grand Prix. Are my assumptions about what it will take to fix the problem wrong? --DB1729 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DB1729,

I am not following you or the conversation you linked to about piped links. There was a CSD request to move an article to Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton) which I did. It seemed straight-forward to me. Are you saying that this was a contentious move request? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was going to have go through RM because of this requested move in February. Also all you have really done is swap the article with the redirect. We need Mexico City Grand Prix to point to the F1 race Mexican Grand Prix. Ultimately I think the F1 race will be titled Mexico City Grand Prix if/when primary is established. --DB1729 (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping Tvx1 who tagged the redirect and requested the page move and see what they have to say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe most of those involved are among our friends across the Atlantic. They may be waking up soon. --DB1729 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, in case you missed it because it was sort of buried; here is my relevant comment from one of the talk pages I linked:

We cannot currently link to Mexico City Grand Prix because a) it's not a redirect, it's an article, and b) it's...badminton. We can't, that is, until after we get that article moved to the current redirect Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton). To do that, that redirect and its content will have to be deleted and its edit histories merged to make way for the move. Also there was a requested move in February to move the badminton article there in the first place, so all this will need to go through another WP:RM process. Then, after all that, we can have a redirect named Mexico City Grand Prix that points to the Formula One race.

Keep in mind several facts are now untrue after your page move. Also pinging User:SSSB while I'm at it. DB1729 (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final note for now. Maybe I don't understand how edit histories work with moves, and I hope I'm not the bringing bad news, but here is the edit history of the current redirect at Mexico City Grand Prix. It contains only your page move. There was an article about badminton with that title, so is that edit history now moved to here at Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton)? If so, what happened to the edit history of the redirect that existed at Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton) before your move? DB1729 (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of that redirect was deleted, I assume. The edit history of the article on the badminton tournament was moved to the disambiguated tile along with the article itself. The only thing that was left to do to make Mexico City Grand Prix correctly redirect to Mexican Grand Prix, was to simply change the target of that redirect. I will do some further cleanup shortly.T v x1 06:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice though that the article’s talk page wasn’t moved along. I tagged that one as well.T v x1 07:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pinged so I'll comment: Googling "Mexico City Grand Prix" gives the majority of sources about Formula One (I went through 5 pages of results and got nothing else), so I don't see why a WP:BOLD move is an issue. SSSB (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your input. I'm fine now with everything so far, assuming everything's good on Liz's end of this. I believe I made several incorrect assumptions about something I obviously don't know a great deal about. I intend to step aside from this issue now. Sorry for the (my) confusion. DB1729 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-oligosaccharide factor (NOSF)

It's a patented product. The one ref is to a COI paper written by a company employee as last author, and the only other link in the article is to the firm's website. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but it's 100% advertising for the product. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I took it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Nano-oligosaccharide factor (NOSF). No action needed on your part. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4 October 2021

Ma'am I am wandering like a lost soul for the past two weeks everywhere just for the sake of one article Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana, begging and approaching so many people just for help. Honestly I'm in a state of literally crying. Finally, I reached here because I have heard that you are one of the chief admins in Wikipedia. Ma'am I have been editing indian WP:TVSHOW articles of Wikipedia since the last two years and I have seen and gathered knowledge of what all are the minimum and maximum requirements for a WP:TVSHOW. I firmly believe that the show Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana does have everything that a good WP:TVSHOW article needs but nobody is giving it a chance. It is also because so many earlier editors caused so much of mess in creating drafts of the show that it is highly protected that only administrators of Wikipedia can create it. Ma'am you too are an administrator so can you please help to create the article? I assure I will produce all the material required for the article in a Word document and send it to you through e-mail and you can verify it yourself. Or else, atleast give the page creation access to the extended confirmed users also because the extended confirmed users create articles respecting all that Wikipedia needs. Please I beg you can you help with Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana?--117.193.146.71 (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Hi. Hope you will de doing well. I got this notification today. "01:30, 4 October 2021 Liz talk contribs deleted page Cupid Chan (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace) Tag: Twinkle (thank)." Can you please guide me if I have done anything wrong? Because all I can see is a draft now which states that "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" It's concerning for me because I consider it unethical to take money for writing Wikipedia pages or get paid to make any edits. I joined Wikipedia after getting inspiration from the project and I won't take any money for writing Wikipedia pages for someone. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyatthewheels (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROD deletion

Hi Liz! In May, you deleted the article for PayScale after its PROD from ScottishFinnishRadish expired. Per Archive.org, the references on the page at the time included six sources that each look to me to clearly qualify for WP:NORG:

Could you please restore the article?

I know you put in a lot of work to handle the PROD queue, but I have to say that instances like this make me question whether the system should exist. When topics like this are being deleted, it doesn't seem that there are enough safeguards in place to preserve valid work by writers, especially while the redirect restoration issue remains unresolved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per NORG, articles discussing new hires, promotions, valuations, rounds of funding, etc do not contribute to notability. We're left with no where near enough sourcing to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, that's an (understandable) misinterpretation of WP:NORG. What that guideline dictates is that articles consisting only of hires/promotions don't contribute to notability; it doesn't dictate that any article discussing a hire/promotion doesn't contribute. I'll grant that the Business Journal one is perhaps a little borderline, but it's still clearly a reported article that has many details about the company beyond just announcing the new CEO. Ones like Geekwire, at more than 600 words, aren't borderline at all. And then there's sources like the 2006 TechCrunch profile or the 1400-word New York Times profile that aren't related to any of the trivial coverage examples. You could always try taking it to AfD after it's restored, but it's not a close call (especially given that a WP:BEFORE would turn up additional substantial coverage like [3]), which is why I was disconcerted to see it deleted via the PROD process. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by, I was curious, and this is the sort of article I tend to have doubts about, so I looked at the NYT article, which certainly surprised me by being quite substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I'd appreciate a reply when you have a moment (at least on whether you're willing to restore or I should go through WP:REFUND). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Turkish School proposed deletion

Hi Liz ! As you cancelled my proposal to delete Qatar Turkish School, I just wanted to understand why the mentioned article is relevant on Wikipedia. Thanks --78.100.47.43 (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion guide

Hi, I would like to participate at WP:Requests for undeletion to restore pages, and would like to know if there is a undeletion guide that admins follow. WP:Viewing and restoring deleted pages only says to follow WP:Undeletion policy, which doesn't say much. I have restored some pages in the past, but only for individual requests at my talk page. Whereas I see WP:Requests for undeletion is more streamlined and rule-based. Is there a check list an admin goes through? Jay ^(Talk) 19:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jay,

There isn't a guide to restoring pages although there is some guidance at the top of the page that covers the basic purpose of the process. My advice is to first, go to the deleted page whose restoration is being requested and read the deletion summary to find out why the page was deleted. Secondly, if you go to edit a request to reply to it, above the edit box is a line that states "Show attendant instructions". If you click on the link that says "Show", it will show you the most common responses that are given to restoration requests. You can choose whether or not to add your own response to a template.

My own judgement is that, ordinarily, CSD G13 stale drafts and PRODS are restored upon request unless there are other issues with the content...the most common problem that might occur are copyright violations. But if that is present, it is typically mentioned in the deletion summary. A page with copyright violations is never restored under any conditions. Aside from G13 draft requests, the second most common request is that pages deleted through AFDs be restored. There is a template for that where you add the admin's name who closed the AFD discussion and the requester is advised to approach that admin or go to Deletion Review to request a restoration. WP:REFUND is only for uncontroversial restorations. There is also a special template for CSD G11s and CSD A7s which you can use. If it is another speedy deletion criteria, you'll have to write your own response or adapt one of the templates.

The templates will likely cover 95% of requests you'll see. My only other comments are that requesters will often say that they want to restore a CSD G13 stale draft but the page wasn't deleted as a G13. The reason why they state this is that there is a form for requesting stale drafts be restored, because most restorations requested are G13s, and they just use the form any way because most of the requesters are new editors who started a draft and then forgot to come back and work on it. So, you need to confirm the real reason for deletion. Also, after a G13 has been restored once via WP:REFUND, if it is deleted again and the editor comes back to ask for it to be restored a 2nd time, ask if they will actually be working on the draft. Just last week, an editor came to ask for a draft to be restored for a 4th time and in between deletions, they never did any work on the draft. After 2 or 3 restorations, G13s are typically refused. Also, sometimes an editor will be told "No", a restoration can't be done and they will keep coming back and requesting it again and again. At this point, you might need to post a admin response on their user talk page because there might be other issues going on.

I think the only element that can vary among admins who work at WP:REFUND is that occasionally, an editor will ask for a page that was deleted through speedy deletion to be restored to Draft or User space. Some admins will accommodate that request and restore the page to an editor's Sandbox, others will not and just point the editor to Deletion Review. But I think the best guide to working at WP:REFUND is just reading over the page and seeing how other admins handle a variety of different requests. Luckily, the page is only archived after 7 days so just reading over a week of requests and replies will cover most of the cases you'll run into.

I'm glad that there will be another admin patrolling WP:REFUND. Right now, there are 4 or 5 admins who regularly check the board but sometimes requests can sit for a day or two before an admin gets to them. Be sure to read back a few days and not just look at the bottom of the page for the newest request because sometimes an admin will miss a request from a few days ago but that is obvious by looking for the red links. I'll just add that WP:REFUND is one of the more pleasant admin duties because some times you'll get a request from an editor who wants to work on a draft that was deleted 2 or 3 years ago and it's nice to think that a new article might come out of a forgotten deleted draft.

If you see anything in appropriate or confusing, just ask me, Hut 8.5, Graeme Bartlett or Muboshgu (whom I consider to be the regulars) and we can offer some advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response! I'll keep referring back to this advice as I get familiar with the undeletion cases and how they are handled. Jay ^(Talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The attendant instructions says If you are fulfilling or rejecting a request, please ping the original requestor (if s/he is a registered editor). Many requesting editors are comparatively new, and a ping helps such editors to be aware of the action that has been taken, whatever that may be. Where does this ping happen? I don't see any response being added to the requestor's talk page, or a ping happening in the undeletion response. Also, I see some restorations have a comment summary like Dummy edit to reset G13 clock after undeletion. Is it required? Jay ^(Talk) 08:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you got a chance to look at these additional questions. Jay (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem African Burial Ground

Hello sir Liz, Sir I will do it as you told, thanks for the great advices.Superatp 02:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions re: Rama Kirve

Hi Liz,

While patrolling new pages, I've noticed that you deleted Rama Kirve in this logged action owing to ban evasion. I'm not an admin, so I can't see if the deleted version is similar to the version that's currently present on the page. Does the deleted version look similar to the current version?

Best, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Application of G5

Hi Liz. You said G5 didn't apply; can you help me understand why? I'm guessing it has to do with the timing of a sockpuppetry block/unblock and subsequent creation of a sock. My reasoning follows the bullet of the policy that states When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 which seems to me to apply. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bri,

It's a bit confusing and if you scan up further on this page, you'll see that I misunderstood it about a week ago and another admin corrected me. I needed to restore a bunch of pages I had deleted that were actually not eligible for deletion under the G5 criteria.

Let's say there is an Editor A, Editor B and Editor C. Editor A is created and starts editing and a week later Editor B is created and starts editing. They both edit for a month. Then, an SPI is filed and on Day 1 Editor A is blocked for multiple accounts. Then, on Day 2, Editor B is blocked for being a sockpuppet of Editor A. Then, a week later, Editor C is created and starts editing until they are blocked as a sockpuppet of Editor A. In this case, even though Editor B was a sockpuppet and was editing at the same time as Editor A, Editor A was not blocked at this time and so Editor B was not an incidence of block evasion, therefore, their page creations are not eligible for CSD G5. However, Editor C's page creations ARE eligible for CSD G5 deletion because at the time Editor C created the pages, Editor A was blocked and so Editor C was both a sockpuppet and an incident of block evasion.

So, it one sense, CSD G5 is misunderstood, it shouldn't be applied to the page creations of all sockpuppets but to incidents of block evasion, when sockpuppets are created after the sockmaster has been blocked. This usually means that in the initial complaint of an SPI case, when the sockmaster is first identified, the sockpuppets in that first case' page creations should not be tagged CSD G5. But those of every sockpuppet coming afterwards are eligible for CSD G5.

I hope this clears things up. Take if from someone who learned it the hard way! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following your terminology, A is the master Sasha Boudville, B is Adarna Herna [4] and C is Lara Hatsumi [5]. So therefore aren't all the Lara Hatsumi creations G5 eligible? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Bri, I wrote out a long explanation of how you were wrong and when I reread it and checked the reports, I realized that you were correct. Then I wrote out a second reply stating you were right and I was wrong. This is the third response and I have to say now I'm not sure and I'm going to ping Bbb23 to see what the right answer is.

Here's what happened after I looked at the article you tagged for CSD G5: If you look at Sasha Boudville's contribution page, it states that Bbb23 blocked them on 12 September 2021 for being a sockmaster. So when I then checked the SPI case, it was in my mind that they were blocked last month and I didn't see that the original case was September 2020 and the follow up case was September 2021. So, I realized that, yes, they were a blocked sockmaster in 2020.

But then I checked their block log to see why Bbb23 had issued a recent block when the SPI was in 2020. The block log states that in 2020, they were only blocked for a month on 20 September 2020 for sockpuppetry despite the SPI. So, when Lara Hatsumi was created on 20 October 2020, they weren't a blocked account any longer and so even though Lara Hatsumi was a sockpuppet, I don't know if this could be considered block evasion because Sasha Boudville wasn't blocked when that account was created.

I haven't run into a case this murky before and it didn't help that when I glanced over the SPI I just read 2020 as 2021. But hopefully, the wise Bbb23 can deliver a verdict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I think your last reasoning is correct. I also think both of you should stop torturing yourselves. :) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting ready to stop torturing myself by taking the pageant stuff off of my watchlist. I hope that somebody else is ready to step up to it. It's a real time suck. BTW this is amusing in retrospect. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the right interpretation, Bri and Bbb23. In Liz's first line, the creations of editor B that were started after editor A was blocked are in my opinion eligible for speedy. As I see it, the block was evaded not by creating the account, but by creating the article. (the creations by B before A was blocked are of course not eligible) DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

گردليدان

Hello sir Liz, Sir can we use another languages as a redirect page title in English Wikipedia? Thank you Superatp 03:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Superatp,

First, thank you for your formality but I'm not a "sir". You can just call me "Liz".

Yes, we have redirects in foreign languages. Check out Category:Redirects to English-language terms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation as Medication for the Soul | need your help in improving article

Hi Liz, Thank you for your previous support in reverting gibberish edits on Meditation as Medication for the Soul.

It is marked for deletion by some user stating it promotional. This page is not written to promote or publicise an entity or person, it is just an article about a book focusing on benefits of meditation. Please guide me on how I can improve this article or please help me rewrite this in a neutral tone. --Jake Peraltaa (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I don't know how you keep writing such amazing, high-quality warnings to people. Having tried writing some myself, I appreciate the effort that goes into them. Thank you for the good work! Enterprisey (talk!) 23:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you, Enterprisey. They take time to write because I proofread them several times. I've found that sometimes the first draft sounds harsh because I'm frustrated at that moment but I don't want the editor to feel like I'm scolding them. That reaction never produces a positive result and the goal is for every editor to develop better editing habits. And we can all improve, including me. Blowing up at an editor or embarrassing them on their own talk page doesn't make them feel like doing better work, it either makes them want to quit or they continue to work and simply resent you.

I have to say that I model my messages on ones I've seen written by JBW and Cullen328. I remember being very impressed years ago by an extensive message JBW left on a disruptive editor's talk page, carefully explaining policy when I think most admins would have simply blocked them. It takes more time but good editors are really our most precious resource here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the response! That's a really smart philosophy. I would like to quote it on my user page, if you don't mind. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Expatriate soccer players in Malta

A tag has been placed on Category:Expatriate soccer players in Malta 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. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than Thunder

Argh, Faster than Thunder is still at it, continuing to be oblivious to their warnings.

They know about user talk pages; they've left comments for others and removed warnings from their own; I don't know why they're not listening to the comments on their own.

I've RFD'ed yet another WP:RFOREIGN redirect Μέγαρα and left a final warning. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TJRC,

Thanks for alerting me that they were active again. I don't see enough disruption to warrant a block but I'll keep an eye on their contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I'm venting. I wouldn't suggest a block prior to a final warning in any event, and they hadn't had one until just now. TJRC (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not great that they haven't communicated or responded to talk page messages, that's not a good sign, but I don't see them on a page creation rampage. I've heard that editors who work on mobile devices don't even see talk page notices and I wish we had a solution for that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of "Marcia Pally"

The new entry for "Marcia Pally" that was speedily deleted was substantially different from the previously deleted page. It did not contain any of the alleged flaws of the previous page. The subject is certainly notable and I believe that the new page is entirely factual, objective, and well referenced. Given the above, I do not understand why it was deleted without discussion. I would respectfully request that it be restored or at least that the deletion be discussed.AlexaVamos (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlexaVamos,

The page was tagged as a CSD G4 after a very conclusive AFD decision to "Delete". If you would like the page restored, please make an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and you can present your argument. If I restored it right now, it would immediately be tagged again for speedy deletion and a different admin would delete it. You need for there to be a Deletion Review decision that overturns the AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy ejaculation

Hi! Is there anything non-obvious going on with the deletion of the redirect Holy ejaculation? As far as I can see, it's not a typo or misnomer for Ejaculatory prayer, just a regular synonym that sees occasional use [6]. – Uanfala (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uanfala,

Those books you found all look like they are 100-200 years old and I don't think there is a religious use of "ejaculation" any more. I thought the page was vandalism so perhaps we used the incorrect CSD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you searched for the title of the target article, you'd get similarly old results (and besides, we try to account for common historic names anyway). The redirect was neither a typo, nor vandalism, so would you mind restoring it? You can take it to WP:RfD if you still are of the opinion that it should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Batman say that?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice I've done a double-take at my watchlist... ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll restore it and send it to RFD and we can stop talking about Holy Ejaculations here. This is a PG talk page although sometimes strong words are used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disclose my age, but I will disclose that I'm older than 13. Sorry, Liz, I'll shut up now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's now up to the 2 or 3 editors who regularly comment on RFDs. They are a thoughtful bunch though and take redirects very seriously so I hope they won't keep it just for amusement's sake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! There's at least four of us. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, however many there are, you really take redirects and the purpose of redirects very seriously unlike the majority of editors. I know this because my poorly prepared nominations get shot down regularly because you all saw value in a redirect that seemed totally implausible to me. So, who knows maybe there is one very very innocent person out there that will type in "Holy ejaculation" on Wikipedia in order to get to an article about prayers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you appreciate what we do. :) RfD can be a bit alien to outsiders. Often we're looking at things that don't occur to most people (like "Actually this was an article for 3 days in 2007 and for some reasons still gets views"), or that would be invalid arguments in most other venues (like "It's a popular meme"). One thing I like about it is that most people really do "Call them like we see them". Not much inclusionism or deletionism, although certainly everyone has individual kinds of redirect they're more conservative or liberal on. Potentially offensive redirects are always an interesting category. With them I try to just always think about whether the redirect will take the reader somewhere useful (like this racial slur) or mislead them (like "Gaza Holocaust", deleted after five RfDs).

Anyways, I'll shut up. :D Get me on the topic of redirects and RfD and I'll ramble all day. Do let me know if you ever have questions about RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all the round the clock arduous tasks you perform. You are indeed a tireless contributor Celestina007 (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Fandom count as a Good Source?

Im curious because I'm trying to a make page on an Internet Series called Madness Combat, and I need some help with fandom counts or not. Thegibuspyro (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegibuspyro,

I can't help you with creating articles as I mostly deal with admin and maintenance tasks so I recommend you take your questions to the Teahouse and Articles for Creation both of which are set up to help new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi @Thegibuspyro:, no Fandom is not a reliable source because it is user generated. You can read more about what is considered a reliable source at WP:V and WP:RS. Also, feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, S0091. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSD on Draft:Qissa Meherbano Ka

Hi - the IP that created the article is from a known IP range for Bttowadch. They've shifted mostly to using IP accounts and draft space because their user accounts get caught fairly quick. Please reconsider the CSD on that draft. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ravensfire,

If you look over my talk page, you'll see multiple discussions over CSD G5 tagging along with mistakes I've made by not reading SPI cases thoroughly. I will not delete a page tagged CSD G5 unless the page creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and whose account was created after the sockmaster was blocked. You very well may be correct that this IP is a block evading sockpuppet but until I see confirmation, I won't delete that page. You are free to approach another administrator and see if they will oblige. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly understandable, appreciate the reply! Ravensfire (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Asian Performance

Hi Liz! I would like to bring the page Association for Asian Performance [[7]] back to life with proper notability, citations, and credit. Since you deleted the page on 19 January, 2021, Wikipedia notified me that I should contact you prior to recreating the page. I have found a sizeable amount of notable source material beyond what has been included in previous iterations of the Association for Asian Performance Wiki page and plan to reinvent the page properly this time. Thank you for your dedication to Wikipedia! --Camargue19 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Camargue19,

As a contested Proposed deletion, these pages can be restored upon request so I have done so. Good luck with the article! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent meatpuppetry/proxy editing

Hi Liz, I noticed that you protected the Stephen Zechariah page due to sockpuppetry. A new-ish uer @Ram Dhaneesh: appears to be doing the bidding of the Spreadmediaglobal sockmaster here. This tag team effort mirrors previous attempts to create the SZ article [8]. Ram also previously created a page on Deri Lorus under a different title after it was salted [9]. Would appreciate it if you could take a closer look at this. Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaacob I ben Aaharon ben Shalma

You deleted by G4, but it does not seem to apply. It had an additional reference and an additional illustration added, and the earlier deletion reason "contains no information beyond that available at Samaritan High Priest no longer applies . I've restored it. I will add some other information also. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David,

I defer to your judgment, always. It didn't seem like there was much there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the original deletion argument and I'm not certain I did the right thing, it turns out that this is a complicated problem, and I've asked for advice on how to handle this and a number of similar drafts. I'm consulting the author and the deleting admin; both are more knowledgable than I. There are always one or two decisions a day that leave me with a residual feeling of doubt, and I've learned to go back to them, because very often my feeling turns out to be correct. I do not know how my mind works to generate this sort of feeling, but it does. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Señorita Panamá 2021

Hi Liz, i noticed that you deleted the page of Señorita Panamá 2021, I see that the apparent reason is because it was created by an already blocked User, I understand the situation of that user, even so the event is real and is currently being developed in the country whose final night will be celebrated on November 7 with concrete and real references, previously I add several references of The National Contest. My question is about the possibility of being able to restore the page and what can be done to improve it and not be completely eliminated even though the creator user has been blocked / removed. Evanex ( talk ) 03:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Papua New Guinean educationists

My mistake. Please go ahead and delete. Sorry. Roundtheworld (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taros1990/sandbox/Hiroyuki Sekino

From what I could tell, Taros1990 (talk · contribs) started editing while its master, Michaelse2002 (talk · contribs), was blocked for unrelated reasons. (Michael's initial block was on 10 Oct and only extended to indef after Taros' discovery; Taros began editing 11 Oct.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Hello, @Liz! If you don't mind, Can you check at Makerfield (UK Parliament constituency), I don't understand if it's ok to put "+" and "-" signs. I think increase & decrease templates are correct in this case, persistently changing by ips. Thanks ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit at Template:Infobox Wikipedia user

Hi Liz, could I ask if you remember the reason for Special:Diff/1032469784? There were two parts to the edit you reverted, you mentioned categorization in your edit summary, but the categorization code I replaced simply doesn't work any more. {{substr_any|{{{location|}}}| {{str find0|{{{location|}}}|,}}+2| 50-{{strlen quick|{{{location|}}}}} }} for |location=Cambridge, United Kindom evaluates to {{str sub old|Cambridge, United Kindom|9+2|50-24}}, and this evaluates to the whole original string "Cambridge, United Kindom" because the template str_sub_old doesn't evaluate expressions. Maybe it used to. Immediately above there is already an attempt to categorize into Category:Wikipedians in {{{location}}} so I'm reasonably sure the code I replaced wasn't doing anything useful at all. I just can't see the problem myself but if you could let me know what categorization it broke it would be appreciated! Many thanks, User:GKFX^talk 10:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyjoeymintzmintz's empty categories

Hi Liz, I almost tagged the cats as WP:C1 myself, but I wasn't sure if (1) I had to wait until they'd been empty 7 days or (2) I tag them and then an admin deletes them only after 7 days elapses. You're much more experienced in this, and I'm assuming #2 is good?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bbb23,

This is commonly misunderstood. The empty categories are tagged CSD C1 when they are first noticed by a human editor or by a bot (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories) and after a 7 day waiting period in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, if the categories are still empty, they are deleted. The tagging starts the 7 day period because, otherwise, it's impossible to know when the category was first emptied. The waiting period is because categories are sometimes emptied "out of process", as a way around WP:CFD or by enthusiastic new editors, so some editors scan Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion to recover or restore those categories. Hope this clarifies things.

I've also learned that categories can be a rare exception to the CSD G5 rule (see Wikipedia:REVERTBAN) as the deletion of categories that have not been emptied can be disruptive to other pages. I think categories that have been created by ban evading sockpuppets that ARE empty, can be simply deleted under CSD G5 and don't need to be tagged CSD C1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Liz. I think it would be useful if this was made clear in WP:C1 itself, which has no guidance.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Christmas Miracle For Daisy (TV Movie) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Christmas Miracle For Daisy (TV Movie) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Christmas Miracle For Daisy (TV Movie) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BOVINEBOY2008 02:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sleeper

CaptainFalcon73847 was created around the same time as the other socks. Politanvm ^talk 02:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And GiantFalcon1919 is active now. Is this an LTA? Politanvm ^talk 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for spamming your talk, but CFalcon05 was just created. Politanvm ^talk 03:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And FalconsChokeOnCaptainFalcon. Is there a way to block account creation? Politanvm ^talk 03:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Politanvm,

Thanks for alerting me. I've blocked them as well. I don't know if they are an LTA but they are very active tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bit too passionate about sports. Adding onto the list, we have User:W kut a w Captain Falcon, but maybe it’s not worth it to block them ASAP since they’ll just create more accounts and some of the disruption is on drafts and user pagers nobody will ever see. If there’s anything else I can do to help, let me know. Politanvm ^talk 03:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I've gone to a Checkuser with a request for advice. I don't know what else to do at this point. The account creation blocks seem to have no effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll just keep an eye out for some of the more visible disruption. I’m not an expert in LTAs, but maybe the list of users they complained about at User talk:BusterFalcon9 would narrow down who it is. Politanvm ^talk 03:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spine of Night

Hi Liz. While reviewing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConyJuul, I noticed the unusual history of The Spine of Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It was an article, but was then redirected by a misguided newer editor to Draft:The Spine of Night, without merging any of the content to the draft. Having looked at the deleted version for the SPI, it doesn't look to me like an article that would have been speedied or draftified (although it does need some copy-editing and referencing improvements). Would you be open to restoring the article? Or if you do think the deleted version was draftifiable, could you please restore and then histmerge into the draft? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tamzin,

It took a while to figure out what was going on here. The page was deleted as a CSD R2 cross-namespace redirect, which is what it appeared to be but it turns out that Limited Idea4me had removed the content and turned it into a cross-namespace redirect so I restored the page and reverted back to before the content was removed. This is an unusual step to take for any editor, to redirect an article page to Draft space, much less for a new one to do, so thanks for catching it.

We've been having some issues recently with articles being moved to Draft space and then the page creator doing cut-and-paste page creations of new versions of the article in main space, leaving us with two versions of the same article, one in main space and one in Draft space, so maybe that is what happened here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Theory no one told me my article had been prodded

I did not get any message on my talk page that an article I created had been prodded. You deleted it on 10 May 2021 with the message "deleted page Star Wars Theory (Expired PROD, concern was: This may be mentioned in a few reliable sources, but I'm not seeing enough depth-of-coverage to meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG)". I would like this version of the article restored since it had reliable sources giving it significant coverage. If someone disagrees they can send it to AFD in the proper manner. Dream Focus 05:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dream Focus,

Can you give me a link to the exact page? It's the responsibility of the editor tagging pages for deletion to inform the page creator though I recently de-PROD'd an article when I saw that this step had been omitted. If things are as you say, we can see who forgot to notify you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Dream Focus is almost certainly talking about Star Wars Theory. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Star Wars Theory is a popular YouTube channel, with people that worked on the Star Wars films doing interviews, as well as bestselling writers of Star Wars books. I see after you deleted it, someone else created a different article there it then it got erased by another prod. I created my version on 2021-01-12 and you deleted it on 10 May 2021. Dream Focus 17:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers .This is a bit tricky because since the PROD deletion, another editor recreated the page and it was deleted, for a third time, on CSD A7 grounds. But I was able to restore your version, deleted as a PROD and keep the other edits still deleted. It doesn't look like there is a whole lot of substance to this article, Dream Focus, so it might be tagged for deletion again, this time in an AFD discussion which would make a deletion more permanent. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues regarding Akpakip Oro speedy deletion removal

The article Akpakip Oro is a hoax, such kingdom never existed in Nigeria and there is no archaeological evidence to support the claims presented in the article. from my understanding the cited references do not present any evidence of such kingdom. The page contributor User:Joe Bassey, who maybe from the Oron ethnic group is well known for formulating things attached to Akwa Ibom State or the Oron people most of which have been deleted. The article should be deleted because wikipedia is not a place for personal research or hoax and i think the article is entirely formulated because after searching google i could hardly find any evidence. Emma emmanuel okon269

Help with Red Assessment Categories

Hey L: quick question: would you be willing to fully protect the 13 problematic Wikipedia version 1.0 statistics pages, to prevent the bot from re-adding the red categories to them? The admin. with whom I was working is on a short wikibreak, so I am coming to you. If you are amenable, I'll drop in the list of pages below. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wuh, huh?

Please list a page that is currently protected so I can see exactly what you are talking about, what has been done in the past and why full protection is needed. Before saying "Yes", I need to see that this is necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a page that is currently protected, though there have been ones protected in the past by User:Gonzo fan2007, with whom I was working on this. An example of one to be protected would be Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/South America military history articles by quality log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); if you look at the history, it is the only easy way to stop the bot from re-adding the red category after I (or you) remove it, which is all that the bot does. I have just removed the cats from that and from the 12 other pages that should be protected for this reason; happy to give the list of the 12 if you agree. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sure was

Yes, obviously I had no idea. Need to do a bit of reflection on whether there was anything I should have picked up on earlier in the process, but it did come as a shock. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Girth Summit,

When I originally left that message, I actually read the big reveal on the SPI case report and then posted on your talk page as I was in shock. A bit later I saw the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and realized that there was a public discussion of the situation and you really didn't need a talk page notice. I think that some people will think the discovery was a result of the RfA but it was really a coincidence.

The thought I'm left with is that Icewhiz obviously could edit quite well, if he had acted as responsibly and productively as Eostrix, he probably could have become an admin himself rather than banned, that it was a choice that he made to be disruptive because Eostrix was a promising admin candidate that got almost unanimous support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto (minor planet)

I noticed you removed Pluto (minor planet), for WP:R3, even though it not a typo, or a misnomer, as Pluto is part of the minor planet catalogue and the similar Minor Planet Pluto redirects. It is not misinformation like Pluto (asteroid) or Pluto (comet) would be. Pluto (minor planet) also fits in with other currently unnecessary disambiguation articles like Jupiter (planet) and Makemake (minor planet). Beanpickle (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Beanpickle

The deletion summary doesn't say "typo or a misnomer", it says "Recently created, implausible redirect". I think it is implausible that a reader would search for Pluto (minor planet) as a way to get to Pluto instead of just typing Pluto. We don't need more complicated version of a simple names as a way to get to the simple name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes it different than Minor Planet Pluto or Pluto (planet)? Beanpickle (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into those two pages but the major difference is that another editor tagged Pluto (minor planet) for speedy deletion as, as an admin, I patrol the CSD categories and evaluate articles and pages tagged for deletion. But I don't actively go out looking for redirects to delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I must have misread the page or something similar. Beanpickle (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)

Thank you. Moving it to draft again was what was needed, but I didn't know of any other way to request it than a G4. If I had moved it back to draft space myself, it would have been move warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon,

I think we have a problem right now of moving pages in and out of Draft space and I don't see an obvious resolution. If an editor objects to the move, they are supposed to move the page back to main space but instead of doing that, we have some editors simply copying the contents of the Draft page into a new main space page which leaves us with two versions of the article with two different edit histories. But I don't think that was the case with this article though. I didn't think it was wise to delete the article, despite the AFD, because the movie will be released in another month or two and there will be an article about it in main space. There are just some editors who are eager to have that article appear now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that there is no obvious answer. Much of the problem has to do with movies that have been produced and not yet released. There is discussion at the film notability talk page again, but I have been trying to call attention to this problem for more than a year. The guideline is poorly written, and there are two very different interpretations both of what the guideline says, and of what the guideline should say. Some film studios and directors have ultras, fanatical fans, and they aren't willing to wait until the film is reviewed. Another factor, to which you allude, is editors who create two copies of an article, one in draft space and one in article space. I think that they do this on purpose to game the system, because then the version in article space cannot be moved into draft space. This isn't restricted to movies; it also has to do with people and companies. I sometimes write an AFD in that case, and sometimes say that the draft should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD for Wimpy Kid has said to move it to draft space, so you were just reinstating what the AFD had said to do. No one wanted it deleted. It is just that animation studios have ultras who want to see animated movie articles as soon as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

Hi there, Liz! Hope you're fine! I'm here to ask a question that can I recreate this page again? The page was deleted as per as deletion discussion. Because the page didn't meet with general notability guideline. But I've found some sources which meets with general notability guideline. So I hope that if I recreate this page, it will meet with GNG. Thank you so much! || Orbit Wharf 09:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Arb request

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of spiritual entities in Islam: Difference between revisions

Greetings and first thanks for warning me instead of blocking me instantly about List of spiritual entities in Islam: Difference between revisions. But I must admit, I am really puzzled and disappointedm, about the rule. If there is really a rule, if justified or not, we always have to request deleting an article again after someone removes the templatem without any reason, deleting nomination is easily exploited and articles promoting a certain status of "unprofessionality" have a clear advantage. I think you are not in the position to bend the rules, but I request your advise how to properly act in such a case.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaonians

The Chaonians article has has edit warring between some editors for a few days. Can you make a short page protection or sth else to stop it? [10]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I just noticed that they have now solved their dispute on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Olga

I redirected the Typhoon Olga (1976) page to its section in the 1976 season because I thought the original article was deleted for good; only realized it was deleted to give way for a more comprehensive draft which was about to be published at that time. Apologies for the confusion I caused. Vida0007 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ProTaylorCraft

Thanks for catching that! S0091 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

Well, the hoax intrigued me, it was so implausible and easy to check that it was false. He's had an amazing number of sockpuppets for a young teenager. Tag any draft you see about the legendary Cody Taylor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:Santana MontanaQP

The page User:Santana MontanaQP has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spencer^T•C 15:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Teahouse ping

My apologies for the unnecessary ping to the TeaHouse. I should have read the thread a second time before I saved my reply (rather than after). Meters (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meters,

Thanks for the apologies, Meters, but I was getting so many unnecessary pings that I kind of stopped checking them regularly. I've had 99+ notifications almost all the time. I should probably just clear them out completely and start over with 0. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I exacerbated the problem. Meters (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HordeFTL

Hwy, that's not a name I recognise. Didn't know Efem itis went back that far. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deepfriedokra,

I didn't recognize it either. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HordeFTL. I checked a half dozen of the tagged pages and everything seemed okay. I wish page taggers wouldn't attack their job with such gusto, it's easier to handle a few articles at a time rather than over a hundred. As far as CSD G5s, there is really no reason to rush their deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Taking Out The Trash

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Taking Out The Trash's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan actor

You deleted page Jovan (actor) as per Wikipedia Policies but I can say that was three years ago and hehave changed alot and he now pass the criteria of Wikipedia Nactor, has more reference rewritten properly. All the things has been solved २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, २ तकर पेप्सी,

I think the article was in terrible shape. But I'm willing to restore it to Draft space where you can continue to work on it and submit it to Articles for Creation. Please know that if you move it right back into main space of the encyclopedia without AFC review, then it will just be deleted again. You can't sneak it back into main space without AFC approval. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure will mind and send it to Afc for New page pattroller review. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can find it at Draft:Jovan (actor) and I put an edit notice asking that it not be tagged again for speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

draft

Hello, according to what you said on my discussion page for Nima Bavardi's article I drafted it on September 23rd but it What should I do now to create it? --Juror134 (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juror134,

It looks like the draft has been submitted to review to AFC which is the next step to take. I noticed that AFC reviewer KylieTastic contributed to Draft:Nima Bavardi, you might ask them for their opinion of your draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent G13 deletions

Hi, the drafts you're currently deleting are scheduled for November 1, not today. ✗plicit 00:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Explicit,

You know, I knew that but when the clock changed days, I just went to the next list. Thanks for the reminder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people of Israeli descent

A tag has been placed on Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people of Israeli descent 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) 02:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

From the editor: Different stories, same place

News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded

In the media: China bans, and is there intelligent life on this planet?

Opinion: A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life

Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process

Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention

Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia

Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game

Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more

Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp

Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality

WikiProject report: Redirection

Humour: A very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Liz, I saw that you are on the list of currently active admins, so I wanted to ask if you would take a look at something; a blocked user started using another account, (and have stated as such). I had pinged the blocking admin, but then found out they are away on a leave. I don't believe this is particularly urgent, likely more of a procedural block. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks - wolf 20:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thewolfchild,

I am really bad at spotting sockpuppets unless they go back to editing the same articles so I don't know how you spotted this one which was originally blocked several years ago. But since they confessed, I really had no choice but to block them and ask them to log into their original account and make an unblock request. Good eye! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Thanks - wolf 20:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm usually either right on top of my user talk page or I forget it's there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request redaction on my talk page

Hi Liz, Requesting redact for user's recent defamatory comment on my talk page. Thanks. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AngusWOOF,

If you are talking about the comments left by 172.119.3.160, I don't think they fit the revision deletion criteria. He was calling Wikipedia, as a project with its notability criteria, racist. Although he/she was going after you, it wasn't the kind of gross vandalism and slurs that would fit revision deletion criteria and I think removing them from your page is sufficient. It is a judgment call though so feel free to ask another admin for their opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thanks, I will remove and have them rant about it on the talk page of the subject. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Randy Arrington, PhD

Hi, I added the CSD tag to this due to the following sentence which I believed to be negative: “ But be fully aware that being in the close proximity of Dr. Randy Arrington is NOT a safe space.” which I felt had negative connotations. If I was being overly sensitive, I apologise. Equine-man (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Equine-man,

No, you aren't being too sensitive, I'm going to remove that sentence. But when thinking about "attack pages", I think about the definition at WP:CSD,

Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to.

This draft wasn't entirely or even mostly negative in tone (although it is unsourced) except for that sentence which I'm going to delete now. I appreciate knowing that you are looking over new drafts and are sensitive to BLP issues. I think, for the good of the project, it's better to be over-sensitive than tone deaf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Equine-man (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page called "Master of Media in Journalism and Communication program at the University of Western Ontario"

Hello! I published a page yesterday (November 2, 2021) about the history of the Master of Media in Journalism and Communication program at Western University. I based this page off the similar one of its kind for a different program. Here's the link to that inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_and_Information_Science_program_at_the_University_of_Western_Ontario

I'm not really sure why my page was deleted as I didn't include anything promotional. The information was historical and about the current faculty and dean.

Looking for advice so I can get this page to stay up! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdonati (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cdonati,

If you look at the deleted page, Master of Media in Journalism and Communication at the University of Western Ontario, it states it was deleted because it was the recreation of a page deleted in an AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master of Media in Journalism and Communication. That AFD discussion just happened in May 2021 and any recreation of pages that are deleted in AFD discussions are deleted through speedy deletion (see WP:G4). It had nothing to do with the content of the article you wrote but to a community decision that there shouldn't be an article on the subject. Look at the AFD discussion for details.

The only way I know to get around an AFD deletion decision is to write a draft and submit it for review with Articles for Creation. You might try that route. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Almond draft

It seems that this draft was deleted in less than 12 hours giving me no chance to respond.

It was marked as "copyright" violation. This is not correct. There were quotes from a page that were clearly marked as quotes, otherwise the page was all a summary in encyclopedia style of this UK women philosopher's work.

Please reinstate the draft. If there is TOO much from the Times Higher profile that can be reduced.Emerald Gibb (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Almond draft

It seems that this draft was deleted in less than 12 hours giving me no chance to respond.

It was marked as "copyright" violation. This is not correct. There were quotes from a page that were clearly marked as quotes, otherwise the page was all a summary in encyclopedia style of this UK women philosopher's work.

Please reinstate the draft. If there is TOO much from the Times Higher profile that can be reduced.Emerald Gibb (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, another version of this discussion is posted on my talk page, would appreciate your input there :D Justi yaya 13:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations are deleted as soon as they are discovered. They are not restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Statuette of the lady Tiye has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Statuette of the lady Tiye. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy on Me

Hi Liz. Can you semi-protect the page? Those IPs keep removing content without reason. 183.171.114.181 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 183.171.114.181,

Okay, you do realize this affects you, too, right? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion

Hello. I'm new here. I've made 2 categories recently and you nominated them for deletion. Is there any problem with these categories? Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard M William,

There is an enormous category structure on Wikipedia and at least 16 years worth of Categories for Discussion cases on what is proper and improper in creating categories. Creating User categories for yourself is not acceptable. They were going to be tagged for deletion, if not by me than by another editor. But I invite you to participate in the CFD discussions involving your categories so you can offer your support for their continued existence. The best way to learn about categories is to participate in CFD discussions and hear the arguments put forward by those editors who focus on categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Film companion

Did you restore all revisions, including the G12 copyright infringement versions prior to April 17, 2017? Jay (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jay,

I didn't intend to. Now, I'll go check it out. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got all of the edits up to the removal of content as a copyright violation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Page protection

Greetings Liz, hope everything is well and healthy, this new IP user [[11]] made a few reverts in very short time without posting any reliable sources to explain their edit and simultaneously ignoring already existing sources. Can something be done? Semi page protection or something else? The page in question is Valtazar Bogišić. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 6. November 2021 (UTC)

Albert Fry RIP

I translated the atricle about Albert Fry ( Referenc:https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fry) (from Irish Gaelic to English, because I had thought that it would be of interest to English speaking Wikipedians! Evidently my attempt to stop the article from being removed has fallen on deaf ears! I really don't have the time to spare on this language version of Wikipedia and unfortunately will not spend any more time trying to persuade English Wikipedia of the errors of their ways! Stay safe or as we say ion our language Fan sábháilte. Ériugena (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel B. García Álvarez

I cannot understand why the article Manuel B Garcia Alvarez has been deleted. First, a 7-day period was set for adding new sources. It's only been 4 days and it's already been deleted, this is not serious. Secondly, the article contained sources from newspapers of worldwide importance such as: "El Pais" and "ABC" of Spain and "Izvestia" of Russia and others from newspapers of international importance such as "Diario de León" of Spain and "Komuna" of Russia. I have not had time to add more sources since they have deleted the article in breach of the 7-day deadline they had given me. Please give me an explanation of what has happened and I ask you to proceed to restore the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morseo (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/population count

It appears that about 9 hours ago, you deleted {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}}, which has 322 transclusions. Perhaps it should be redirected to {{Data Finland municipality/population count}} instead, or restored to whatever its contents were before the deletion. I would recreate it as a redirect, but sometimes when I fix an obvious problem in a sensible way, I end up getting my hand slapped, so I will leave red links in articles until you are available to take a look. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of {{Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/inland waters area}} and other similar subpages also appears to be causing big red convert errors in articles like Vantaa. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Primefac, who deleted the parent template over a year ago. I am so grateful that people like the two of you are willing to take on administrator tasks, despite having to mop up messes like this constantly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More mess: this nomination was made by an editor now blocked as a sockpuppet. I wonder if the best way to fix this tangle is to replace all of the transclusions with their redirect targets. It seems like that should have been part of the RFD close process a year ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonesey95,

I typically do not handle template deletions because of the complications of template transclusions but these tagged pages showed up in the regular Speedy Deletion categories which generally means they have been cleared and evaluated by editors who work with templates. I have restored Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/population count and Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/inland waters area but should all of these Finnish municipality templates be restored? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they were all redirects, my technical recommendation is to restore all of them to fix the Convert template errors in pages including Vantaa. I don't know how that fix intersects with the various policies and guidelines involved, but I think that would fix the errors. After that, maybe a bot or AWB editor could be recruited to carry out the RFD outcome (or not, if an SP-led outcome is invalid). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the CSD tagger: it simply never occurred to me that any of the subpages could still be in use. For what it's worth, the original deletion of Template:Infobox Finnish municipality might be worth revisiting given the nominator is also a likely Tobias Conradi sock. On the other hand, it's kind of too deeply entrenched to undo now. The RfD in question is irrelevant, since the pages qualify for speedy deletion as G8 (and if they hadn't been deleted in October 2020 I would have CSD tagged them yesterday). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I'll take care of this. These complications are typically why I give a wide berth to templates. It makes regular pages like articles and files seem straight-forward in comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My non-admin recommendation would be to replace all of the redirects with their targets (which I think should have been done following the RFD, but maybe a step got missed) and move on. I do a ton of template editing, so feel free to ping me if you run into any trouble. Thanks for sorting it, Liz. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, I'm just restoring them all and leaving the template talk pages deleted. There is at least one that Plastikspork restored but later deleted that I'll just let be as I assume that, unlike me, they are familiar with templates. You will be able to see all of the pages in the Deletion log. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bergius process and Haber–Bosch process

I made a request on the talk page of Bergius process and Haber–Bosch process to hold off deletion. Did you read it before deleting? SpinningSpark 07:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How curious. Instead of removing the PROD tag, you leave a cryptic message on the talk page without even bothering to sign your post. If I didn't know any better I would have assumed this to be an honest mistake, but I think you're deliberately skirting standard protocol to bait your fellow admins into making "mistakes". I wish you would find something better to do with your time. -FASTILY 11:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, the signature was an honest mistake. I didn't deprod it because I agree it can't stand as an article at that title. Nevertheless, it contains encyclopaedic information and I think we ought to do something with it. So a) I wanted time to think about it, and b) I want to hear from the creator what it is supposed to be doing (who had not been notified of the prod). I don't think a personal attack is warranted quite yet. SpinningSpark 14:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you

Thanks for taking your time to explain.

I was already about to quit using wiki. But thanks to you, at least I know I'm not an idiot for staying here. Do have a blissful day!!! Ugochukwu75 (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cram schools in India

Hi Liz! This category was used earlier in the FIITJEE article, based on a Reuters reference, and was removed by an editor with a suspected COI in an attempt to whitewash the article. The category resultantly became empty and was C1'd by you. I've reverted the COI edits now, and restored the category, which turns up as a redlink now. Could you please restore the category, now that it is not empty? Thanks! Java Hurricane 14:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 'JavaHurricane,

Done Restoring empty categories is one of the easier admin actions which I'm happy to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Java Hurricane 00:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might need your eye for something

Hi Liz—hopefully you don't mind, but I've seen you handle situations similar to this in amicable ways in the past, so perhaps you can help here.

I've noticed a few COI edit request declines from Quetstar after I informed a paid editor on how they should make one on Talk:LoopUp, which was then declined here, with justification I feel is quite lacking. It also seems this isn't the first time they've been notified about improper ER reviews: I see notices all the way back in September about similar issues on their talk page, with similarly bad ER reviews from just a few days ago, so it could be worth taking a look at from someone with more experience in dealing with this type of situation. (Note that I also reverted the LoopUp ER decline and left a note on their talk page.) Perryprog (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Perryprog,

Sorry for the delay but I've been very busy today. I'll look into this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can you check on the following articles? Justlettersandnumbers restored them, but didn't remove the CSD tag in that restoration edit, which is why I think Anthony Bradbury then deleted them again almost instantly, since they popped back up in the category. Here they are: Ramón Escobar Santiago, Gladys Ejomi, Iñaxi Etxabe, Elisabeth Ebeling, Dick Klaverdijk, and César Salinas. Thank you for taking the time to check the article histories when doing your reviewing, btw, you're one of the only admins that does. Silver seren^C 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Silver seren,

Well, it was upsetting to me yesterday when there was a mass batch deletion of close to 100 articles tagged CSD G5 where clearly they weren't examined and reviewed individually. This action can be justified if the banned editor was the only contributor to these pages (as was the case with much of Brancrandran's pages) but that is not always the case (as with SportsOlympic). From a technical point of view, for an admin, is difficult to look at the deleted versions of pages and judged whether there have been substantial contributions by others as the deleted list of edits just includes the date and time of an edit, the editor's name and the edit summary, without any information about the size of an edit. It's much easier to make this judgment on an article before it has been deleted or after the page has been restored. But I looked at your deleted contributions and saw you made about similar contributions to pages that were then deleted so I was going to check on those later.

To be honest, some admins might have questions about you making some substantial contributions to pages AFTER they have been tagged for deletion but, in my judgment, that still makes them legitimate contributions to an article. I think it's not just a matter of changing admin behavior but also talking to editors who are quick to tag pages for deletion, to make sure they review pages before placing a CSD G5 tag on a page. I don't really understand the rush to delete pages as soon as a sockpuppet is discovered, there are some editors who tag page creations for deletion as soon as an editor is mentioned on a SPI case, before they've even been confirmed as a sockpuppet of an editor evading a ban. It's not like these are copyright violations or pages that violate BLP guidelines, pages that should be deleted upon discovery. Articles about past Olympic Game participants or 19th century judges in South America aren't doing any active damage and we can take our time to review and assess whether or not they should be deleted based on policy guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have the exact same opinion. Especially in regards to this sockpuppet's articles in particular, since almost all of the ones I edited were just translations from other language Wikipedias. I honestly don't know what harm those are supposed to be doing by taking some more time on them. They're even further removed from the potential for copyvios or other issues. And I mentioned to Justlettersandnumbers that the ones I've edited are those that I would be going through the deletion process to undelete anyways to take responsibility for them. Instead, just making substantial changes like this saves everyones' time to not have to bother with that and the article is slightly better than it was before in the process. So, a win-win for everyone, imo. Silver seren^C 23:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Mikko Medics Clinic

Wondering why the article I wrote on a real health institution in Angono, Rizal, Philippines was deleted. The clinic has existed for 22 years. Komki (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Komki,

You have no deleted edits/contributions so I'm not sure what article you are talking about. Did you edit it with a different account? Can you give me a link to the page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
Search tool deployed
New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

thanks for notice

MojonLoko (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExcuseMePowerGamers

Hello, thank you for deleting Draft:Bloodstain (album) under G3. I am wondering what to do with the creator of that article? They created it with a fake BBC reference and added a bunch of fake references to Tubbo with this edit (1, 2 & 3, dead links, supposed retrival date, source date and lack of a web.archive version makes me think they are fake), leading to said article getting accepted at AfC. Should I bring it to ANI/AIV or does a uw-template suffice? 15 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 15,

This editor has only made 4 edits which is very low, not enough for me to consider filing a case at ANI. I'd keep an eye on them. I see you have participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubbo but you might cast a vote since you seem to have done some investigation into them. Of course, this is just my gut reaction, another admin might take more aggressive action than I would. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense. Thank you! 15 (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate use of File:Caucasian man masturbating.jpg

The Masturbation page used this image which I noticed is just a tracing of this image. I thought "why not just use the original image?" so I changed it; however, it did not show. The warning on the file page says "To prevent the use of this file for vandalism, it can only be used on pages for which it is specifically allowed," and "To use this file legitimately, contact an administrator..." so I came to you. I think this usage is legitimate. Desperatefisherman (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Desperatefisherman,

I have no idea why you picked me to talk to but I have no interest in getting involved in the correct or incorrect use masturbation photos. It was unfortunate enough that you caused me to go look at this image when I have other tasks to work on. Go make your request at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list and make your argument there. Maybe you'll find someone who is sympathetic to your point-of-view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure, but if you're wondering why you, it's because you were the last person to comment on that page. Desperatefisherman (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is a surprise to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:CW+ 2017 Reach Map.png

Can you again delete the previous revisions on this image? Despite adding text saying 'stop uploading a larger version it's going to be reverted', another account did so today, and the seven-day wait is certainly not needed. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mrschimpf,

Okay, I've never actually deleted file versions manually like this on File:CW+ 2017 Reach Map.png so let me know if I did anything incorrectly. I don't work much with files except when they pop up in speedy deletion categories. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% perfect. 👍🏽 I appreciate the speed. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am an inconsistent responder to talk page messages. It's either immediate or I forget to even look at my talk page. It depends on if I'm busy working. It's definitely an area that I could improve on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General matrix notation of a VAR(p)

Hi Liz. I'm afraid there was some confusion with your intervention in Vector_autoregression - as you ultimately reintroduced a link to a page you had deleted. I'm not 100% sure of the best way to solve this (as I can't see the content of the deleted page), do you have an idea? Notice the main page has more links to the deleted page (e.g. under "Concise matrix notation"). Notifying QueensanditsCrazy who was involved --Toobaz (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz? --Toobaz (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please restore Draft:Florian Krammer

Hi, could you please restore Draft:Florian Krammer. I ask promptly because sometimes in past an editor like yourself has deleted multiple articles in a row. This and other drafts of mine are valid article topics. --Doncram (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know I can request "refund" elsewhere but understand it is also okay to ask deleting editor, and I want to head off any new flurry of deletions without causing undue effort on part of others to restore them all. The articles in draft space are about historic sites and about historic architects and others associated with them. --Doncram (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doncram,

I'm not sure what you mean by "in past an editor like yourself has deleted multiple articles in a row"...I delete a lot of CSD G13 stale drafts when they are eligible for deletion. It's not a matter of whether they are valid article topics or not, it is the assumption that after 6 months with no edits, that the draft has been abandoned.

G13 drafts can be restored upon request at WP:REFUND or by asking any administrator and so I'm happy to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about you in particular, but there was recently another editor addressing articles which I suppose are on some new list of those "eligible for deletion". Looking it up, the discussion was this: User talk:Explicit/Archive 41#stop with the hotel deletions please; editor User:Explicit did restore all of about 10 historic hotel articles that they deleted. Those were 9 out of 53 drafts indexed at Talk:Historic Hotels of America/Draft articles that were all moved to Draftspace at the same time, of which 29 have been restored to mainspace, including one or two in the last week. I am working on these, sometimes with others' help, and disagree with their having been moved to Draftspace at all. There are also a number of drafted National Register of Historic Places articles which are obviously wikipedia-notable topics. Explicit suggested that all articles in Draft space created by me could be moved to my User space. I would prefer to have them kept in Draft space (including so that others can see and work on them, rather than conveying "ownership" and removing from view) but permanently removed from the deletion queue. Or to get notice before they are deleted / given some report. This should not cause more work than is necessary including edits and admin actions to undo what admin actions are done. Could you advise if there a bunch more about to be eligible for deletion, and/or how can that be headed off? --Doncram (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about draftifying

Hi I’d like to ask your advice please as I seem to be doing something wrong. When I review new pages I often find articles lacking proper sourcing that I want to move from mainspace to draft. However there us often an existing draft of the same title, usually because the creator has copy pasted from draft to mainspace. What I generally do then is tag the article as G6 so the existing draft can be deleted and I can draftify the mainspace page. Sometimes admins agree to this and sometimes they don’t. Am I doing the wrong thing, and what should I do instead in these situations? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mccapra,

No, it's not you. Since the spring, I've been looking over the nightly "Draftification" report and there seems to be a growing number of editors who simply copy & paste articles that have been moved to Draft space back into a new main space version. I started a discussion about this at AFC back in June and there wasn't any agreement on how to handle it. And CSD A10 for duplicate articles doesn't cover having one version of an article in main space and another version in Draft space. It doesn't even cover having two identical versions of an article in Draft space. At least when I've tried tagging one draft version for speedy deletion in the past because it was a second copy, another admin has removed the tag and said it wasn't a valid criteria that could be applied in that situation.

What I've been doing lately is giving the editor, who usually is a new editor, a template warning about copy & paste moves with a personal note asking them to, in the future, either edit the draft copy or move the draftified article back to main space (which is allowed) rather than creating a second version. You could also turn the draft version into a redirect to the main space version but I realize that you're losing the original page history by doing this. A page merge is also possible at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge but this is typically not done if the page creator is the only editor on both pages.

Or you can try to tag the main space version as CSD G6 but, as you've seen, some speedy deletion assessments are a matter of judgment on the part of an admin. In another case, some admins believe CSD G4 (recreation of pages deleted in AFD discussions) applies to pages in Draft space and some admins think it doesn't, they believe it only applies to recreated articles in main space. There was a time when we had admins who would delete any page that had a speedy deletion tag, without even looking it over, but after desysoppings, those days are over and most admins who patrol CSD categories take the time to personally evaluate each request which means that your result could be different depending on who is evaluating the page. I know that when I evaluate CSD G5s (pages created by a ban-evading editor), I give more allowance if other editors have contributed to the page while other admins are much more strict about deleting pages created by a sockpuppet regardless of other editors' contributions.

So, I think if an article has already been draftified once, and in your judgment, it is really deficient, then AFD or PROD is the next step. Remember to state in an AFD rationale that the article has already been draftified once (or twice) because this fact will influence the response of some participants. I would only go to AFD if you think that an article can't be easily improved or if the page creator seems unusually obstinate. What we are also seeing in these situations is that as soon as the article gets tagged with an AFD, BOOM! suddenly the page creator wants to move it back to Draft space!

Those are just some observations. I have found it helpful to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation or talk to AFC reviewers individually because they primarily deal with new editors and evaluating drafts and can offer me their opinion on whether a page has potential or should just be tagged for some form of deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much that’s really useful to know. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bpoppen13

Hi Liz, you gave this user a short block a couple of days ago, perhaps they need a longer break (straight back in with G3 article creations). Thank you JW 1961^Talk 19:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joseywales1961,

Thanks for your quick attention to this editor. They are now indefinitely blocked. I don't think they made even one positive edit to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rapid response - we seem to get a lot people just trying to mess up the place! JW 1961^Talk 20:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I continue to be impressed at the speed at which vandals are noticed. There is one persistent sockpuppet vandal who keeps returning and I swear, his edits are typically stopped within 10 minutes even though he targets obscure pages that I doubt are on many Watchlists. We have a lot of great editors who keep watch over recent changes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Statuette of the lady Tiye has been accepted

Statuette of the lady Tiye, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the stuff above is mere boilerplate automatically generated by the AfC process. Well, that draft, terrible though it was (see the comments on the draft), looked a lot more interesting than most drafts, even in the state it was in when you submitted it. It's still pretty rough; but it would survive AfD, and thus qualifies. Cross fingers that somebody who really knows about this stuff and has time and patience will land on it and work on it some more. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, Hoary, you really went to work on this, you spent your time getting this into better shape. All I did was submit it for review. Congratulations to you! Thank you for putting the effort into this little article. I bet if Rheaemory ever returns they will be greatly surprised to see how the little draft they started became an article on Wikipedia. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Makita AWS refund

Hello Liz, would it be possible to have a refund of Draft:Makita AWS to User:Sladen/Makita AWS—it came up in conversation yesterday so the content is probably useful to rescue somewhere… Appreciations, —Sladen (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sladen,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your request. Draft:Makita AWS was deleted simply for being a stale draft, G13, which can be restored upon request. So, I have done so and made a minor edit to the page to make sure it isn't eligible again for CSD G13 for another six months. It doesn't need to be moved to user space unless that is your preferred location. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ihsan El-kousy

Hello! Cn you please let me know the reason why you deleted my article of Ihsan El-kousy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoda Sidani (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoda Sidani,

Okay this is a bit complicated. I deleted IhsanAhmadAlkousy because it was a broken redirect. It originally redirected to Ihsan El-Kousy but then that page was deleted when Scope creep moved the page to Draft:Ihsan El-Kousy. Wikipedia doesn't allow redirects from the main space to Draft space so that it was why Ihsan El-Kousy was deleted. That made the redirect from IhsanAhmadAlkousy a red link, a broken redirect so that page was also deleted. Ihsan El-kousy was also deleted by EurekaLott as a broken redirect.

Does this help explain things? If your draft is approved by AFC and move back to main space, you are free to recreate the redirects that were deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Agrawal???

hi liz!! im new to wiki & wanted to give a crack at my first AfC submission. im super interested in sustainability n i stumbled upon the Thinx wiki page. noticed that miki agrawal is in red --> which means that someone should look into possibly creating a page?? anyways, im interested in pursuing but wanted to ask you about your previous draft. don't want to step on any toes here!! maybe you just got bored lol all good, only wonderingggg xoxo -- Allthesensualsenses (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allthesensualsenses,

I deleted Draft:Miki Agrawal because under Wikipedia policy, it qualified for a Speedy deletion under G13 grounds in that it was a draft page that had gone at least 6 months without a human editor (not a bot editor) making an edit to the page. That was the only reason for deletion, that it appeared to be an abandoned draft.

But drafts deleted for G13 reasons can be restored upon request. So, you can either choose to start a new draft from scratch or I can restore the old draft and you can work with whatever the previous editor had put together...from what I can see, it was definitely a good start to an article, they had already put found some sources for the biography. Let me know if you would like it restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Liz thx so much! ill get started & will let u know if i need any help :) just wasn't sure if there was some other reason like not being notable, etc. appreciate it mucho!!! -- Allthesensualsenses (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allthesensualsenses,

Okay, I have restored it at Draft:Miki Agrawal. I'm not an expert on creating articles so if you find yourself stuck, I recommend visiting the Teahouse or Articles for Creation, two areas of Wikipedia that specialize in helping new editors. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz ur a blessing! i would've been sooo lost tysm for a great intro to creating pages :) -- Allthesensualsenses (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer University

Hi Liz! I had tagged Redeemer University for deletion as a cut/paste move so that the page Redeemer University College could be moved to that title - The university underwent a name change and no longer has "college" in the title. Is there any way you can handle that or should I just re-tag it? Sorry for the confusion - I didn't catch it right away and so the edit history was a bit weird. In the future, do you know if there's a way for me to add that explanation somewhere? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose theoretically the redirects could just be switched, so that Redeemer University College redirects to the correct title, but that probably still breaks the page history we need for attribution, right? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThadeusOfNazereth,

Please start a discussion on Talk:Redeemer University College about moving the article to a new title. Do you have a source that establishes the name change? This article has a much longer and extensive edit history at this title and, if it is necessary, this page should be moved to a new name. But we are going to require some verification that the name of the school has changed. Please provide that on the article talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, Thanks for letting me know about the talk page - Yes, sources establishing it go back to the time of the change. Thankfully, somebody else beat me to the discussion. Is starting a discussion/listing at WP:Requested Moves a requirement, or just good practice? I've moved pages before, and want to make sure I follow whatever the norm would be in the future. Thanks again! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, a talk page discussion is appropriate. Often the problem is that sometimes, article talk page don't get a lot of traffic. But if there is another editor who has started a discussion, that is good. No, it's not required to go to WP:Requested Moves but the name change should be noted in the article with a source provided, ideally an official source for the school. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal against the deletion of Wikipedia article 'NIOA'

I would like to contest the deletion of the Wikipedia article 'NIOA', The company it described is notable in regards to being covered by the Australian national media such as Nine News Australia over its attempts to import Alder shotguns into Australia.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/gunsmiths-working-around-adler-ban/5fa66410-da25-4a67-b14b-123804a82c2b
The coverage are not exclusively promotive. The company have also gathered notability by being awarded a contract to supply ammunition to the Australian Defence Force and weapons to the New Zealand Defence Force.
https://adbr.com.au/nioa-awarded-land17-1c2-artillery-ammunition-contract/
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/land-amphibious/1805-army-artillery-enhanced-under-100m-project/
https://www.army-technology.com/news/nioa-supply-30-different-munitions-australian-military/
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-enablers/1530-australian-sme-to-deliver-weapon-systems-to-nzdf/
The page can be changed into something more neutral. It can be saved. Please, give the page another chance. -- Hu753 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hu753,

It is not a matter of convincing me that this article should exist. The article was deleted after an AFD decision, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIOA, and any recreation in main space is subject to deletion by Wikipedia's guidelines on Speedy Deletion. All I can advise is that you work on a version of this article in Draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation for review. If it receives approval from an AFC reviewer, it can be moved back into the main space of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring The Wanksta36/sandbox2

Hi Liz!

Hope I'm doing this correctly. Seems my Sandbox2 page may have been deleted, as I mistakenly kept creating it as a page when I meant to just explore some functions. Can you restore? Thanks so much :)

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wanksta36 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The wanksta36,

I won't restore The wanksta36/sandbox2 to keep it at this title, but I'll restore it to move to User:The wanksta36/sandbox2. However, you already have a page at this title, do you mind it being deleted or do you want to turn this page into User:The wanksta36/sandbox4? You can't have User pages in the main space of the project which is why it kept being deleted. Is that acceptable? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz!

Yes, restoring it to sandbox 4 would be great! Sorry for the inconvenience and mishap.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wanksta36 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Don't forget to sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~)! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ali Fadhul/Archive 1

Author requested deletion with [12] it's a pretty clear WP:G7 (not to mention as an error, also a WP:G6). Regards, 95.67.131.232 (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP,

It's an article talk page archive, there is no one page creator. Everyone who participated on the article talk page helped create that page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See [13] and [14]. The page itself has one author, who created it by accident, and promptly reversed the archival. You can check the archives at WT:CSD but it's pretty well established that g7 applies in these cases. Further as an obvious error WP:G6 also applies, but as you insist Thryduulf is an expert on this topic and one of the more conservative admins in matters of g6 who I'm nonetheless confident will confirm that in a few hours. Anyway it's early and I need to go for a jog, and then I have stuff to do during the day so follow up if needed will have to wait quite some time. Owing to circumstances beyond my control my IP is hopping everywhere so I'm trying to avoid extended discussion atm, but if really needed I may make an exception. Regards, 95.67.131.232 (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archives may not be speedily deleted. Liz is also correct that that everyone who participated on that thread is an author. I've also removed the AfD notice as (1) AfD only deals with articles, MfD is the venue for pages in the talk namespace, (2) There is no way that a talk page archive will gain consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mis-archived thread still exists at Talk:Ali Fadhul and all posters are correctly listed at its history. Qwirkle just mis-clicked on the "Archive" button by OneClickArchiver. This is a terrible exercise in bureaucracy; just speedy that per G6/G7, for God's sake. No such user (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mlječanica

Would you please restore Mlječanica that has been prodded by someone? Don't know what the content was, but it's a populated place that should have an article per WP:GEOLAND, and a notable one because of the spa. It has an extensive page at sr:Мљечаница (Козарска Дубица). No such user (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping? No such user (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it at WP:REFUND instead. Do you even read your talk page messages? No such user (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur accumsan nisi lectus, a sollicitudin justo luctus sit amet. Phasellus id feugiat diam, vitae luctus mi. Nam eu molestie dui. In ut magna hendrerit, elementum neque sit amet, efficitur dolor. Nunc faucibus lacinia lectus, ornare euismod libero molestie nec. Mauris sit amet diam id ante luctus rhoncus. Suspendisse eu justo urna. Vestibulum auctor vel lectus at mollis. In id consectetur metus. Vivamus vitae consequat arcu. In a diam ut arcu blandit mattis non eget augue. Morbi mollis dolor ac lobortis rhoncus. Sed eget euismod metus. Phasellus sit amet sodales libero. Aliquam velit velit, posuere ac consectetur nec, pharetra quis mi. Nunc et euismod eros, ac euismod augue. Cras massa eros, viverra eget tempus ac, iaculis dignissim dolor. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. No such user (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, No such user,

Most days, I do. Sorry I didn't this time. I sometimes skip to the bottom of the page and miss messages farther up on the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5

With regard to diff and diff: the pages' creator (BruhOfficial) has been confirmed as a sock of D4rkeRR9 (please see the SPI) and it's just a matter of time before they are blocked. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shed Simove

Hi Liz, just saw your notes. Thanks for letting me know about Shed's article. I was hoping he would get more coverage in the past 12 months but alas it was not to be. I'll repost something if that happens. DanDavidCook (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matholela Moloi (November 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ThadeusOfNazereth was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No changes made since the last declined submission. Only two sources specifically mention Kgosi, while other sources mention "Lucas" without clarification that they are the same.

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:Matholela Moloi 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:Matholela Moloi, 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.

ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange article

Hi Liz, I was very surprised by the Bybit deletion to be honest, which was done without any discussion or community consensus. I know that crypto subjects are not well liked on Wikipedia per WP:GS/Crypto, so I know that it's a good idea to stay out of small companies. I would personally agree that over 90% of all new crypto-related articles are not notable enough, but anyone in the crypto community can tell you that Bybit is definitely notable as one of the best-known exchanges.

However, this company is very notable and one of the top 3 exchanges, with a lot of notable news from credible publications. A7 doesn't apply if you check all the citations. I also tried not to make the page sound promotional, even though many of the sources looked like PR. I also noticed that someone else has another draft at Draft:Bybit, but that version was very poorly written. That was why I wanted to give the draft a complete rewrite.

This is the equivalent of deleting something like Venmo or Squarespace simply because someone who doesn't know much about the industry thinks they are "A7". As a result, this article should be reviewed by editors who are actually knowledgeable about this industry.

Also this is clearly not promotion at all, since I don't even work for any crypto companies, but am just an amateur crypto enthusiast. They are one of the top 3 crypto derivatives exchange, so there's no way that they wouldn't be notable at all. This was supported by the citations that I provided. If this was the issue, I can revise and republish.

Thanks! All the best.

Ferrousmeteor8 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferrousmeteor8,

There is a skepticism about crypto-currencies on Wikipedia because there are so many people online trying to hype them up. I'd be willing to restore this as a draft, to replace that terrible draft, if you agree to submit it to AFC for review. Perhaps you can find an AFC reviewer who is knowledgeable about crpyto-currencies who can the draft. You might even ask at WikiProject Cryptocurrency if anyone there had any recommendations although their talk page doesn't seem to be very active. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion rejection

One editor suggested that change, the other moved to a similar title because a manual move was impossible, but the same later acknowledged (in another place) that the shorter title was best. The talk page discussion isn't primarily about the title, it was mentioned in passing without any opposition being voiced. So, I see no grounds to reject a speedy move. Avilich (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avilich,

You stated in your CSD tag that there was consensus for this move and I don't see any consensus on the article talk page. Those are my grounds for declining to take action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not in that talk page, but, as I've shown now, all 3 editors -- me, Jenhawk777, and Editor2020 -- agree on the shorter one. Can't we skip several procedures here? Avilich (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your answer, I brought the issue up in the talk page. Thanks for taking the time. Avilich (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a discussion there. Recently, there has been a lot of disagreements and disputes over titles of articles for this historical era and I'm reluctant to move a major article based on one editor's opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me out here? One Materialscientist, apparently with no clue whatsoever, has now reverted my tag again, this time without explanation, even though I did exactly what I said above, and all 3 involved editors, this time in the talk page, have now declared in favor of a move. Avilich (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:165 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:165 BC deaths 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) 02:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, UnitedStatesian, you beat me to it. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon competitive play

Pokémon competitive play was moved, blanked and CSD'ed. The redirect from the move should be restored. There are many incoming links. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==

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

==

Draft:William Lanson

Hello Liz,

I have created a new page about William Lanson. I had clicked on the "publish"button months ago, but the page hasn't been published. What do I need to do?

Also, I have expanded a stub about George Henry Durrie, and would like to how I can create a table of contents.

Thank you,

Ivor SopwithIvor Sopwith (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivor Sopwith,

You need to submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Just go to the AFC page and copy the submit code and add it to the top of the page. I encourage you to submit it to AFC for review but if you don't add the code to the page, no one knows the draft is there and ready for a review.

Whether or not there is a table of contents depends on how many sections there are on the page. I believe that there is a table of contents if there are four or more sections with headers on the page. The format of the article will automatically generate a table of contents, it's nothing you can add. If you have questions about article creation and editing on Wikipedia, the best place to go is the Teahouse or AFC. There are editors there who are more experienced than I am with content creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

I don't think that could solve the type of problem in this case.

I have been editing for 10 years and I find such suggestions abusive, I can't see how that would lead to anything but me spending time on nothing. The topic is not policies but willingness to solve an issue. I am quite content with what I have achieved in Wikipedia, and leave it with that, and just conclude some things are just not possible. I put my efforts in other things right now.

Thanks for the invitation, hope it was good ment but not that well considered?

--Zzalpha (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zzalpha,

Abusive? I was trying to offer you a suggestion of where you could get some support from fellow editors. You have less that 500 edits, I didn't view you as a long-time, experienced editor and your post on Firefly's talk page sounded like you had some basic questions about how to keep a draft article from being deleted.

I'm sorry if you found it offensive. That was not my intention. I won't bother you again. Good luck with your article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Brown - deleted draft (Tyzer007/GillianBrown)

Hi, I've been asked by the actress Gillian Brown to help set-up a wiki page about her and her work. She was previously working with Tyzer007 but for various reasons that have parted company. I am new to wiki but find Tyzer007 draft has been deleted before I was able to look at what had been written (Tyzer007/GillianBrown). Is it possible to restore the draft so that I can at least make a copy of it please? I will need to read up on how to set up a page and edit, but it would just be nice to have a copy of the material as to my knowledge the draft was the only copy. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almoore99 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Almoore99,

It looks like Draft:Gillian Brown (actress) has been restored already. Please disclose your conflict-of-interest on your User page and state whether you are being compensated for editing this article or any others. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for more information.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for LiveWorkPlay

An editor has asked for a deletion review of LiveWorkPlay. 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Extraordinary Writ,

Thanks for letting me know. It was a pretty straight-forward speedy deletion case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Immigrants in California

Hi @Liz, I thought you'd like to know that a page you previously deleted has recently popped back into existence. It's quite uncanny. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pls restore historic hotels articles, and stop deleting any more

Hi, could you please restore Draft:Hotel La Rose, Draft:Stonepine Estate, and Draft:La Valencia Hotel. These are all valid Wikipedia articles, on historic hotels. I think i already addressed you on some others in this group. About 50 or so were moved to draft space in an unfair-in-my-view ANI proceeding, more than half have been restored to mainspace, but i have not yet gotten to these ones. Also, could you or someone inform me in advance about what you or they are going to delete? Again, these are all valid, i don't do shit work, FWIW. --Doncram (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doncram,

I knew that you would come over and complain about a valid CSD G13 deletion so I tagged them for deletion to inform you about their status but I didn't actually do the deletion. You'll have to go complain to another administrator who actually deleted them or go to WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That hardly seems helpful. You knew it was invalid and that I would point that out to you? Could you please just restore them now, please. And/or ask whoever else you want to blame for doing the invalid deletion, to restore them. You know what you have done. Fix it now please. --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were not invalid. They were eligible for CSD G13 speedy deletion. They appeared on the G13 eligible list. So, I tagged them and posted a noticed to your talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy belated Thanksgiving!

	Happy belated Thanksgiving!
	Happy belated Thanksgiving! Huggums537 (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alvin and the Chipmunks characters

Hey there. I noticed that you speedy deleted List of Alvin and the Chipmunks characters, and I fear that something's not right here. I don't understand why most of this happened, but it appears that User:MegaSmike46 split the characters section of Alvin and the Chipmunks into a new article without tagging it appropriately. Another editor mistakenly tagged it as a copyvio of some random Tumblr page, which I declined (and then I added the relevant copied-from information on the talk page). MegaSmike46 then mostly-blanked the page and moved it to draftspace, which I thought was inappropriate for established content, so I reverted it. MegaSmike46 then blanked the article entirely and tagged it for G7 deletion, which you performed.

In any case, G7 was clearly not appropriate here—it amounts to claiming others' work as one's own. I think that either the article should be restored or some version of the information should be re-inserted in the main article. It wasn't the best material, but at least some of it was referenced. What do you think? - Eureka Lott 01:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eureka Lott,

Well, User:MegaSmike46 created that page and then later tagged it for deletion as a request from the page creator. And since there were no substantial contributions from other editors, there was no reason to decline their request. Do you know what page they might have split the material to? I could look into the page deleted via copyright violations. It could be there was a version before the copyright violations were added that could be restored. A link to any deleted pages would be helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could revert their edits to Alvin and the Chipmunks. It looks like they took material from that page. Sorry I didn't quite understand your message on the first reading. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Lott, I just did the revert myself. If this results in a talk page discussion, you might need to go there to make your case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. Another chunk of the Alvin and the Chipmunks article was split to List of Alvin and the Chipmunks specials & home video releases, so I'll remove that section from the main article again and tag the new page appropriately. - Eureka Lott 02:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category restore

Hello, Liz. I accepted a recent AfC submission that would now populate Category:Comic strips started in the 1920s. When I clicked the red link to create the page, I got this note:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

16:26, 12 October 2020 Liz talk contribs deleted page Category:Comic strips started in the 1920s (C1: Empty category) (thank)

I figured restoring the previous history would be better than making a new page. Could you please undelete the page?
Thanks, 2pou (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2pou,

Done Empty categories are one of the easiest, simplest kinds of page restoration. If it is needed, then it can be restored upon request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I believe you may have inadvertently deleted my second sandbox page? at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ACBDB.CBDB%2Fsandbox02 Still a newbie at this but Is there a way to get it back again?CBDB.CBDB (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CBDB.CBDB,

No, this wasn't an inadvertent mistake. This page had copyright infringements from several different sources. The deletion notice on User:CBDB.CBDB/sandbox02 lists the sources. You can't copy content from another source and place it on a page on Wikipedia for legal reasons. We must delete it when we discover it. All articles have to be original content.

If you have questions about article creation or copyright guidelines, the best place to go is the Teahouse where experienced editors can answer your questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware that I used that page to keep my sources and references and text snatches, which I was working on, with sentences going to be properly referenced. I was under the impression that sandboxes have slightly different rules in order to support this kind of sand-box work. Is that not the case? Sorry to have to ask, and I will head to the tea house, but just the sandbox issue would be good to know as I am preparing my first pages in the sand box. (P.s. I feel lost without wysiwyg editor.) Thank you. CBDB.CBDB (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CBDB.CBDB,

Copyright rules apply everywhere on Wikipedia, even talk pages. As far as Sandboxes, they are not subject to some forms of speedy deletion which are applied if you put your page directly into the main space of the project. For example, you could have a blank page in your User space or a page without any references and that is fine, but if it was in the main space, it could be deleted. Other forms of speedy deletion, like copyright and promotion/advertising, do apply everywhere.

If you go into your Editor Preferences and enable email (associate an email address with your account), I could email the content to you but I can't restore it on any page on Wikipedia. Then, if you choose to, you could disable your email if you don't want anyone to be able to contact you via email. It's under your control. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography

WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021

Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained

From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?

Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021

Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent

Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?

WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Serendipity: "Did You Know ..." featured a photo of the wrong female WWII pilot

News from Diff: Content translation tool helps create one million Wikipedia articles

Traffic report: Reporting ticket sales on the edge of the Wiki, if Eternals should fail

Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior

Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I wanted to thank you for some pages you deleted today after I moved them. These pages were created by user Washington Lincoln (talk · contribs), who seems to have created several pages with issues and also seems to do a lot of page moving, maybe even when not necessary or appropriate. I noticed you had posted on their talk page before, as have I recently, attempting to help this user, but they are not communicative... at all. I wanted to ask if you were perhaps keeping an eye on the situation? I think it would be good to try and steer this person in the right direction, before their editing becomes problematic and has to be dealt with formally. Anyway, t'was just a thought. Lemme know if you have thoughts on this yourself, if you'd care to share. Cheers - wolf 09:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad actor

That's interesting. In fact, I created the article, then decided that I should wait a couple of weeks to see if better sourcing would appear, since the overall outline depended heavily on one article in Slate, backed up by the same contemporaneous sources that the Slate article was using. I'm hoping that some broader research emerges. While it's not a BLP, I had second thoughts and decided I'd like to see more before publishing. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Acroterion,

I didn't look at the deleted article after seeing its history (that only you had edited it) so I have no idea what that editor was referring to. Do you? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miller was a noteworthy antivaxxer of the 1950s, who was convinced that polio was a nutritional problem brought about by soft drinks, refined flour, and sugar in general. In some ways he was ahead of his time, and he followed a playbook that has seen considerable use in the past year. Obviously, he has relevance nowadays. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. I see the "political" nature of this article. That must have been a widely-read Slate article for a reader to go searching and find the deleted page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google cached it, so the article shows up at the head of the Google search rankings, and of course then leads to the notice that it was deleted. In point of fact, I'm seeing some more material now, so I think I'll reinstate it and expand it. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It must be nice to know your work is in hot demand! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely relevant. I've restored it, minus the userspace development edits, and added a couple more references. It's a bit eerie to see how closely it parallels current events, and how the U.S. Attorney was able to enforce mail fraud statutes in those days. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the article NOlympics LA

I had noticed that the article was created. So I wanted to add more information, I tried my best to add sources but my edits were biased and the user thinks that I am grammarly inncorrect. Any thoughts and advice? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpinnerLaserzthe2nd,

I posted a notice on their talk page. Unfortunately, they seem to be focused on this one particular article but they are very new so I'd just give it a little time. You could try starting a discussion on the article talk page. Let me know if there are ownership issues down the road. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there is anything I can do to make unbiased edits? I stopped making biased edits. Also, I cannot find any good sources that were critical of the organization. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be very careful about using words like "controversial" and "notorious" unless they are backed by sources. That's not neutral. The easiest thing to do though is to spend your time on other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CFI Financial

Hii Liz. Thanks for passing by on CFI Financial. I am Dr. Rami Tarawneh. I am a wikipedian for almost two decades. Sadly, even with my four wikimanias, we did not cross paths. I contribute mostly on Arabic wikipedia. I was an admin, CU, and Bero there, until the will-known Egypt incident. That was when Jimbo tweeted that I was a hero. I am co-founder of Wikimedians of the Levant usergroup, and a Member of the organizing committee of Wikiarabia 2016 Conference. I am also an admin on commons for almost 15 years now. I can assure you that neither me nor my students are associated with CFI Financial. CFI Financial entity was checked by a team in the University. All articles the students work on are initially screened by a team of five professors to make sure that it is eligible and had the Notability required. We have a huge program at the university (NUCT). Actually I started programs in three major universities in Jordan; JU, AHU, and NUCT. I know the pressure when handling new articles. I have been here. I totally understand the process, and appreciate the efforts. I know we all have lots to do in the real world, but I would apprentice it if you have another pass on the article. --Tarawneh (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torn (2013 American film)

Hi Liz. Someone moved Torn (2013 American film) to User:Torn for some reason and you fixed that. Is the redirect still needed or should the user page be tagged for deletion per WP:U2? FWIW, I came across this because the movie poster being used in the infobox was flagged for a WP:NFCC#9 due to the move. That's no longer a problem since you reverted the move, but I just noticed the redirect on the user page and was wondering if it's needed anymore. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marchjuly,

It looks like Fastily deleted the redirect. It wasn't needed, especially because it was from a nonexistent user page, and I probably should have taken care of it myself but I didn't notice it at the time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll try to be a bit faster responding to messages. It was a strange page move for this editor, I don't know what prompted them to move the page unless they have another article they wanted to use that main space title for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no great rush Liz. I was just curious as to whether there was some reason for keeping the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nico Estevez

Hi there! I saw that you removed the G13 tag on the draft, but I added it mainly because there is already a published article for the draft: Nico Estévez. How can I nominate this draft for deletion properly?

Thank you, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BrazilianDude70

Okay, I see two options. If you use Twinkle, tag it CSD G6 "Housekeeping and non-controversial cleanup" and in the rationale field, write "Duplicate of Nico Estévez. An admin will have to evaluate the reason but some will accept that reason. OR, you could choose to turn the page into a redirect from Draft space to Nico Estévez. There are thousands of redirects from Draft space to main space versions of the articles. They are not very helpful as redirects because readers aren't searching in Draft space for articles but. nonetheless, they exist. You could try nominating it for deletion at MFD but I'm not sure it would be successful and how much time do you want to spend on this page?

Wikipedia allows a lot of leeway in Draft space for all kinds of pages that would not be acceptable in the main space of the project. And if no one edits the page, it can be deleted as a CSD G13 in six months and then will disappear. I hope this helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thank you very much! BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Truls Klausen

Hi Liz, how come you G13-deleted this draft? I expanded it earlier today, so it was no longer abandoned. I didn't tag it with {{submit}} because if I did and it got mainspaced, it would then be credited as my creation, which would be wrong (the creator is indef-blocked, as I noted in the edit summary for my second, longer edit). Doesn't the automatically generated G13 tag go away when a draft is edited? Or was I too late? Please restore it (per IAR if I was indeed too late; there was time for one of the reviewers I pinged in the edit summary to thank me). Thanks if you do. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yngvadottir,

I'm so sorry, I'm very careful looking over drafts but it looks like I made a mistake here. My only excuse is that today we have two lists we are working with, drafts whose last edit was May 30th and those whose last edit was May 31st (since there is no November 31st) so that's over 400 drafts to look over. I apologize and have restored the page. Of course, expired drafts can be restored upon request but that's not necessary since I erred this time. Again, I'm sorry for my blunder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a more informative, but much longer, answer about how we used to handle expiring drafts, how everything was changed by a bot in September 2020, how we handle things now, how it's now become my main task on Wikipedia, the huge importance of talk page notices to page creators and more should you want to know more about our increasing number of G13s. May be more suitable for an email message though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably just make my head spin :-) I hate the way AfC has been weaponized; it's almost impossible to get an article out of there now once an admin has draftified it, especially if it's on a company, and I have the impression it would be a terrible violation of some sort for me to just move such articles myself after working on them. (And I'd be bound to miss some machine-readable point of process normally done by the AfC helper script.) But it follows inevitably from the professionalization of both NPP and AfC, where both have become rights to use a script, so they attract even more gatekeeper-minded editors than they used to. And from where I sit, the viewpoint that business-related articles are almost ineevitably promotional and that promotion on businesses is one of the biggest dangers to the project is a very common one, notably among admins (Iridescent once told me it's the view of only a small group; I wish I didn't keep seeing evidence of its effectively representing consensus). And beyond that, I remember that AfC was supposed to offer guidance and so I and others used to recommend it to new editors as a way to get knowledgeable help and a higher chance of their article surviving after mainspacing; it's been years since I can recommend it at all, since all I see is drafts being templated with uninformative rejection messages, including those that say continued submission risks the article being permanently failed, and those that include a big red stop sign because a single reviewer has decided the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Then the draft gets deleted 6 months later and nobody is any the wiser (including admins; who's conscientious enough to search including draft space even if they can see the deleted versions?) And since we don't link to draft space from mainspace, there won't even be suggestive redlinks; even pre-existing redlinks will likely have been removed if the page was draftified.

But I have no solutions to offer: Kudpung was very proud of that professionalization, so it must have had merits; I do believe business promotion being a dire threat to Wikipedia is the dominant/consensus viewpoint, and my viewpoint that that's a form of bias and there are in any case much more serious threats, a minority view; despite limiting article creation to confirmed editors, we still get floods of new pages that merit speedy deletion, I saw the firehose and samples of the defamatory ones when I was an admin, and I've thought for many years that one of our problems is that many new editors are unfamiliar with the concept of an encyclopedia; and Hanlon's razor: the Klausen draft is from one of the last batches by an incompetent editor (who used AfC! one of the complaints against them was that they kept "spamming" AfC), incompetence is real, and the Norwegian Wikipedia article is unreferenced, possibly not unrelated to the fact that the Norwegian newspapers are mostly paywalled and their older archives may not even have been digitized, in which Norway is hardly alone (the UK is worse except for the tabloids, and unfortunately we aren't allowed to use the Mail even from when it was simply mass-market and thus covered un-snobbish stuff like fat cats and criminal convictions, rather than bending the law and playing fast and loose with the truth)—no solution comes to mind for people being terrible at article-writing, persisting in using machine translations even when we keep repeating we don't want them, or shooting themselves in the foot by not giving Wikipedia editors access to their online archive so they can get lots of lovely traffic. And my usual caveat to those who are unaware: I probably shouldn't even express an opinion on policy matters of problems for the project, since not only did I decline to run for admin again for personal reasons, so it may be entirely my fault that I can't fix stuff, but I now try to keep to 99 edits a month and have so far as I am able, stopped creating new articles, because it makes me ill to appear to endorse the WMF by just continuing as usual as if Framgate hadn't happened or as if they had ever apologized to us for that or any of their other demonstrations of contempt and claims that we work for them. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just scanned over this and need to digest it thoroughly to give you a decent response. You've given me a lot to think about. I have mainly talked about the situation with AFC with DGG who has his own concerns that he could express to you. What I see, at my end, are abandoned drafts and I'd say half of them were never submitted to AFC and the other half were rejected by an AFC reviewer. While persistent paid editors get all of the attention & worry, I mainly see editors who make an attempt at article writing (most of the time, it's not very good or ever terrible) who leave at their first rejection. I don't know how to get them to stick around and work at getting better at it. I frequently see editors who spend a few hours one day trying to write an article and then give up and don't come back. How do you persuade people to put in the time to improve? I don't know.

For the rest of this, I will return and reply later. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Karl Taylor (boxer)

Hi Liz. Delete the article talk page that is Talk:Karl Taylor (boxer) and The article never exists so it's also meet's G3 I believe. 68.193.199.8 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for tagging that page. It is very hard to stumble upon orphaned talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. 68.193.199.8 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Liz necesito ayuda urgente no puedo crear ni usuarios ni nada en mi dispositivo 😔 por favor te lo ruego — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10BE:9:4ABD:60F4:3AF7:9DB9:C5B0 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hola soy yo de nuevo me llamo Mike tengo un correo que está como stiantomtthorensen@gmail.com pero todo está intervenido por miedo a quien no sé quién pueda ser soy de México tengo muchas imágenes pero mi Gmail todo lo que haga como nuevo me lo roba como habría alguna manera de que me puedas ayudar 😞 fe80::1c84:aff:feea:f36a fd00::1c84:aff:feea:f36a fd00::60f4:3af7:9db9:c5b0 2806:10be:9:4abd:1c84:aff:feea:f36a 2806:10be:9:4abd:60f4:3af7:9db9:c5b0 192.168.1.64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10BE:9:4ABD:60F4:3AF7:9DB9:C5B0 (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSD of Thompson, Sanford, & Ginocchio

I tagged it a second time thinking another Admin might see it differently, or if it were you again, you might look closer. The actual name of this firm is "Thompson, Sanders and Ginocchio". That is SANDERS, not SANFORD. There is a redirect Thompson, Sanders and Ginocchio, which is obviously useful. But I created this one hastily, and think it is implausible because it uses a totally different name which is not a common typo or natural misspelling. Your original comment was "this seems like a reasonable redirect as an alternative name mentioned in the article", which applies to the version with SANDERS but not this one. Thanks. MB 14:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MB,

Thanks for spelling it out for me in clear, block letters so I can understand it. I spend a lot of time editing and sometimes I miss the obvious. Sorry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is going on?

Hi Liz-- I've got a bit of an odd situation going on and I'm not sure how to deal with it. I've never seen anything like this before and was wondering if you might offer your input. While scrolling through new pages, I encountered the page Pindiga, which at first appeared to be pure vandalism. I was about to tag it for deletion until I saw the edit history, where the author of the page said that the "nonsense information" will be erased and replaced with real information about a Nigerian town. What is going on here and what do you suggest I do? Thanks, Helen(💬📖) 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Helen,

I see I've already left this editor warning messages from earlier this year. I deleted the page. You can't warn off other editors from editing a page or say that you're going to start with joke edits. If they want to write a serious article, they now have a clean slate. I'd like to ask you to look over his recently created redirects but you might want to keep your distance from them. It's your call. Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not a new pages reviewer, but the redirects to Mrs. Doubtfire seem fine to me. I’ve watched the movie and know that Lydia, Chris, Natty, Winston, Miranda, and Daniel are all characters. I’m not aware of any policy against making redirects for fictional characters-- if that were the case, I don't think Billy Loomis or Stu Macher would redirect to List of Scream (film series) characters). Helen(💬📖) 03:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your judgment. I'm not familiar with the film but unless there are last names, it seems like those could be names of lots of fictional characters. I just saw that a number of his redirects had been nominated at WP:RFD. Thanks for checking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the names on the redirects do have last names. I just shortened it to their first names in this message for brevity. Helen(💬📖) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of conducting a "cut-and-paste move"

Hi Liz, on my talk page you incorrectly accused me of conducting a "cut-and-paste move". This is incorrect - I created a page at Philippe Lavigne, user:dan_arndt moved it to Draft:Philippe Lavigne and flagged the original page for speedy deletion. In the 23 minutes it took for me to notice this and find references, the original page had been deleted - so I recreated it with the sources/references included. All edits incorporated in the page were done by me, so there was no risk of attribution being missed. The page I created should not have been speedily deleted in the first place, as it was obvious that it was notable (chief of a UN nation's military) and information contained therein was factual (easily verified by googling or checking the french language article). If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to let me know. SECProto (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SECProto,

Draft:Philippe Lavigne has never been deleted. Philippe Lavigne was deleted but it was a redirect from main space to draft space, it didn't have any content other than a link. The proper step if you disagree with an article being moved to Draft space is to move the draft back into main space of the project, not start a new version of the article in main space. You are completely free to disagree with an article being "draftified". Now, there are two articles, one in main space, one in draft space. I agree there aren't problems with attribution, I just want to discourage you from doing this again in the future, just move the draft back. It was just a notice, it was not intended as a warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, how do I move the draft back", when it contains no content or edits that would be maintained? The history that it contains is my creation, people moving it to draft, person adding "draft" categorization stuff, and my adding references. The first and last are reflected in the history of the main article, and the other three edits are not relevant to the real article. I also can't move it to article space without overwriting the current cited article, which has since had 6 useful edits from others adding categorization etc. I think the best step moving forward would be to delete the draft article, but I don't know how to do that. SECProto (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to Category:Candidates for history merging for an admin to merge their edit history. SECProto (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Dietary Supplements members

Hello Liz, could your restore Category:WikiProject Dietary Supplements members? There is now a member implementing the userbox on their user page, thank you. Jerm (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jerm,

Done Category:WikiProject Dietary Supplements members is restored but is empty right now. If it still empty at 01:02 UTC Friday, it'll appear on the Empty Category list and be tagged again. But it needs to be tagged for 7 days before it will be deleted again. So, you might want to assign a page to it before then. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and it's now in use but by one person. It's a start though. Jerm (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User page disruption

Thank you for your help Liz. All seems to be in order. Have a good day. :) Samuel J Walker (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel J Walker,

I think he's a very young editor but I found he did the same thing back in September. I only saw it because the bad page move was tagged for speedy deletion. If you are ever personally harassed like this with silly vandalism, just bring it to the attention of an active administrator. You shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you. Samuel J Walker (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Speedy Deletion for Deri Lorus (singer)

Hi, this user KH-1 always placing the tag on the article I've created. Nonsmoker0000 (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need Protection

Hi, I need some assistance on Deri Lorus (singer) page. A user continues to placing the CSD for an article. Not allowing me to do anything. Help me. Thank you! Nonsmoker0000 (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]