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.

It's Winter!

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.

Burning of Smyrna

Hi there. While checking for any new edits (since I have filed a dispute), I noted that you have shut down this article temporarily against editing. This is fine, as I would rather be able to restore my edits more easily once the dispute process and any other following activity ends. You mention edit-warring, which I did not believe my edits amounted to, as you can see from my posts on the article Talk page, where I got the impression that the reversing editors had no real argument for their reversals and therefore chose not to engage in discussion. I also read in my dispute page that Te of kaek (one of the reversing editors who only showed up after I filed the dispute) has accused me of certain untrue activity which he kept piling up and, I feel, in a manner not suitable for Wikipedia pages. As I wrote in my reply to Te og kaek, I have only used this IP and my cell phone, no other IP or any account (I never had a Wikipedia account). When the first reversing editor (2 minutes response time) added an Armenian genocide to a Greek genocide to confound the issue, I felt that I had a right to apply my edit to both that time. Another reversal with similar arbitrary reasoning led me to investigate Wikipedia rules more closely, and I realized that the editor TimothyBlue was violating at least two Wikipedia guidelines: 1) The caption of a photo should contain only the description of the photo, and 2) Wikipedia allows no interpretations (thus, even if the caption allowed it, TimothyBlue's interpretation of the photo being a part of an alleged genocide (or two) was a violation of Wikipedia guidelines). However, now wishing to make a stronger case and to clean up the genocide allegations and propaganda (is it not obvious to you from how the sense of the article has been shifted?) to some degree, I made a bigger edit, including two references from Americans, from not two-three years ago but from a century ago, and a literal translation of a quote to remove what I felt was an intentional misrepresentation. This edit was also reversed before 24 hours passed, and with the following remark: "pov edits with weak primary sources and original research", which, in my opinion, was the reverser's contrived POV, regarding a book by a US officer and war correspondent and a 1923 US newspaper interview with a Near East Relief worker who was in Smyrna at the time of the fire. I suppose "original research" attribution was to the quote I put from Powell's book and my adding those as sources that opposed views Te og kaek espoused or wanted to protect. I had to undo Te og kaek's reversal by pointing out the fallacy of the related edit summary, also being justified as Te og kaek also added two more references, but removed mine. Every step of the way, I added a new paragraph to the article Talk page to indicate my reasoning, but no response was forthcoming. After a final reversal of my edit, I decided to file a dispute. So there we are. I believe that the editors who kept reversing my edits with weak reasons and no explanations were the ones edit-warring using the convenience of Wikipedia "undo" and as to why theirs should be the edit standing, well, we will see about that after the dispute process and any following management activity. Thank you for bearing with me through this somewhat lengthy discourse, but I wish for no misunderstanding. As I have no account, I can check for your reply here in a day or two. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Essential Mix episodes

The relist makes it look like there's actual clash, but right now, by head count, it's a keep even though everyone agrees there's not a single source applied to the page and it's been sourceless for many years. Shaking my head. BusterD (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BusterD,

As you know, AFD isn't a vote and I typically relist discussions where there are valid arguments on both sides. I don't expect this discussion to be open a full week. I'll review it again later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. I don't hold your actions in any negative regard. You are doing your work, which is admirable and (I've learned to count on) neutral in tone. I'm commenting to another admin. I'm also shaking my head at the illogic of folks asserting keep when we share a bare minimum on sourcing which we're compelled to acknowledge. BusterD (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes

Gimmetrow

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:HD § CONFIRMATION of NEW SUBMISSION(?)

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:HD § CONFIRMATION of NEW SUBMISSION(?). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy since you were the administrator who deleted Draft:Gregory Perkel. I've got no clue as to whether the user asking the question is connected to any prior attempts to create this article or whether their user sandbox is any different from the draft you deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marchjuly,

Thanks for the explanation because I wasn't sure why you notified me of this discussion. This draft was a standard CSD G13, it can be restored upon request, either with me or at WP:REFUND. They received at least one notification informing them of this fact. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the OP is the same person who created the draft since the OP's account was only created on January 30, 2023. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Draft: Mike Afolarin. Thank you.User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion for Muhammad in islam

Hello, I saw last week Muhammad in islam Article, But the article is similar to Muhammad's Article, and There's no difference between them. It's better to be a redirection. -- Norval771 (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Islam*.-- Norval771 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Haroon article deletion

I have not been editing Wikipedia regularly and missed the deadline to discuss the second deletion request for Haris Haroon. I would like to request that the discussion be reopened.

The reasons for the second deletion are exactly the same as those given for the article’s first deletion, but I do not believe these objections are valid and I believed that these issues had been resolved when the article was restored. If any users believe that this has not been the case then I would like the opportunity to discuss these.Ferox Seneca (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pro wrestling titles

Hello. I'm the user who started the discussion about the deletion of United Wrestling Coalition. In the discussion I included the titles. Since the promotion isn't notable, it's strange to have the championships. Can you delete them as well? UWC Heavyweight Championship, UWC Tag Team Championship, UWC United States Championship, List of UWC Championships --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Bouvy Trophy

Have merged and redirected per your close, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Claude Bouvy Trophy, regards, P.S. Don't forget to archive!! Govvy (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to avoid AfDs

Hi Liz, currently a user is unilaterally redirecting articles I have written on 18th & 19th century vessels. (The Woodman (1804 ship) was an example of this. Another user reverted the redirect and then it went to AfD, where you decided on a merge, which I executed.) I believe that the deletionist editor is doing this to avoid the AfD process, which can take a while and where the outcome is uncertain. AfDs are more visible and lead to other editors trying to improve the article. I would like to revert all the redirects but am concerned about retaliation. The editor in question has just proposed for deletion a ship index page where another editor moved articles the deletionist editor had redirected. Thoughts? Thanks for considering this. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Acad Ronin. If a revert was boldly done and not the result of a consensus established through discussion, you should be able to revert it per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R if you disagree with redirect. Before you revert anything though, I suggest you check the article's page history and the article's talk page (including any archived talk pages) to see whether there has been any discussion related to the redirecting of the page or perhaps to see whether there might have been some recent back-and-forth reverting of edits related to the redirecting of the page. The last thing you want to do get involved in an edit war over the redirecting of the page. If you do ultimately revert the redirect, you should make sure to leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why and should also probably follow up with a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page. Finally, please try to avoid labelling other users as deletionist editors or in any other way that might have negative connotations. It's not going to convince anyone that you're right and the other user is wrong, and it could be seen as a sort of a WP:NPA. Best to just stick to commenting on content and not commenting on contributors as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. Will do. Pls. note, the reply function to Marchjuly's advice was not functioning. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked category redirects

Hi Liz, I note that you deleted Category:ACArt with 1 suppressed element and siblings as empty, but omitted to check for incoming redirects. Six of these are currently populating the maintenance cat Category:Wikipedia category-redirect box parameter needs fixing (5). – Fayenatic London 20:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Smith AFD

Hi. For the Marv Smith AFD, do you think you could change the redirect target to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) instead of the players list? The former gives more information and multiple of the redirect voters said that would be a better target. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2023 (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.

Hello Liz, I wrote an article about Siobhan "Sam" Bennett that was deleted by you. Can I please have it returned to my sandbox along with feedback as to why it was deleted? I would like to have the opportunity to make the necessary corrections and it took me two months to find my sources and order them correctly. I really don't not want my work to go to waste so if I can go back to the sandbox with the article and feedback I would be very grateful.

Thank you,

NZD

Surat Aap Ri Bannsa

You deleted article " Surat Aap Ri Bannsa" is a Rajasthani folk song. This song is sung by folk singer sonu kanwar and this is popular and notable song. Wikione9 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk page lurker here... @Wikione9: Notable has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NMUSIC for the specifics on notability as it pertains to music articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read it before creation of this article. And keeping ut in mind i created this. Wikione9 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikione9,

I understand you are talking about Surat Aap Ri Bannsa. The article was moved to Draft space so you could improve it and, hopefully, submit it to Articles for Creation for review and possible approval. But after it was moved to main space, it was subject to our standards of review for a main space article and the article subject was not found to be notable by Wikipedia's standards and was deleted.

I can restore it to Draft space but if you move it back to main space again without approval, it will likely be deleted again and not restored a second time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok restore it and i will improve it in draftspace. And thanks dear Wikione9 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz can you restore "Surat Aap Ri Bannsa" in Draftspace so i can improve it. Wikione9 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikione9,

Done You can find it at Draft:Surat Aap Ri Bannsa. Also, please learn how to indent in discussions, it's easier to follow the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now i improved draft from my side. You can now check and move it to article Wikione9 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk page lurker again... @Wikione9: I've tagged the article as a draft. There's now a button to push where you can request it be reviewed to become an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hi Liz,

I am having a dispute with an editor Onel5969 over the Sexton Blake biography article. I worked with editors Daranios and Onetwothreeip to improve it. Due to its length it was split into 4 sections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexton_Blake_bibliography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sexton_Blake_bibliography_part_2:_1912-1945 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sexton_Blake_bibliography_part_3:_1946-1978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sexton_Blake_bibliography_part_4:_1979-present

I have made edits and cited where appropriate.

I have used these pages as models. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels

Please advise. Nml25 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function

News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan

Section 230: Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia

Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos

Special report: Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation

In the media: Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and legislative debate

Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter

Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage

Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias

WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour

Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles

Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea

Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please verify the sources given by me in this article. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karsan Chanda,

No, I will not. I have a lot of responsibilities and tasks on Wikipedia that keep me busy, I don't have time to review your draft article. If you have particular policy questions, I recommend bringing them to the Teahouse where you can receive answers and support. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi Liz, I saw that you unlinked an entry for Valentine Schlegel on the List of female sculptors, I followed that with removing her from the list since the lede says that all entries should have a WP article. I got curious and started to do a Google search on her, and I think she may be notable. I then searched for an AfD and could not find one. Maybe it was speedied? Or was there an expired draft on her that was deleted? If it's the latter, I would be interested in developing it in my user space if you can retrieve it. If not, no worries. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Looks like this was speedy deleted by Primefac as a multiple copyvio, so any new article i'd imagine would need to be started from scratch. I wouldn't normally expect a copyvio to be restored anywhere. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Netherzone (and Bungle),

Sometimes I do unlink page titles from articles that were deleted due to being copyright violations because it is so unlikely that there will be a new, fresh, violation-free version of the article written any time in the near future. Unlike pages deleted through ordinary speedy deletion or AFD, I've never seen deletion review overturn a deletion decision due to a copyright violation.

But if it is fine to have red link names on that page, feel free to "relink" that sculptor and maybe someone (you?!) will write an article on them. Hopefully! I'm all for more articles on notable female artists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for you replies and the back-story. I totally understand about the seriousness of copyvios. I had a look at her work via a Google search, and I think she is notable per WP standards. I've put it on my To-do list to start an article from scratch on her. I hope to get to it at some point (I have a looooong to-do list!). Netherzone (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing request move

Hello! :) I was wondering if you could please close this RM: Talk:Big Bang (band), it's been 7 days. 52-whalien (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report

Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

Overview of Backlog-reduction progress
Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page
Membership news and results of elections
Closing words

– Your Guild coordinators: Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo

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

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted article

The deleted article about Jayaram Kailas has been recreated and is now eligible for G4? Akevsharma (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akevsharma,

I'll look it over tomorrow and compare the current version to the deleted version. Sorry for the delay in responding. I get busy sometimes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If am not wrong, the newly created article is similar to the previous one with slight language modifications, and no new sources have been added. The sources used are the same. Akevsharma (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, Can you look into it. He doesn't received the 39th Kerala Film Critics Association Awards for direction as per Kerala Film Critics Association Award for Best Director. Akevsharma (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 1#Andrés Camilo Mosquera Hoyos

At the log for Feb 1, this was closed two days early as delete by a non-admin, which runs afoul of WP:NAC. It was, however, snowing and subsequently deleted by UtherSRG under G6. I'm unsure whether the close should be left to stand with a comment to the closer regarding NACs, or be vacated/reclosed. I think the former is probably more appropriate, given the SNOW, but I would appreciate if you could have a look. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VickKiang,

It looks like it was closed early by a non-admin and an accommodating admin deleted it for them. I'm not going to challenge it because the discussion would have been closed as Delete but this was a BADNAC even though it was a SNOW. Maybe UtherSRG would reclose this discussion. Right now, however, I'm heading to bed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Indeed. I've gone ahead and added an additional closing statement for the SNOW closure. I'll leave a note on the NAC's talk, if no one else has done so. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Burning of Smyrna: @Liz I have written to you and also made mention of you on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&oldid=1137845755 You are getting this courtesy notice although you have not yet shown me the courtesy of replying to my message above, in addition to making presumptuous and offensive statements about me on the page I indicate here, accusing me of block evading and so forth. Would you please explain what your duty is in Wikipedia, and I am asking that assuming good faith on your part and that you will admit to having made a mistake in making those statements? Thank you.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 70.164.212.36,

I'm not sure exactly what you are seeking here. I make inquiries about editors I think might be socking fairly often and this query involved your account. There is no reason for you to be offended, when I was a new editor, some editors thought I was a sockpuppet. Socking is pretty common on this project so when editors see what they think are signs of socking, we either file an SPI case or touch base with a checkuser. As you know, I'm not the only editor who thought you might be a sockpuppet. I could take offense at you calling comments I made "presumptuous and offensive" but I won't because you are clearly an upset editor who isn't thinking calmly and clearly. Also that is not uncommon for me to encounter. I don't know that I "made a mistake", I just was told that checkusers won't verify if IP accounts are related to registered accounts.

My "duty" here is that I'm a volunteer administrator. Like all other administrators. I work on tasks that I find enjoyable which, these days, typically involves reviewing expired drafts, PRODs and scanning over the day's AFD log. I'm not sure how I came to check on Burning of Smyrna but that's where I ran into your account. You seem to cause a lot of disruption wherever you go so that led me to inquire if you were related to another editor. That's part of my job as an administrator.

Other than that, I don't have much else to say. And from what little I know about Materialscientist, I doubt they will respond to the wall of text you posted on their talk page. You'll get a more timely response if you are concise which is why that I took the time to respond to you now. Now, I'll go back to the work that takes up my time on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz : You did not answer why you were so certain that I was wearing masks. Unfortunately, now you write "You seem to cause a lot of disruption wherever you go". What is that supposed to mean? I have to say I find that impolite and inconsiderate, since you have absolutely no basis for writing that (check my very limited edits and my thorough discussions of them). I am obliged to ask you to prove your statement. You may be an admin given certain powers, but I am sure there are higher up admins that will question your attitude and apparent bias in this case. My very carefully done and truthful edits were reversed with brief irrelevant edit summaries and no discussion (a violation!) and I am the one to have been attacked with accusations from multiple parties who have their own reasons, including yourself, as even here. So, the question is, what is your reason to accuse me first of sockpuppeting and now here of disruption? I believe everyone has to be careful and accountable in Wikipedia, even admins all the way to the top. I hope your reply will not contain any more baseless accusations, but maybe an acknowledgement of your mistake in choice of words.70.164.212.36 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please REFUND the glossary ToC template

Hi Liz, can you please restore Glossary of French criminal law/Compact ToC? This is not a duplicate of an existing template, it is the specific configuration designed for indexing only the article Glossary of French criminal law, and which appears at each letter division. It does not generate the same output as {{Compact Toc}} does, and wouldn't work under the current letter distribution at that article. What happens if you use {{Compact Toc}} instead, is that you have to duplicate the params identically 26 times (or however many), and it slowly gets out of sync, going through ToC rot" as the article ages. In addition, changes to the Toc have to be repeated 26 times every time you make a change. This avoids that. As the article stands now, I no longer have the convenience of the index within easy reach, and have to go to the top. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the page 'List of mass shootings in Australia'

Hello,

I noticed that the 'List of mass shootings in Australia' page was deleted on January 19th because it was created by a sockpuppet account (MelatoninEmbryo) of HughD. This article however included pertinent information and was adequately sourced with citations. The sockpuppet account also created the articles 'List of mass shootings in Switzerland' and 'List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom' articles and those remain up. If the Australian page was deleted, why do those two continue to exist?

Many thanks! Abatementyogin (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abatementyogin,

I don't know, I'll have to look into this. But, in general, articles can be deleted as CSD G5, the work of a block-evading editor, if the sockpuppet is the primary or only contributor to the article. If other editors have worked on these pages, they are typically not deleted so that might be the case here.

Just FYI, in the future, your requests will get faster attention if you include a link to the page you are concerned with so the editor/admin doesn't have to go looking for the page you are talking about. It just speeds things up and makes it simpler for the respondent. I'll look into this and get back to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

I'm so sorry about that! Here's a link to the deleted article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Australia

Here are two other articles that were created by the sockpuppet that remain up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Switzerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_Kingdom

Sorry for not including the article in my original reply. Looking forward to your reply. All the best. Abatementyogin (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Liz. Been over a week. Any updates? Abatementyogin (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abatementyogin,

Thank you for the reminder. This page can get a lot of traffic and unfortunately, I can get so busy that I lose track of discussions from a few days or weeks ago.

For List of mass shootings in Australia, it looks like User:MelatoninEmbryo created the entire article. The only other edits were by an IP editor who added categories to the page. So, this would be a valid CSD G5 speedy deletion. They had other articles they created deleted as G5s including 2014 Alturas shooting and 1997 Channelview shooting (I can see that they had a clear editing focus).
For List of mass shootings in Switzerland, at least one other editor, Nic0487, contributed content to this article. It also was brought to AFD where the discussion was closed as "No consensus". And there is also a Merger discussion suggested with List of massacres in Switzerland. These three factors complicate a easy CSD tagging and make a a G5 tagging less likely. However, if was discovered that Nic0487 was another sockpuppet, G5 might well be reconsidered.
For List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom, again we have additional content added by Nic0487 so that makes it an unlikely CSD G5. It does make me wonder a bit about Nic0487 though! The two editors seem to share an interest in shootings.

If you believe these two articles should be deleted as well, you can always take them to AFD. Usually the creation pf an article by a sockpuppet is not the deciding factor in an AFD deletion decision (adequate SIGCOV usually is) but it could very well encourage some editors to argue for Deletion. If you are interested in a new version of List of mass shootings in Australia, you might ask Nic0487 for help as they regularly contributed to these articles and might be able to locate some of the content from this deleted article. I believe some of this content is also duplicated at List of massacres in Australia. I hope this answer addresses your concerns. Sorry again for my delayed response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, I thought I'd add that while I reviewed the articles tagged for CSD G5 deletion and deleted those that were appropriate tagged, I'm not the editor who went through User:MelatoninEmbryo's contributions and decided which ones to tag and which ones not to tag. That would be editor User:Love of Corey. A different editor reviewing MelatoninEmbryo's articles might have come to a different conclusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can any of the content from the deleted article on Australia mass shootings be recovered? Abatementyogin (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing can be done? Abatementyogin (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abatementyogin,

I'm sorry but in this instance, all of the pertinent content in this article was created by a sockpuppet and I'm not willing to bend the rules to restore it. If there had been substantial contributions by other editors to this article, it would be a different situation but there weren't. There are two other places you can go for a second opinion but they both have a low chance of success. You can try WP:REFUND and make a request there but this noticeboard is for uncontroversial page deletions and I think you'll get the same reply as I gave you. Or, you can go to Deletion review and argue that my deletion of this article was inappropriate. Again, I don't think you'll get a positive response but I'd be remiss not to mention these other options are available to you.

Alternatively, you might find another administrator who doesn't take this sockpuppet policy as seriously as I do who could help you out. But I can't provide you with any names here. If you have discussed editing on Wikipedia with another admin, you could approach them with your request.

Again, I think your best bet is to start from scratch and try asking Nic0487 for help. I wish I could give you one, master reference source that the sockpuppet used to write the article but they used a separate source for each shooting instance, usually the New York Times. I'm sorry that I can't accommodate your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Template

Quick question about this[1]. The page was created by a bot that I didn't set up correctly. So there's 3 dead end pages I'm not sure how to remove. It's just clutter. What should I do to get them removed?

Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nemov,

Sorry, I was being a stickler for the rules and in kind of a hurry. Just tell me that you moved all of the content you removed from the pages to an actual archive page or back to the main talk page. In that case, then these page are redundant and I'll delete them based on CSD G6 which is a criteria for "Housekeeping". Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, everything is moved back to the original talk article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROD nom error

Hi @Liz! Sorry to have accidentally gone ahead with a PROD nom for Ruslan Bogatyrev since it was AfD before; I saw you removed the tag, but just wanted to explain it was an oversight on my end. Thanks! Ppt91 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91,

No apologies necessary, these things happen all of the time. It looks like an article worth a second trip to AFD. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page Lara Heller

Hello @Liz! While I agree with the comments about the page on actress Lara Heller, that it is written in a promotional way, I want to tell you the reason why I have decided to write about her. The first reason was to link an English-language page to the English page of the European School of Luxembourg where she (and I) studied; see the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_School,_Luxembourg_I (footnote 12). Though the page I wrote did not mention it (yet) the sources tell a bit of the story behind her growing up in a tiny country where she did not have much enternainment, but embraced ice skating to satisfy her desire to entertain people, and even represented Germany and Luxembourg in professional ice skating (again, I agree that the sources might not be very reliable, but in a video interview on vimeo she says how she embraces cultural understanding to build character. Again, this is purely related to her growing up in a multicultural, and multinational country, and especially having been at the European School of Luxembourg, in an educational system that promotes diversity (also notice the mention about religion in the school page - her being half Persian, she studied Ethics instead of Catholicism - often the students who studied Ethics, were very good at arts)

The second reason I wrote about her, was because there is already a German version of the page. It is 95% a translation of that page. I would not have thought that despite all the info about her, that only the English page would be considered ’’non-significant’’. I agree that her roles were not big so far, but she played in a diverse set of films from directors of all backgrounds, and that’s what makes her exceptional (again, in accordance to her origins, and how she grew-up) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodSimon (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GoodSimon,

I must apologize for that deletion notice at the top of the deleted article. The article was tagged for being promotional but it was mainly deleted for being a copy of an article that had been deleted through an AFD deletion discussion in the past. For some reason, the deletion tool noted one tag but not both of them. When I was comparing versions of the article deleted via AFD and the current version, they were pretty much identical which is not suprising as you created them both and it was noted on both articles that they were a translation of the article from the German Wikipedia.

It is very difficult to recreate an article that has been deleted through AFD and not have it tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4, unless it is a completely different article which seems unlikely as if you are translating the German version again. The only solution I know of is if you work on a draft version of the article and submit it for review to Articles for Creation. Draft articles that are reviewed and approved are much less likely to be tagged for speedy deletion. So, I can restore the article and move it to Draft space if you are willing to take the time to go through that process. Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I only created the most recent page, not the one that was deleted in 2019, but I get what you’re saying. Let’s move it to draft then, and I’ll work on it little by little when I get the time. Thanks again! GoodSimon (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Talk page for Draft: Klau Library (Cincinnati)

Hello! I saw you deleted the talk page for the Draft: Klau Library (Cincinnati). The user @Diannaa had apparently placed a template there which would have allowed me to link the draft with the copyright release ticket I got back from the organization that triggered the copyright violation deletion. Did I go about this the wrong way? ZacSifron (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZacSifron,

It looks like Draft:Klau Library (Cincinnati) and its talk page were deleted for being broken redirects as they were directed to Draft:Klau Library which was deleted for copyright reasons. You'd have to ask Diannaa about whether or not she would be willing to restore those pages.

I deleted Draft talk:Klau Library because it was an orphaned talk page. Except for User talk pages, we don't allow there to be a talk page where there isn't an article or draft to talk about. If you create Draft:Klau Library again, I'd be happy to restore the talk page for that draft. But we don't have talk pages where there aren't existing articles or draft articles since the purpose of a talk page is to discuss the content or writing of the article or draft. So you just created the page before it was necessary which happens more than you might think. I hope this answers your question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WWE 2K23

Hi, you'd assume that having a special CSD template reserved solely for this purpose would be enough, but I suppose not... well, Template:Db-afc-move states that it is only placed by draft reviewers. Obviously while it was previously declined, it was about to be accepted by me, and was not just put there randomly.

Unfortunately an IP editor then did a copy paste move to that page but I would still request it be speedy deleted so I can accept the draft properly instead. Otherwise there is zero attribution. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 9#Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta

Sorry to post here again but at today's AfD log there is this discussion, which has an inappropriate relist ahead of schedule (only 6 days instead of 7) by the AfD nominator (non-admin); in addition there are several single-purpose accounts. I'm not sure whether the relist should be left to stand or reverted for an admin to handle this, so if you could have a look it would be great. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VickKiang,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I went to leave a note on this editor's user page and found you already left a great one. So, I just reaffirmed that you were correct. You really have a fine eye to pick up these discrepencies. We're lucky to have you patrolling through AFD logs. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2409:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/25

Isn't that a rather large range? Just checking. Thanks for your hard work! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adakiko,

You might be right. I don't really understand block ranges and I think I imposed what a previous block range had been. What do you think an appropriate range would be? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see MaterialScientist did a range block of 2409:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/22 Special:Contributions/2409:40C0:44:E210:E018:35FF:FEDD:C068. It appears we're out voted 8:1! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stifle,

Back at Deletion review. Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture in Latvia by location has been nominated for deletion

Category:Culture in Latvia by location has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Estopedist1,

I use to create a lot of categories, I'm sure you'll come to a good decision on what to do with this one. Thanks for the notification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request: Feature Films for Families

Article on a Utah-based kidvid company, deleted back in early November 2017 for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH thanks to this AFD. An early July 2022 re-creation attempt was also shot down; unfortunately, the user responsible was a blocked sockpuppet. After little more than five years, looks like WP:Library may be coming to the rescue. (What follows below may be enough for now to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA—lest we look a bit harder beyond lots of natter on their telemarketing practices?)

Bosha, Pat (2000-03-17). "Feature Films for Families Fills Need for Wholesome Fare". The Morning Call. p. D01. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Discusses co-founder Forrest Baker III's early career (in an article on a regional release of theirs, Who Gets the House?, from their theatrical Visiplex label).
Jones, Lara (1996-02-05). "Film company building new distribution center". The Enterprise. Vol. 25, no. 31. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Mentions co-founder Baker III, the founding date (1988), and the inaugural year of operation (1990).
Rattle, Barbara (1993-05-10). "Wholesome films pay off for Murray's Feature Films". The Enterprise. Vol. 22, no. 47. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — At original press time, the company's "president and executive producer [was] former KSL-TV sports anchor Don Judd". Also from this source:
- "Feature Films for Families' goal is to strengthen traditional values through feature film entertainment produced and distributed directly to homes on videotape, [public information director Michael] Clapier explained."
- "Feature Films for Families not only produces its own movies, but also carries "G" rated films from other sources and re-edits or 'sanitizes' some Hollywood productions."
"In the Limelight". The Salt Lake Tribune. 1994-12-04. p. F1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Receiving the Utah Governor's Award has to count for something, right?

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slgrandson,

I don't see a reason why you can't create a new article in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review. It looks like you have gathered sources which is a great start. Just do not move the draft directly into the main space of the project. I would never delete a draft article for CSD G4 reasons as editors have to have a way to contest a previous AFD decision and creating a new version of the article on the subject is the best way I know of to do that. You avoid all of the problems that led to the deletion of the previous version of the article. Were you asking for my opinion or is there something else that you needed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of restoring the pre-November 2017 revisions, and continuing with the new sources from here. (Hoping that what was written back then could be salvaged from Special:Undelete, which was my intent in the first place. Or should we discuss further at WP:Deletion review?) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete or Replacement Pages Consideration

Hi Liz, thanks for taking a moment out of your busy schedule. You recently deleted pages for Strawberryfrog and the CEO, Scott Goodson. While I agree there was needed improvement on the pages, I believe this agency, along with the CEO are important contributors to the advertising and marketing industry, specifically related their impact on movement marketing, cultural movements and also brand purpose. I believe both pages are very important specifically with regard to their impact on today’s social environment and how social and cultural movements impact brands and purchase behaviors. Additionally, I believe Scott Goodson does meet the criteria for notoriety on the subject matter as he has and continues to be recognized throughout the marketing and advertising industry trades as a subject leader and has won multiple awards in the category.

If the previous pages were not suitable based on Wikipedia guidelines, I’d like to request that I am allowed to recreate them from scratch closely following Wikipedia protocols in order to properly connect the dots and communicate a clear story on the subject matters at hand.

My personal stake in this is that I am a marketing professional and a huge advocate on how social movements are an essential part of how businesses and organizations should be doing business in this day and age for the benefit of society along with their employees; which can also benefit their own business interests at the same time. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Please let me know how to proceed.

User talk:NorrisBailman NorrisBailman (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NorrisBailman,

It turns out that there was once a StrawberryFrog article but the page was redirected to Scott Goodson. That article was deleted through a consensus deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Goodson where there was an unanimous decision to Delete the article. I can not revert a decision to delete an article that was arrived at by a consensus of editors.

The only way I know of to overcome a deletion decision is to write a new article in Draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation where an experienced editor will review it and, hopefully, approve it. If you put an article on Scott Goodson is that is virtually identical to the one that was deleted back into main space of the project, it will be deleted as a Speedy Deletion because it was just deleted at an AFD.

I'm sorry if all of this Wikipedia terminology is confusing but it's how things have developed on Wikipedia after 22 years. A great place to go for help, or if you want a second opinion, is to bring your questions to the Teahouse which is a noticeboard where editors can ask questions to those who are more experienced in article creation and Wikipedia policies. I encourage you to pay them a visit if you are unhappy with the information I gave you.

I'm sorry I can't wave a magic wand and give you what you asked for, if you want these articles, they are going to have to be rewritten. I also encourage you to read over the AFD deletion discussion so you can see what problems existed with the previous article so that these issues can be avoided in a future one. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LIz,

Thank you so much for your quick and informative reply. This is very helpful and I will follow your advice. Thank you! NorrisBailman (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gajesh Naik

Hello, I saw you've closed the AFD discussion pertaining to the above subject as "close". I don't truly believe we ever reached any consensus for the same. Like many of my questions were unanswered or simply ignored by some editors.

I wish to further take this article to DRV process as I believe it can be saved or atleast I deserve to be answered to my queries relating to the AFD. Do let me know your views about it, thanks. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 06:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rejoy2003,

I'm sorry you are disappointed with the AFD closure. But you were the only editor advocating Keeping this article, every other editor supported Deleting it so it was an almost unanimous decision.

It is certainly your right to go to Deletion review to contest the closure. I'll just make a few comments that might help. First, there are instructions there, it would benefit you from following them completely. There are editors on Wikipedia who focus on reviewing deletion decisions and they are used to examining reviews that follow a certain format. Secondly, know that the editors reviewing the closure are not judging whether or not Gajesh Naik should or should not have an article and it is inappropriate for you to make an argument that you believe he is notable. No, Deletion review is actually reviewing ME and my decision. They are looking at the AFD closure to make sure I judged consensus correctly so it's not Gajesh Naik who will be reviewed but my decisions to close the AFD as Delete.

Personally, given that all editors except you voted to Delete, I think it is unlikely that they consensus at Deletion review will be to overturn the AFD closure and restore the article to main space. But you might have some luck if you ask for the AFD to either be Relisted for another week of discussion or to have the content of the article moved to Draft space, you might have a chance if you ask for either one of those options.

Even though there is no admin who enjoys being scrutinized at Deletion review, I wish you good luck with the process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gehōbako

Hello Liz, re: diff, the most fitting reason is Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G1, as I mentioned in my initial posting of Template:d on that page.

If I used the wrong template, I would appreciate guidance on the correct one to use. TIA! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Haroon Undeletion

Hello. Unfortunately I have not been editing Wikipedia regularly for several years and I missed the discussion which resulted in Haris Haroon's article being deleted.

The allegations that led to this article being deleted a second time were the same that were given the first time it was deleted, and I believed that these issues were addressed when the article was previously restored. I would like to respond to these ideas and to attempt to permanently restore the article. Can you help me to open a discussion to restore the article?Ferox Seneca (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are probably very busy, but please discuss this issue with me.Ferox Seneca (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1138889417

Accident? Page was created 1 month ago. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Caray

Hi Liz, I'm a bit confused about why you moved the Josh Caray article back to mainspace. Per the deletion long, it was an uncontested PROD from 2013, and I requested that it be REFUNDed in 2022 so I could work on improving it. At this point, I haven't done much work on it, and probably won't, so shouldn't it just be deleted again? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the articl's restoration to mainspace, it's been rewritten by a new user, and is possibly COI. There's been several such edits to both this page and Chip Caray be this user, and to other new users. I'm concerned that this may be paid editing. Thanks!. BilCat (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring to draft space delete page: Lara Heller

Hello Liz. It’s been 4 days since our last discussion on the page that was tagged for speedy deletion. I tried looking for it in drafts and could not find it. Can you please restore it, if not done so yet, and let me know where I can find it so I can start working on it? Thanks! Signed GoodSimon 12/02/2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodSimon (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GoodSimon,

Sorry about that, I am not very swift at responding to many talk page messages. I get quite a few throughout the day and night, more than I see on most other admin talk pages, and I find if I don't respond immediately, days can go by before I return to the middle of the page and look for them. So, I appreciate your very polite reminder. You can find the restored article at Draft:Lara Heller. Good luck with it and an AFC review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Coffee Works

Hi, Liz! Could you please restore Seattle Coffee Works to Draft:Seattle Coffee Works for me? I believe this is a non-controversial ask. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Another Believer,

Of course. I know you are an experienced content creator but I recommend going through AFC and not moving this article to main space or it will likely be deleted CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Noted. Thanks so much! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, may I request restoration of Talk:Seattle Coffee Works to Draft talk:Seattle Coffee Works, too? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Another Believer,

I'm not sure what happened. I thought I restored this page and moved it to Draft space. Now it's taken care of. Sorry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! Thanks again, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheery but it's yet again a terrible close and a terrible shame. NCORP isn't the only concern for a local cultural institution like a coffeehouse, and the deletionist arguments kept creating and raising new bars. $ɱ$ (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ɱ,

I'm open to disagreement, it's the nature of a collaborative project and the fact that admins make decisions that affect the status of articles and editors, but if you are just going to come here and insult me ("a terrible close"), please do not visit this talk page. If you disagee with a closure I made, then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and make your case there, don't come to a user talk page and take potshots. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ashley Dalton

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ashley Dalton. 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. PiaLily (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PiaLily,

Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail - Its important!

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. Akevsharma (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help fix my AFD

Hey Liz! Could you fix my AFD of Nissan F-Alpha platform? I sent it to AFD before I actually put it in any deletion sorting categories or anything. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Mall and User:Verddieta

Hi Liz, could you please check whether Gulf Mall is CSD:G4 eligible? User:Verddieta has been on a spree of recreating, undraftifying, or reverting redirects of their deleted articles and this is one of them. Thanks, Jfire (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Author photo verification

Hi Liz, hope you are doing well. I have a question that touches both on COI editing and copyright - the page for Isabel Waidner recently got a new photo from a very new editor (Angsthase1) who replaced the previous photo from a public event attended by Josie Fraser with a selfie of the author. I reached out on their talk page to confirm that this wasn't a copyright violation and got a respond from an IP that this user is Isabel Waidner themself and this selfie is the photo they want used, the previous photo was taken and uploaded without their consent (not sure how this plays out at a public event but okay), etc. I don't have any proof that this editor is Isabel Waidner beyond the claim of the IP editor and was thinking of reaching out to them via their publicly available email address. Do you have a suggestion for the language I might use about explaining the potential COI issue, the language they might consider adding to their user page about COI, what to put on the Wikimedia page for the image itself, etc.? I'm a big fan of this author's work and want to make this a positive experience for them but at the same time I know we have these bylaws for a reason.

If there is another editor who might be better to ask, please let me know! Thanks, as always, for any help. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion & Redirect of Sean Bielat Wiki Page

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.

Hi Liz!

I am new to Wiki editing so please excuse my confusion on how the repost/undeleting of a deleted page works. After reading several Wiki how articles on this process, I read to contact the admin who closed the article which I believe was you? If you could help me out with this that would be so appreciated!

Anyways, recently the Wiki article about Sean Bielat was deleted on a consensus by other users that he is not notable enough to comply with Wiki's notability rules. However after reading Wiki's notability rules, it states as follows:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wiki 2022)

I can provide several secondary sources that covered Sean Bielat's Campaign against Barney Frank in 2010 as well as multiple sources of his business endeavors and accomplishments with the company IRobot, Endeavor Robotics, as well as his involvement in several other businesses or startups. I will link just a few, please let me know if you need to see more evidence of Sean Bielat's significant contributions and notability in society. Thanks so much!

[2]https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7ead3fb152daedd2JmltdHM9MTY3NjQxOTIwMCZpZ3VpZD0wN2I5ZjdhMi01NmRhLTYyYWUtMzc1Ny1lNWM4NTcyNDYzOWQmaW5zaWQ9NTIxOA&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=07b9f7a2-56da-62ae-3757-e5c85724639d&psq=sean+bielat&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvb21iZXJnLmNvbS9wcm9maWxlL3BlcnNvbi8xNzYxNTEwMQ&ntb=1

[3]https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/03/04/congressional-district-meet-sean-bielat-again/XftFnHjkxgVVUzdwd473KJ/story.html

[4]https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b9ec21203edc728eJmltdHM9MTY3NjQxOTIwMCZpZ3VpZD0wN2I5ZjdhMi01NmRhLTYyYWUtMzc1Ny1lNWM4NTcyNDYzOWQmaW5zaWQ9NTI4Mw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=07b9f7a2-56da-62ae-3757-e5c85724639d&psq=sean+bielat&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWFzc2xpdmUuY29tL3BvbGl0aWNzLzIwMTMvMDIvcmVwdWJsaWNhbl9zZWFuX2JpZWxhdF9qdW1wc19pLmh0bWw&ntb=1

[5]https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f9e4dfda99d612d8JmltdHM9MTY3NjQxOTIwMCZpZ3VpZD0wN2I5ZjdhMi01NmRhLTYyYWUtMzc1Ny1lNWM4NTcyNDYzOWQmaW5zaWQ9NTM4NQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=07b9f7a2-56da-62ae-3757-e5c85724639d&psq=sean+bielat&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9hYmNuZXdzLmdvLmNvbS9VUy9PVFVTL2pvZS1rZW5uZWR5LXdpbnMtYmFybmV5LWZyYW5rcy1jb25ncmVzc2lvbmFsLXNlYXQtbWFzc2FjaHVzZXR0cy9zdG9yeT9pZD0xNzY1NzAzMQ&ntb=1

[6]https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=5a4c7c51d412b810JmltdHM9MTY3NjQxOTIwMCZpZ3VpZD0wN2I5ZjdhMi01NmRhLTYyYWUtMzc1Ny1lNWM4NTcyNDYzOWQmaW5zaWQ9NTE5Mw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=07b9f7a2-56da-62ae-3757-e5c85724639d&psq=sean+bielat+linked+in&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlua2VkaW4uY29tL2luL3NlYW5iaWVsYXQ&ntb=1

[7]https://agln.aspeninstitute.org/profile/4760 Sabrinalehman (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of destroyed heritage of the United States

Hi Liz, I think this page was deleted by mistake, can you please restore it? After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destroyed heritage of the United States (2nd nomination), the nominator moved the page and I moved it back but there was some cleanup needed. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Reywas92,

Done You are right, it was a mistake. The article appeared on a list of broken redirect pages. I should have double-checked to make sure that it was still broken before deleting it but I was in a rush trying to make a medical appointment. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention so I could fix it. Sorry for the any trouble it caused. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you for all your efforts! Reywas92^Talk 03:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian military equipment of World War II

You deleted this list for having no entries. Can you explain how it came to have no entries? Srnec (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srnec,

I deleted this page but the reason for the deletion was written by the editor who tagged the page for Proposed Deletion. For PRODs, admins reviewing the page just make sure that it's a valid tagging (no previous PRODs or trips to AFD). I remember that there was a short paragraph on the page but indeed there was no list on the article.

If you are contesting the PROD, I can restore it for you if you want to work on the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Havelock AFC... I authored this article and used his middle initial because a state-owned photo of him I'd found used his middle initial. After briefly discussing with other Alaska Project editors, we agreed without dissent that the article should drop the initial, and it was created,, so, "John E. Havelock" article for creation should actually be deleted. Activist (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive baby splitting at List of Byzantine Emperors

I love how you put all the content-related disagreements right back on those who are already working on the page. Nice close, perhaps unsatisfying to some participants. Not me. Big fan over here. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BusterD,

Well, ideally, a discussion closer is uninvolved in the article so here you had a closer reading through an enormous amount of comments from editors who are passionate about a subject I have no opinion about.

I get talk page complaints from editors who want me to make the "obvious" decision, whether it is the consensus or not. But unless the article is promotional or complete garbage or nonsense, I'm not supposed to take sides but assess the discussion. When I have acted on my own opinion on a close, I've been taken to Deletion review and been accused of making a "supervote" which is thrown around like it's the worst mistake an admin can ever make. Deletion review for admins is like ANI for editors, it can get very personal. So, my experiences there have led to me becoming pretty conservative with closes and stay away from anything that resembles IAR.

It can be tough though, there is at least one open AFD where there is a consensus to Keep from editors with very little editing experience and no one has addressed the nominator's valid concerns. I keep hoping that some AFD regulars will ride in to the rescue with some insightful and thoughtful comments to balance out the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should spend more time at AfD... BusterD (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And on List of Gibson players today. Appreciate the call out. I spent a half-hour researching my assertion. I didn't want to see it deleted either, but really... BusterD (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Tamás Tóth (film director)

Hi there, as I've recently found out, you've deleted the above mentioned article, whose author I am, on February 12. As I didn't expect this would eventually happen (whether somebody or something is "notable" or not, at final step always depends on somebody's subjective judgement, and often I find WP articles not being perfect nevertheless left as "stubs" for further improvement): are these deleted articles (at least temporarily) stored somewhere in order to give their authors/creators an opportunity to retrieve the deleted last version for further private use? As I, and others assumably too, may have put a lot of effort to compose these articles, sometimes even improved/corrected by others before deletion, it would be nice to have this "last chance". Greetings, Qniemiec (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qniemiec,

I'd like to go over Wikipedia's deletion processes. I apologize if you are already aware of them but from your note, I think more information might be useful.

First, we have Speedy Deletion or CSD. Articles tagged for speedy deletion have obvious problems, they are vandalism, hoaxes, copyright violations, duplicate articles. In these cases, an admin reviews the article, makes sure the tagging is accurate and, if it is, deletes the article.

Then we have Proposed Deletions or PRODs. This form of deletion are for what appear to be "uncontroversial deletion". Most often articles that are PROD'd were written when standards for articles and their sourcing were looser than they are today. As with CSDs, the article creator is notified and PRODs sit for a week before they are reviewed and, most often, deleted. During this week, the article creator, or any editor, can remove the PROD tag and, hopefully, make improvements that address the reason why the article was tagged. This is the only form of deletion where the page creator can remove the deletion tag from an article.
Finally, we have Articles for Deletion or AFDs. In these instances, an article is tagged and a discussion page set up to consider the article's possible deletion. For a week, editors debate over what should happen with an article that might have serious problems. During the week of discussion, an article might be improved and so it is Kept, or it might be decided to Merge the article with another article, turn it into a Redirect or, in many cases, Delete it.

In all of these cases, the page creator should be given a notification by the page tagger informing them of what is going on. If the article is deleted and the article creator objects, there are several ways to appeal. For Speedy Deletions and AFDs, the appropriate place to go to lodge a complaint is Deletion review. At a Deletion review, editors review the deletion decision. In the case with CSDs, they consider whether the grounds for deletion were appropriate and valid. For AFDs, they look at the closure of the discussion and review whether the closure decision was in line with the consensus of the participating editors. An AFD closure may be Endorsed or Overturned.

However, with PRODs, because they are for what are considered "uncontroversial deletions", if someone objects to the article deletion, they can either go to the administrator who deleted the page or go to WP:REFUND and ask for the article to be restored. In your case, the article was deleted through a Proposed Deletion and I can restore it for you if you request this. Please know that articles that are PROD'd and then restored can always then be nominated for an AFD discussion. So, it's best to try and remedy the reasons why an editor proposed the article for deletion.

Unless there are severe problems like copyright violations, articles are typically deleted because of a lack of sourcing that demonstrates a subject's notability and verifies the claims in an article. So, if you can find additional sourcing from reliable sources that can support these aspects for a subject, it is wise to weave them into the article. Or, an article can be deleted because it duplicates the content of another article. In these cases, it can be best to Merge some of the content into the stronger article.

Sorry for all of this verbiage. In a nutshell, I can restore this article if you like but please know that it can always be tagged for an AFD discussion. In that case, you'd be able to participate in the discussion and argue why an article should be retained. Let me know how you would like to proceed or if this loooong explanation is sufficient. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, 1st thank you for your extensive answer and explaination of the deletion procedure/s. In my case, it obviously took the PROD pathway, i.e. first the article became a nominee for deletion by Onel5969 because of to few sources and questionable notability, and once I had contacted him on his talk page, asking for rethinking of his judgement, he admitted that he actually wouldn't question Mr. Tóth's notability in general, but the interview with Tóth from the 29th Ungarian Film Week in 1998 on which I based the article's biographical part, wouldn't count as source, since interviews generally wouldn't do so (is this really the case, any verbatim source for this statement?). What was left, were sources from Hungary's National Film Institute on some of Tóth's films, while his complete filmography was a compilation composed from this and other minor sources, finally peer-reviewed and corrected where necessary by the director himself (so for the moment, this English version of his filmography it's his most complete and trustworthy one, which I also plan to send to the HNFI for completion of their one).
As far as it concerns Mr. Tóth's fame, you ar right: he has won only few awards so far, but in my understanding an encyclopedia shouldn't be reserved for the successful ones only. Because, the longer the WP works as kind of a worldwide "informational first-aid kit", such practice may lead to kind of a vicious circle: if I need some initial information on somebody or something, I first reach for WP, and if somebody or something isn't there, he or she or it obviously doesn't deserve to be mentioned, and if he or she or it obviously doesn't deserve to be dealt with... from where one might jump back to the loop's beginning. Another aspect is that the more widespread English language is, the less motivating is it to create a WP article on some issue in a particular national WP edition, especially a smaller country's one. So the German edition covers at least Germany, Austria and Switzerland with altogether about 100 million potential readers, but if I lived in e.g. Budapest, it would make much more sens to invest my effort in publishing my article in English than in Hungarian, only accessible for Hungary's just 10 milion inhabitants and maybe some emigrants abroad. A practice already mandatory e.g. in science.
Coming to an end: if you could restore the article at least temporarily in order to give me an opportunity to save it's last version for further use (since there were lot's of minor corrections since my first upload), this would be a nice and helpful gesture. And please keep me informed ASAP when this takes places because I expect a fast reappearance of the "gatekeepers" and repetition of the deletion then. Plus a wish or question in case you have access to the WP's "higher floors": couldn't these deletion announcements or warnings be equipped with some kind of definite timeout ("will be deleted by [yyyy/mmm/dd]") giving the questioned article's respective authors or contributors the opportunity to download and save their efforts in time? Because, by now one may find one quite foggy expressions like "might" or "may", and as a long-term WP reader and author I know that these warnings may last one some articles for months or years, while in other cases either a fast deletion takes place, or the questioned article is equipped with a "This article is a stub, please help to improve it" mark instead, and left in peace then. Greetings, and thanks in advance, Qniemiec (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Liz, it's me again: as I mentioned, I repeatedly meet kind of incomplete articles that are nevertheless left in peace as "stubs" until somebody feels him- or herself qualified to improve them, e.g. the apparently much poorer article also dealing with an Hungarian film director: György Szomjas. So why this article as lots of other "stubs" is tolerated, and my article, containing much more information, wasn't? Can you understand that this looks as if different rules were applied according to who on the given day sits on the judge's chair? Greetings, and let me know, when you're going to perform this temporary restoration, ok? Qniemiec (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, it's me again: is your proposal to - at least temporarily - restore my deleted article on Tamás Tóth (film director) still valid? Because my own safety copy of the article dates from January 30, and from this day on some useful corrections and improvements of the article were made until its personally unexpected deletion on February 12 (as I already mentioned, numerous unperfect WP articles are still left in peace for further improvement as "stubs", especially on off-mainstream subjects like e.g. Poland or Hungary), so to get the article's final version before its deletion would do a big favour to me. And if you don't want to bother the public with this sudden "resurrection", would it be possible to move or restore it to my personal user page User:Qniemiec/Archive? Or to send me the source code through e-mail? Hope to read you soon, Qniemiec (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2023 followup

Incipient edit warring here. Note false edit summary on this, bizarre edit summary on this, and 3rd revert on this. User is not communicating on their talkpage or elsewhere. Can you take a look? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarreness confirmed on this new talkpage message to me: [8]. Are they claiming to be Jose Atienza or something?? So I stand corrected, they are communicating; just not in a constructive way. Another editor has asked on their talkpage what they are doing with these personas. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bri,

I posted an edit-warring notice on their User talk page. Please do not fall into edit-warring yourself. I said if they continued with this edit-warring I would block them from editing the article so maybe this will have some effect. I'd rather offer them a choice to change their behavior before issuing a block. I hope this helps. Let me know if it continues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I will be careful. They removed your warning from their TP then their next two edits were adding "dictator" to their userpage, then returning to make this edit at the same page where they had been editwarring before, returning the same material again over another user's revert. ☆ Bri (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And more editwarring [9] ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bri,

Yes, those aren't good signs. I've given him a brief block and also posted a edit-war warning on the user talk page of another editor who repeatedly reverted their edits. If Joseatienza continues when his block is over, I'll need to give him a partial block from editing that particular article. I don't know what this business of being a dictator is all about, personally, I wonder about someone who admires Ferdinand Marcos but I think it is the sign of a young, immature editor who thinks their bravado will intimidate other editors. No one is a "dictator" on Wikipedia, as we have seen in the past with even long-time editors and admins, anyone who crosses certain lines of misconduct can be indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to this. I think I'll refrain from editing there for a few days. I'm not a pageant fan and have been trying to bring some order to the chaos but I'm at my limit, especially if I'm dragged into the edit war. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empty categories today

Hi Liz, just dropping a line about the many empty continent-by-descent categories at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. At first I thought they might have been correctly emptied by the deletion of various former sub-cats per Jc37's close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 19#American people of European descent by occupation, but no, they are not occupational intersections. From User_talk:Oli2000s it looks as if they are just newbie mistakes. They can go. – Fayenatic London 23:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

Yes, I ran into this flood of empty categories yesterday when they showed up on the Feb. 15th Unused Categories list. I tagged dozens and dozens of them but tagging pages can get tiresome so I only got to about half of them. I'll do more in a minute. These empty categories resulted when the admin who blocked Oli2000s later reverted all of their edits. They seem to mostly be parent categories of child Descent categories, grouping some by continent, some of them of questionable value (African people of African descent? Isn't that 99.99% of people in Africa?). I'm not sure that all of these categories should be deleted but I don't have the patience of reviewing hundreds of categories. And empty categories are easy to restore if a few are later found to be useful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

If you are implying they should just be deleted now, I'd prefer that they go through the week-long CSD C1 process. At least one category that was emptied has been filled again by another editor. While some are unnecessary, they are created logically and in line with our existing descent categories and other editors might find some of them appropriate to keep in Wikipedia's category structure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. It's just that sometimes a set of empties emerges temporarily during CFD renaming, which should not be tagged; but this is not one of those times. – Fayenatic London 08:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting soft deletion

Hi Liz. While looking at the history of Complete blood count, an article I have done a lot of work on, I noticed that you closed WP:Articles for deletion/External quality assessment as "soft delete". I'd like to contest this soft deletion. The article may have been in poor shape, but this is a very notable topic - see for example this publication from the WHO. At worst, it could be merged into another page such as Laboratory quality control. I'd like to request that the article be restored. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spicy,

Done Good luck with the article! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another RfC

Hello Liz, I was wondering whether you would advise me to open another RfC for podcast episode lists. I'm asking you because you are an admin, you closed the AfD for Off Menu which led to the first RfC, and because recent deletions have led to more opposition than I expected. While some recent deletions have gone relatively unopposed such as ID10T, The Bugle, and so far Dr. Floyd. Others have been met with quite a bit of opposition with new reasons for keeping these lists. For instance, Employee of the Month and Comdey Bang! Bang! have led to what appears to be consensus's to keep (granted they are not closed yet). The !voters have cited guidelines that were not brought up in the previous RfC. Such as WP:OKFORK, WP:LENGTH, WP:SIZERULE, WP:ATD, WP:IAR, and the claim that these lists are not independent subjects of their respective podcasts thus WP:NLIST does not apply. I've also done quite a few PRODs and BLARs that have been met with mixed reception from other editors. I assume you are aware of these developments considering you've closed or relisted many of the discussions and also deprodded the two lists of Judge John Hodgman episodes. So my two questions are: would you recommend another RfC? And do you think it would be canvassing or excessive to indiscriminately ping everyone who has participated in the recent deletion discussions (and perhaps also the prods and blars)? Considering the extreme lack of participation in the previous RfC I would be afraid of opening another RfC without any participation, but I also don't want to skew the discussion one way or the other based on who I ping. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TipsyElephant,

I'm flattered that you came to talk with me. I have limited experience with RFCs, I've participated as an editor but I've never set one up myself and I know that they have to be handled according to the guidelines, worded neutrally and closed appropriately to have any influence over future decisions. You've included a lot of points in your message and I'll try to get to them all.

The first thing I'd ask you is whether there have been similar RFCs or topical discussions on TV series episode lists. They seem to be similar to me although I imagine that most TV series have a larger audience and impact than most podcasts have. If there have been discussions of TV series episodes or TV mini-series, you might model your RFC on an older RFC that elicited more participation.

I work a lot with PROD'd articles and files and rarely remove a PROD tag but I did so in the case of Judge John Hodgman because that seemed like such a well-known and humorous series, I guess I de-PROD'd it because I was a fan and I thought other editors could assist with improving the articles. So, my decision wasn't really based on Wikipedia policy but I thought the quality of the show was better than 99% of other podcasts. I just know that PRODs do not get the attention that AFD discussions do so decent articles can get deleted through PROD that might be Kept if there was an AFD discussion on the article.

I think it is not considered canvassing if you do not discriminate on who you "ping" to a discussion, if you contact editors who hold the same opinion as you and those who hold diametrically opposite views as your own. I see AFDs where everyone who participated in a previous AFD was pinged and no one calls that canvassing. Notifying is objected to when you only include editors who will support the outcome you are seeking. But I think you have to consider the numbers, it wouldn't be appropriate to ping 30 or 40 editors to a discussion so I'd limit it to those that were most involved in a discussion.

I just started closing AFD discussions in January 2022 and the first thing I was struck by (and which still surprises me) is how consensus for deleting or keeping an article can be based on such a small number of editors. It really depends on who shows up. Sometimes articles are deleted based on the nomination statement alone with no other participants which just doesn't seem right to me unless it's an article that could also easily be deleted through CSD.

I think some editors are frustrated with me because of I frequently relist discussions but when you have just two editors, one arguing for Deleting an article and one for Keeping it, and they are both making strong arguments, having a third, fourth or fifth participant can more easily resolve a dispute. And not only do many AFDs have low participation but I'd guess that a third of the opinions offered by editors aren't helpful at all...the likes of "delete per nom" or "seems like enough sources for GNG" or "doesn't look notable to me" where you can't tell if an editor has even taken the time to read the article, much less looked closely at the sourcing or looked for better sources. So I certainly understand your frustration with a lack of participation in a discussion.

I think it is always useful to get clarification when a similar group of articles gets nominated for deletion and the outcomes vary a lot. I also see how guidelines like NFILM can basically determine the entire outcome of a deletion discussion so I think an RFC on podcasts would be helpful. Unfortunately, I think the WikiProject is the appropriate place for this discussion, if it affected a wider group of articles you could consider bringing it to the Village Pump but I don't think that is the case here. So, the only recommendation I can make is to do vigorous cross-posting once the RFC is ready to go live. I think you can announce it on other, related WikiProjects, on article talk pages for popular podcasts, and there is a central location that includes all RFCs that are currently happening. There are editors here who really get interested in developing policy and guidelines but who might not big podcast fans and they just need to know about a RFC if one is happening.

I just launched into this response without looking at the RFC you already tried but I will later tonight and add more here if anything occurs to me. Sorry for these random thoughts, I hope some of them were helpful. As long as you aren't in a hurry to start a new RFC, we can continue to talk about this one. I also have a fair number of people who look over my talk page so maybe they will help with any ideas that come to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for RfC discussions about television episode lists and so far I've been unable to find any. I asked at the Help Desk and recently asked at WP:TV. I also tried searching at WP:CENT/A and started combing through the archive at WT:TV. However, I've been busier in my personal life of late and haven't spent as much time searching as I would like. It's worth noting that the deletion discussion for the Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes did eventually close with the consensus to delete, but it looks like the closing admin was largely basing the close on the low participation RfC that I opened and subsequently referenced in the deletion rationale in addition to the canvassing and WP:ILIKEIT arguments. An editor has also questioned the outcome on the closing admin's talk page. Regardless, the deletion discussions for List of Employee of the Month episodes and List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes have clearly shown that the deletion of podcast episode lists is more controversial than what was previously suggested by the RfC.

I've noticed a lot of editors end up making arguments such as WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL in many of these discussions. I think the Comedy Bang! Bang! discussion in particular highlights the fact that these lists often attract avid fans of the related shows, which leads to editors citing WP:FANCRUFT, WP:OTHERWIKIS, or WP:ALTERNATIVE.

I'm compiling a comprehensive list of deletion nominations and discussions at my sandbox as a potential resource for any future RfC that is opened. I'm aware that Admins are able to see deleted pages. If you are able to locate more lists that have been deleted to fill out the history I would appreciate it.

I think right now my plan for another RfC will be to provide a comprehensive history and arguments for and against the inclusion of the lists without !voting. However, I'm also wary of writing a long introduction to an RfC in the fear that editors will be unwilling to read the lengthy intro and make comments or !votes.

Anyway, I guess this comment was to mostly update you on my progress and observations in regard to opening another RfC. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple speedy deletion notifications

Hello, Liz. Is it really worth posting literally hundreds of speedy deletion notifications to User talk:Oli2000s? 🤔 It is likely to make it horrendously difficult for either Oli2000s or anyone else to find other messages buried in the editing history, 😟 and is unlikely to serve any useful purpose. Maybe just leaving a brief message saying something to the effect "... and the same is likely to apply to the other pointless categories you created." JBW (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JBW,

Sorry for the delay in responding to you but I've been out a lot today. Just a couple of responses.

I had a reason for leaving all of these speedy deletion notices. I wanted this editor to know what page creations of theirs had been/would be deleted and, unfortunately, regular editors have no access to their Deleted Contributions. But I've found an alternative way to keep track of these pages should they be unblocked in the future.
I always intended to rollback my talk page notifications so as not to overwhelm their talk page and, in fact, I did this several times. I expected these notices to be very temporary and not to be displayed on the editor's talk page for more than a couple of hours.
I will stop posting these notices now though as I've found that the editor can just look over my CSD log to see what pages were tagged and subsequently deleted.
I have questions about this editor's indefinite block and the reversion of all of their edits which has resulted in hundreds of categories being emptied and subsequently, being tagged for speedy deletion as CSD C1. While the editor did create some unnecessary categories, there are identical categories to the ones they created that still exist in Wikipedia's descent category tree that were created by other editors in good standing and which haven't ever been nominated for deletion at CFD. So they had reason to believe that they were creating valid categories. While they are young and went overboard (as teenage editors tend to do), I'm not sure that this mass category deletion will benefit the project. But because of the scale of the reversion of all of their edits and the number of categories involved, it's impossible to go through individual categories to evaluate whether they are appropriate and undo the edits that left them empty. At this point, they will just be deleted and if they are found to be needed in the future, they can easily be restored.

I appreciate you voicing your concerns and I really try not to post notifications on the talk pages of editors who I know have left the project. Thanks for coming directly to me to express your views instead of heading to a noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens, Liz, this isn't within 1000 miles of being something I would think of taking to a noticeboard. It was just at the level of "I wonder whether it's the best thing to do or not." In fact, I did see that there was a point to letting the editor know about all the deletion nominations, and really wasn't sure exactly where the balance should be made between the advantages and disadvantages of posting all the notifications.

I totally agree with your concerns about the indefinite block and the reversion of all of their edits. In fact it was precisely because I thought that many of the editor's edits, including many of their category creations, were useful, that I didn't make a block myself. With hindsight, I wonder whether it might have been more helpful to have placed a fairly short-term block, which might have made it less likely that someone else would step in with an indefinite block. If I had blocked, it certainly wouldn't have been indefinite. JBW (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message. I get a bit paranoid sometimes, and I think all I need is to calm down a bit before acting, and wait and think. I've rv'd another PROD I made that might be a bit bitey, and have kept your comments in mind. Hopefully I can think more sensibly in future. Silikonz (alt)💬 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Silikonz-alt,

I know it might seem like I've come to your talk page a fair amount of times, I just wanted you to know that I only spend time posting these sometimes lengthy messages for editors who I believe are doing good work and who I think are just making a few missteps or have a blind spot that can be rectified. When you see actions that are vandalism, you don't spend time talking with an editor, you just block them. It's when you know that editors are conscientious and are interested in becoming better at their job that you spend a little time to point out places where they might be taking short-cuts and could improve. And I've seen plenty of editors who do patrolling go from being "okay" at their job to becoming "invaluable" to admins and their fellow editors.

And no one is ever perfect! You look at my own talk page and you'll find plenty of instances of editors coming here who are upset by some decision I made or didn't make. So, we all have to get used to constructive criticism. I'm glad you are receptive to the spirit oF my message. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Just decided to check in for a bit during a wikibreak, my head frankly being muddled up in everything recently. Silikonz (alt)💬 04:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Kovalenko

Hi @Liz! I have an NPP-related issue with Alina Kovalenko and thought you might be able to help. I was the original NPP of the page and did not think it met WP:BLP. However, I thought that some claims of significance meant the author should be given time to work on it and so I draftified it. The author then moved the draft back into mainspace and, somehow, it is now showing up as an article I had created and, as such, disables my review window.

Am I missing something obvious here? In my limited, though hopefully thorough, track record as NPP, I don't believe I have encountered anything similar. I think it should be sent as AfD, but I am not quite sure how to proceed as I would be notifying my own self about deletion, while I can't really claim it as my own for CSD. I hope this won't turn out to be something embarrassingly obvious, though if it does, I apologize in advance. Kindly advise and thank you very much for your help. Ppt91 (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91,

This is actually not uncommon. I frequently have removed CSD G13 notices from the talk page of an editor who created a draft page through a page move but didn't create the draft article. What happens in that a patroller moves an article to Draft space, tags the original page for CSD R2 speedy deletion but before the page is deleted, the article creator cuts & pastes the article back onto the page. Usually this is done without any sinister motive but there are some sneaky editors who will add content to change an old redirect to an article and then move the page to the desired title as this converted page won't show up to be patrolled. That's not the case here. It's just that many (most?) editors don't like their articles moved to Draft space even though this is a much safer location for them to be worked on and improved.

In this case, I would go ahead with the AFD and just cut & paste the notice from your own talk page to the talk page of the editor who created the article. You only have to really worry about the AFD notification, anyone who looks at the page can see that you are not the article creator. If I could remember more templates this cut & paste job wouldn't be necessary but I really rely on Twinkle to know the proper templates to use for deletion tagging. I hope this helps! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz As always, wonderfully helpful! Very generous of you to offer this lengthy explanation and it makes perfect sense. It actually looks like another editor has made some improvements to the page in the last week (which I am only noticing now) and she does seem to have some recognition in Ukraine based on sources I myself had not been able to find during original NPP cycle. I am still quite skeptical, but perhaps it would be a good idea to monitor the situation for now out of respect for AfD reviewers' time and revisit in a few days. In any case, thank you so much for your speedy and thoughtful reply. Ppt91 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank You for your help! Apostolicus (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is for but thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sebastian Weißschnur

Hello @Liz! I think the article was prematurely deleted before the discussion came to a real conclusion. In my opinion, the arguments added last have not been conclusively discussed or considered. For example WP:CREATIVE#3: That a new concept is presented by the inventor of this very concept in self-written articles is common practice. But it is crucial that it is published by an independent publisher - which is exactly the case here ... It would be nice if the article could be restored for the time being in order to get some more opinions. There are also some additions I could make to the article. Thanks and best wishes! ImOnlytheDriver (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImOnlytheDriver,

I'm sorry but there were six editors arguing for the deletion of this article and you were the only editor advocating Keeping. I don't think being relisted for one more week would substantially change those numbers. Relisitng can be useful in deletion discussions that are close calls but this was almost unanimous call to Delete.

I see three options for you. If you disagree with my closure, you can file a case at Deletion review. But be aware that Deletion review doesn't pay attention to the merits of the article but whether I closed the discussion correctly.

Secondly, I can restore the article to Draft space and you can work on it and submit it to Articles for Creation for review. In this case, be aware that if you choose the article directly back into the main space of the project, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 and deleted.

Finally, you can try writing a new article from scratch, avoiding the problems mentioned by editors in the AFD discussion. I'm sorry I can't just overturn this decision for you but that's not how AFDs work on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

News and notes: Terms of Use update, Steward elections, and Wikipedia back in Pakistan

In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage

Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?

Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia

Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK

Featured content: Eden, lost.

Gallery: Love is in the air

Traffic report: Superbowl? Pfft. Give me some Bollywood! Yours sincerely, the world

From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!

Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground

Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mail notification

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.

Ppt91 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91,

Thanks for letting me know. I don't check my email account very often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Totally understand and know you're usually really busy here, so will look forward to hear back from you whenever you have a moment! Thanks so much, as always. Ppt91 ^talk 03:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate Abubakarr Multi-Kamara

Any chance we could recreate the recently AFD'd Abubakarr Multi-Kamara? I just realised he is a Grand Commander of the Order of the Rokel. This may well sway the balance. --Uhooep (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uhooep,

There was a unanimous consensus decision to Delete this article. We can't just overturn a consensus decision and have a "do over" unless there were problems with the discussion which there weren't with this discussion. There wasn't a single editor arguing to Keep this article.

At best, you can create an article on this individual in Draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation for review and, hopefully, approval. But if you put it directly in the main space of the project, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4, and deleted. The only way I know to overcome an AFD Delete decision is to work through AFC. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autoptrolled user right request.

Hi, I come before you requesting a new user right to my name, as a consistent wiki editor I have struggled quite a lot in the past I even got few from you concerning notability and what to cite, I've been here creating and improving the encyclopedia for quite some time and i want to expand my field of work a little, and as far as I've read I meet the minimum requirements or the title I'm seeking which is to have created a total number or 25 articles or above excluding redirects and disambiguations. Forgive me for coming to you seeking this title as WP:Autopatrolled suggested two options of requesting the user right.

Thanks in advance. shelovesneo (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, shelovesneo,

I don't know why you posted this request on my talk page when you already have an active request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. That's the proper location to ask for advanced permissions.

Typically admins, as individual admin, only grant permissions if they are familiar with an editor and their work. This is the first time I've encountered you so, no, I won't give you this permission. Unless you have an existing relationship with an admin, it's best not to bypass the PERM noticeboard. I'll let the admins who regularly patrol that board and evaluate an editor's readiness to make this decision. Good luck! And if you are turned down, continue to do good work and apply again in 3 months. 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

A speedy deletion request

Hello, Liz,

I had requested a speedy deletion of {{Editnotices/page/Template:Wikia/list}}, a page move redirects to an editnotice with an invalid name, by criteria G6 with the Twinkle tool. When the tool found the editnotice page is under protected, it automatically submitted this request on its talk page.

However, I found that you deleted Template_talk:Editnotices/page/Template:Wikia/list by criteria G7 while kept its subject page. I'm not sure if there's any misunderstanding. Could you please think of my CSD request of {{Editnotices/page/Template:Wikia/list}}? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

I'm wary of CSD G6 because what seems "uncontroversial" to one editor may not be to another. I recommend you contact the editor who created the page and ask them to CSD G7 it instead. I don't think many admins will take action on your request because there isn't a clear, easy-to-understand deletion reason which is what CSD is for. That's why I recommend you go to RFD where you can explain your reasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

You deleted Jashn-e-Bahara because it was "Created by a banned or blocked user (Darshak.parmar) in violation of ban or block" but you did wrong. It was created by me not by User:Misterrrrr. User:Misterrrrr only moved the page from Jashn-E-Bahara to Jashn-e-Bahara. (For reference you can see this Move Log) In first, I created Jashn-E-Bahara and then he/she moved it. I request to undelete it. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LordVoldemort728,

You're right, I don't know how this happened as I check out each article that is tagged for deletion. My apologies, the article is restored. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drop, Texas

Can you double check that Drop, Texas isn't deletable again? I'm asking because you've deleted it in the past, but I'm intentionally not mentioning why you deleted it. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I dream of horses,

You have a keen eye. I have made a report. I wouldn't delete it right now as it is a valid stub article but if the report comes back as a duck, feel free to tag it CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A7

I’m perplexed why you draftified this page, when I could find no reliable sources nor any CCS within the article on why the subject is notable. All I could find was the social media pages for this music artist, which even present the subject as an ordinary individual. I don’t think this was an appropriate draftification, but I’m curious about how you came to that conclusion. The Night Watch (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Night Watch,

I frequently draftify articles that are tagged for a lack of notability. I think what usually happens is that a content creator mistakenly moves their article into main space too soon but they can work on it in Draft space to find sources to establish notability of the article subject, submit it to AFC and have it then moved to main space.

I think it is great that you did a search for sources but I had no way of knowing that you had done that or what your results were, all I knew was that it was an article that was tagged CSD A7, that it should be deleted because there were no or poor sources establishing notability. I'm not saying that your tagging is inaccurate or inappropriate, I just like to give editors time to improve their articles. Perhaps this editor knows of sources that you couldn't find in your quick search.

I'm sorry that you are disappointed in my actions. But if the editor decides to move it out of Draft space (which, unfortunately, frequently happens with draftifications), it can be retagged and be deleted. I give new editors the benefit of the doubt just once. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged not because the subject had no sources establishing notability, but because the article lacked a WP:CCS that even asserted it was notable, making it eligible for A7. WP:DRAFTIFY is a poor essay in my opinion, but it does say that pages should only be moved if the subject is plausibly notable (I.e. there are marginal sources in the article/online that do not fully support notability, but indicate that there might be further material that you cannot find), and that "junk" articles like A7-eligibles should not be draftified. In the future, I highly recommend that you spend a few minutes looking for sources, because there may be some online that indicate a CCS, thus making my A7 inapplicable. The Night Watch (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article "Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX"

I see where this article has been deleted due to "presumptive" copyright violations—or some such—I could not find any discussion of this particular article describing whether actual copyright violations were found, or whether it was possible to remedy them. This article was badly titled—and perhaps a candidate for merging into Valerius Maximus, but I don't recall, since I didn't review it regularly. But it was linked in the bibliography section of hundreds of articles under WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome's purview, and as far as I know the entire project was unaware that the article was likely to be deleted.

It could of course be re-created without copyright violations—but without even being able to see what it contained before, it's difficult to identify the issues and the entire process would have to start from scratch, which is much harder than fixing an extant but problematic article. And it'll be a nightmare to re-link it to all the entries from which links were removed—I just know that my watchlist is suddenly buried under an avalanche of notices that the link was removed. I have no idea what sources were used for the article now, and no way to check.

I would have supposed that it probably drew from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, and possibly the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, or similar sources long out of copyright (which nonetheless should be cited for passages taken directly from them—I have never had any problem with this). But it's frustrating that key articles from WikiProject CGR have been deleted without notice to the project, or the opportunity for project members to review the contents and fix the copyright violations, and as far as I can tell without even a record of what specific issues there were.

Do we really need to start from scratch without any idea what the article used to say? Fixing an article to remove copyright violations I can do in a few hours, maybe less. If I have to start it from scratch, then the subject just might go without an article indefinitely, as that could take a lot more time to do correctly—and then the work of relinking it to hundreds of articles... bleh is not too strong a word! P Aculeius (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, P Aculeius,

I don't mean to brush you off but I just deleted broken redirects to Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX and removed links to this deleted page. I think you should copy this message and ask the admin who actually deleted this article, MER-C. They regularly deal with copyright violations in articles and are better equipped to address your questions. I'm not sure how extensive the copyright violations were and whether they could simply be removed from a restored version. But given MER-C's extensive experience, they probably could address your concerns and, at least, give you the references that were used on the article. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I appreciate your prompt reply. I was not sure who to contact, as I find the post-deletion detective work a bit confusing. I'll see what MER-C can tell me! P Aculeius (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithophane

When and why was this article deleted? In any case you should leave redlinks, as it is a valid topic, which should return. Johnbod (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod,

You are a very experienced editor, you know that you can look at the deletion notice at the top of a deleted page and see why the article was deleted, when it was deleted and which administrator deleted it. As for the red links, I was "instructed" when I was a beginning admin to remove red links from deleted articles that were unlikely to be restored and, by its nature, articles which are copyright violations will never be restored. But if you would prefer, I'll spend some time this weekend, go through my Contributions and revert my edits that removed these red links. I hope that helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. No, I don't "know that you can look at the deletion notice at the top of a deleted page and see why the article was deleted, when it was deleted and which administrator deleted it". Where is that? The page is gone. I'm completely failing to see any logic in "by its nature, articles which are copyright violations will never be restored". The article may be a copyvio, but the subject isn't, and may need an article, as in this case. If not, why do you think there were 2+ links to it, from quite major articles? It would be more helpful if I could see the deleted article and history - as I recall it wasn't very long, and I added some of it. Johnbod (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, try reaching out to @MER-C, who performed the page deletion, to get it back to rewrite. I agree that it's a valid article and @Liz it would be very helpful if we can get the redlinks back! NotAnAstronaut (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have (see his talk), and Liz has put the redlinks back. Mer-C sent me the "skeleton", but wierdly not the text (or history). Supposedly, it has been published, and so is a copyvio, but now is suddenly TOP SECRET! Go figure. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, I'm not sure what you mean by "Supposedly, it has been published, and so is a copyvio...", but let's just cut the rope here: as with most deleted articles that had been around for a while, you can find this on Archive.org. I think I can trust you not to copy over any text from old versions or closely phrase what you are writing to it-- this was deleted as part of a CCI, and the editor tended to copy from difficult to access/offline sources. You made four edits to the article in 2019, which were just copyedits and wikilinks. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. I don't know why you find "Supposedly, it has been published, and so is a copyvio..." puzzling. It is supposed to be a copyvio because it contains material previously published elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, when I click on the redlinked title ([10]), I get near the top of the page an orangey/pinkey box with the text "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted." in bold, and below this "17:01, 24 February 2023 MER-C talk contribs deleted page Lithophane (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 February 17) (thank)", which any editor should see (though not in mobile view I believe). This is what Liz refers to. Fram (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I found that eventually, by doing a google search "outside" WP. But searching on wp just tells you "Wikipedia does not have an article....". Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Donnelly

Liz, this conversation started on the Abby Donnelly Talk page, this person seems insistant on deleting the article. I did not create this article, was just editing it, so no ties to it. Many thanks if you can start whatever process is required.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the page I don't want to revel my identity, I want to maintain privacy and please respect my concern. Just note that I am a close associate with actress Abby Donnelly and what I'm asking is something she herself would appreciate. Please delete this page for now, as soon as possible. 103.133.201.64 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Hi, I do not have those permissions but will pass this message to someone who does. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Deletion of Abby Donnelly page Though I can't revel my identity due to privacy issues, trust me I am a close associate with actress Abby Donnelly and she herself wants her Wikipedia page to be deleted for now. Please respect her own concern and delete her Wikipedia article. 103.133.201.64 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

103.133.201.64, I don't believe that you are a close associate of the actress since in your first talk page message, you put her down and say her career isn't significant. That doesn't sound like a comment made by someone who has her best wishes at heart. Also, you are from Bangladesh and this is an American actress. Why would she have associates in Bagladesh? But if I'm wrong, follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. But if you persist in this, I will block you from this article and talk page since you seem more like a vandal than a well-intentioned editor.

James, thank you for trying to help this editor but I don't think are who they claim to be and I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It certainly won't be deleted based on the claims of an anonymous IP editor. But I applaud your efforts to help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James, I'm just seeing that you cut and pasted their comment here, I thought the IP editor had posted this message so I was addressing them. But I have responded here, on your talk page and on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked geostubs

Hi Liz, I have a question/idea and thought I'd reach out since you close a lot of geography AfDs. When AfD closers go through and remove redlinks for deleted geo articles, they often leave the unlinked names in lists even when the location completely fails verification. I recently went through the Arizona populated place lists starting with List of places in Arizona (A) and deleted probably half of the entries as unsourced and unverified. Many were very clearly natural features that were mislabeled as "populated places" in GNIS. I added hidden text requesting that these be deleted, not just unlinked, but I don't think admins are noticing it. Should admins be removing these entries entirely and if so, what's the best way to get the word out? Thanks in advance for your help. –dlthewave ☎ 00:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dlthewave,

Well, I have a long explanation but not one that offers a simple solution. Most admins use tools to do page deletions, either Twinkle or XFDCloser or they just use a very simple drop down page menu to delete each page individually. If you are deleting a page through an AFD discussion, XFDCloser not only removes red links, it can remove the entire mention of the article subject so it would do what you are requesting. But sometimes, you don't want to remove the entire mention of an article subject. For example, if an athlete is on a team or an actor is in a cast list, they don't need their name removed, they just need to be unlinked. Or if a scientist is listed among the authors of a scientific article, you don't want to remove them as an author, just make sure their name isn't a red link. So when using XFDCloser, it goes through every mention of a name and you can select whether or not to just unlink a name/title or remove it completely. This can take a lot of time (for example for little-known but prolific actors) but it's important to do so thoughtfully.

If you use Twinkle, which I use for CSD and PRODs, this tool will just unlink names if you take the time to select this option. Some admins do not do this unlinking and leave the red links. But when I was a new admin, I was instructed to always remove red links left over from deleted articles and advice like that can make an impression. So, when you delete a page with Twinkle, one can click a link and, boom! all of the red links are gone (unless they are a hatnote). But going to each page later and seeing whether or not the mention of the subject should be removed completely is another step and one that takes time on the part of the admin. I use to do this more frequently, especially whether the person or subject was mentioned on a disambiguation page, but I've beome busier now and, I'll admit, I'm less thorough about this follow-up.

Finally, if an admin is used to just deleting a page using the old-fashioned, drop down menu method, then there is no option to unlink all mentions and they leave a lot of red links behind. We have a few long-time admins where I will use Twinkle to undo the red links after they have deleted some articles that I'm pretty certain will not be restored (usually because they are a copyright violations) but I usually am not watching what other admins are doing.

I assume you came to my talk page because you looked at an article's page history and saw that I removed the red links but not a term itself. Twinkle doesn't offer any context to an admin or editor in its unlink tool so one has no way of knowing how a word is used on a page when you unlink it. Since it can be very time-consuming with some frequently mentioned subjects to do a follow-up with every mention of a subject, it becomes a question about whether or not it's better to leave a red link or remove a link but leave the subject on a page. But unless you have a personal rule about doing that ("always remove red links for deleted pages" or "don't bother with red links"), that's impossible to decide without look at the article, finding the term/name on the page and see how it is being used.

After writing this long response, I'm rereading your message and see that your issue is actually with XFDCloser, not Twinkle. Right now, we don't have a lot of admins closing AFD discussions so it might be easier approaching those who are closing the type of AFDs that are causing you problems. Can you give me an example of a page that required clean-up on your part so I can see where the problem is? Thanks and apologies on the extra-long reply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your message a third time, I can tell you that with an AFD closure, unless there are some special circumstances, like a draftification, the majority of the time admins are working from the AFD daily log page and the XFDCloser pop-up tool and are not going into editing an article. So, no, they are not ignoring your hidden text on a page they just do not even see it because they are not editing the content of an article page. The edit summary for their work should mention whether or not they are doing an edit manually or using a tool like XFDCloser or Twinkle which will have a notation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you for the detailed explanation, this really helps me understand what's going on. Although I did see you remove a few links such this one which popped up on my watchlist, I came not to place blame but to seek insight and hopefully solve a problem together.

The whole thing stems from WP:GNIS. I'm not sure how familiar you are with that debacle, but basically we have thousands of articles on "populated places" that were copied from the GNIS database which turned out to be ranches, railroad sidings, windmills, road junctions, natural features and all sorts of other things that aren't actually settlements. We delete them not just because they're not notable, but also because they contain false information about "populated places" and "unincorporated communities" that don't actually exist. This is a rare case where the names should be treated the same way as a hoax and removed entirely wherever they appear.

List of places in Arizona (S) is an example of one that I cleaned up (along with all of the other Arizona A-Z lists); this one was relatively straightforward because the whole thing was copied in one go from GNIS. A lot of these erroneous "populated places" are also mentioned in state and county level articles that would take a lot of work to track down now that they've been deleted and delinked. I don't want to put undue labor on the closing admins as I know you have plenty on your plate already, however I'm concerned that the labor-saving automated closing process is unintentionally creating more work for others or leaving errors that may never be detected.

I'm not sure what the solution is, if there even is one. For now I've been removing them when I see them and reaching out to individual admins as you suggested. Thanks again for your thoughtful response! –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request

Please undelete Talk:Battletoads (video game)/GA1 and Talk:Battletoads (video game)/Archive 1 whose target pages were deleted due to a botched pageswap, but are now restored. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CX Zoom,

There is a problem here as Battletoads (video game) and Talk:Battletoads (video game) are now redirects and there are several different Battletoad articles. If I restore these pages, I need to move them so is it to the general Battletoads article or the 1991 article? And if it is for the 1991 article, there is already a GA1 review for that article so this would be a duplication. Thanks for any clarification you can provide here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as "R from move" redirect exists at the base article, it is valid for its talk subpages to point to the corresponding subpages, which is pretty much the current practice. Restoring these redirects will assist any user looking at links to these pages from other pages, or the base talk page history summaries, or even external sites to reach the correct archive destination. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CX Zoom,

Done I should have looked at the page history of the previous target article because it's clear now you are cleaning up after an incomplete page move. Thanks for the follow-through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to refund (undelete) this draft?

(Using the term refund as mentioned here)

Page in question: Draft:The_Red_Sun. I found this deleted draft linked from another site and wish to finish the article so it can go into mainspace. If I understand correctly I can submit the request myself, but I'm asking you first since you G13-ed it. NotAnAstronaut (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NotAnAstronaut,

Done You can find it at Draft:The Red Sun. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Peripheral (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Peripheral (upcoming TV series) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § The Peripheral (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Insaanhuok

Hi! Just a heads up that I mentioned you here - your redirect cleaning helped find more move shenanigans. Nothing you need to do, but just wanted you to know the why on the ping. I usually apologize for not cleaning up for my moves, but I'm not apologizing on behalf of a disruptive sock. LOL. Have a good evening. Star Mississippi 00:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I appreciate the notice as I don't see my pings. Glad if I could help! I hope you have a good week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of articles about British ambassadors

I see you have closed some drive-by Afds of this kind, accepting the argument that "ambassadors are not inherently notable" and that coverage is "routine". The WP:GNG is of course nothing to do with importance, so in theory an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but thanks to the coverage they get in their international role it would be pretty hard for one to achieve such obscurity; and what may be "routine coverage" for an ambassador is clearly at a higher level than for other less notable roles. My rule of thumb would be to say that on the balance of probability almost all British ambassadors will be found to be notable, thanks to coverage they receive in reliable national news media and in reference works. So I would suggest that in each such case the editor closing the Afd ought to look closely at whether significant coverage is already linked on the page or is easily available, however many people are agreeing with the nominator in a few words without looking at the sources. Moonraker (talk) 14:28 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You have. mail. The format of the project has changed since my last email (to anyone), so my apologies if this is inelegant or incorrect. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Category:WikiProject Taiwan 1000 article

This category is based on the ongoing WikiProject Taiwan 1000 and will be tagged with entries through the {{‎WikiProject Taiwan 1000}} template. I am sorry that my English is not good and I could not find out how to raise it on the relevant page, I hope can get help, thank you! -- NHC、not NPC！｡:.ﾟ(*`･ω･)ゞ:｡ 16:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Sean Bielat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sean Bielat. 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. Interestingfinds12 (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request: List of Verbotene Liebe characters

Hi, are you able to undelete List of Verbotene Liebe characters so I can take a look at the content? I will promptly redirect it to the main article, Verbotene Liebe. All of the poorly sourced, plot heavy individual character articles are currently being PRODed and I'm planning to redirect all of them as well. I'd like to get an overall picture of the existing content to strategize if and how any character info should be reintroduced, perhaps in the main article or as a sourced list. Thanks in advance.— TAnthony^Talk 21:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TAnthony,

Done As a contested PROD, I have restored the page. If I remember rightly, there were a lot of redirects to this page but if you are just going to redirect the list to another article, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to restore the redirects to point to another redirect. Of course, if you want to recreate any of them, feel free but just be selective. Glad I could help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Yes I won't restore any of the redirects to this page.— TAnthony^Talk 21:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TAnthony,

I was looking at upcoming PRODs (at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary) and there are quite a few that concern Verbotene Liebe. You might want to consider those listed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		With much appreciation for your thoughtfulness and help. Ppt91 ^talk 23:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Softweb Technology Solution

You deleted this as G13, even though the last human edit appears to be October 21, 2022, which is less than 4 months ago. This was found via Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G13, which you may want to keep an eye on (it updates every 3 days). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, * Pppery *,

Thank you so much for bringing this mistake to my attention. I'd say that 99.99% of the CSD G13 page deletions are identified as eligible by a bot, SDZeroBot, specifically. The bot is always accurate, to a fault. It's when drafts are tagged by human editors that mistakes happen. There seems to be a lot of confusion over the G13 criteria because I think the majority of CSD G13 taggings by human editors are incorrect, the editor doesn't look carefully at the "last edited date" or they think any old, abandoned User page is eligible. I should have caught this one.

Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G13, I'll check it regularly from now on. Again, I appreciate the notice. Have a good weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same report seems to have caught two other bad deletions you performed: Draft:Seat (car) (not G13 eligible for another week), EXPO Communications, Inc. (dba ExpoTV) (was deleted as R3 despite having been around for a decade and that criterion only applying to recently-created pages). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, * Pppery *,

Done Restored. I think Draft:Seat (car) got caught up in an otherwise normal batch delete which is sometimes done in early morning hours when the G13s have accumulated overnight. We have a great editor Josh who tags all of the drafts that have expired during the middle of the night and it can lead to dozens of tagged drafts. During the day and evening (at least on my clock), we stay on top of them as they expire but in the middle of the night, we have few editors paying attention to them and they can pile up in large numbers.

But I have no explanation for how I came to delete EXPO Communications, Inc. (dba ExpoTV). That was just an outright mistake. I might nominate it at RFD but I've found that sometimes redirects I think are awkward or not useful are seen as valuable to RFD regulars. Thanks again for bringing these to my attention. It's nice to know that there is a safety net for admins when errors happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there was also Draft:J O E which was tagged too early. I know I do a lot of page deletions so a couple of mistakes is to be expected but this is still disconcerting to me. I'll think about what might be going on over the weekend. I'm glad we have this database list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

Can you please stop deleting my drafts. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆,

Every day, we get a list of drafts that have not been edited in at least 6 months and they are deleted when they expire. They are considered "abandoned" because no editor is working on them. It is not personal, it happens with all drafts no matter who created them. If you edit them at least every six months, they will not be deleted. It's very simple and I left you a talk page message about this a while ago.

Alternatively, you can move your drafts out of Draft space into your User space and do not submit them them to WP:AFC (or remove any AFC tags) and then they won't appear on the list of expiring drafts. We don't make individual exceptions, it's all up to you, either actively edit your drafts regularly or move them to your User space and out of Draft space. But you can't create draft articles and abandon them and expect them to be kept. It's an agreed upon speedy deletion criteria that we all live with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ckirby9

Hey Liz, I saw that you deleted User:Ckirby9 for using it as a web host. Can you tell me if the content was the same as Draft:Pro 32's or Draft:World Cup Simulations? Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gonnym,

No, it was a standard personal profile that many new editors post on their User page but it was of a minor and included some personal information. It was not an article draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Request: User:Daniel Jackson 2001/sandbox

Greetings,

My personal sandbox was nominated for speedy deletion and has since been deleted. I've made a decision to contest the speedy deletion, and I wish to make a second appeal. Since I became a user on Wikipedia, I've constantly messed around and toyed with my personal sandbox, without any serious intention of publication. I've always been interested in alternative history, and using the vast amount of infoboxs, I've created alternative World War I or World War II scenarios. I've also created alternate versions of real-life countries, and even created scenarios of future versions or alternate versions of real-life royalty or politicians. I've done this for years, it is quite clearly fictional, and I do not understand as to why it would constitute an issue now. I have had no intention of spreading false information or hoaxes, this was my personal sandbox and not an actual article.

~~~~ Daniel Jackson 2001 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel Jackson 2001,

I see you are talking about User:Daniel Jackson 2001/sandbox and I was stunned to see that there are almost 3,000 edits to this page and that's about as many edits as you made during your entire time here! Are you contributing at all to building an encyclopedia or improving existing articles or are you just playing around in your sandbox? Ordinarily, I'd restore a page upon request but I think you are using Wikipedia as your personal webhost and not creating factual articles in your User space which is the purpose on this project.

There are other alternate history platforms where you can take your speculation about future kings of England but this is a clearly fictitious article that has no place on Wikipedia.

If you have questions about creating appropriate pages on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be remiss if I didn't let you know that you can appeal this deletion decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to moved GA talk pages

Hi -- I see you're deleting redirects to moved GA talk pages. I've been doing a lot of these moves recently, and I have been in two minds about the usefulness of the redirects, but Chipmunkdavis asked me to leave them in place when doing the moves as they believe they are useful. (I'm not an admin but as I have the page mover right I can avoid leaving redirects when I do the moves.) Is there a standing consensus that these redirects should not exist? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mike Christie,

No, I don't think there is any agreed-upon understanding of what to do with these redirect pages, they just showed up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk subpages and usually pages that show up on database reports like this are deleted unless there is some outstanding reason to keep them. I guess you can restore them if you believe it's appropriate. Sorry for any confusion these page deletions caused. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed; I'm not even sure they shouldn't be deleted. I guess if there's some agreement they shouldn't be then we need to keep them out of the relevant database reports in some way. Chipmunkdavis, what do you think Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concern with such deletions is that they break existing links. For example, Talk:2009 Northwest Airlines Flight 253/GA1 is linked to in the article history of Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253, so as it has been deleted there is no link to the GA review on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hello. Could you create redirect List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen to Max Verstappen#Complete Formula One results and connect to list of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen (Q111507070). Eurohunter (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eurohunter,

I can create a redirect from List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen to Max Verstappen#Complete Formula One results although I'll need to protect it afterwards. But what do you mean by "connect to list of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen (Q111507070)"? We can add a category to a redirect page but I'm not sure what is involved with connecting a page to another Wiki project other than creating a soft redirect. Please clarify what additional steps you want me to do besides creating the redirect and I'll see what I can do. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just link redirect to Wikidata item - I will do it myself then. Eurohunter (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kowalski’s Market

Can you reverse your deletion of my Wikipedia page? There’s no reason for that. It was notable, had sourcing and someone mistakenly moved it to a draft space so I moved it back. TheUSConservative (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUSConservative,

The only page I deleted was Wikipedia:Kowalski's Markets and that is because articles do not belong in Wikipedia/Project space. Wikipedia space is for policy pages and noticeboards. So, I moved it back to Draft space. No content was deleted from your article, the only edit on Wikipedia:Kowalski's Markets was the page move there and back to Draft space so there is no deleted content to restore...everything is in the version in Draft space. I recommend you submit the draft to Articles for Creation for review so you can get the opinion of some experienced editors on it so it is less likely to be deleted. But, if you want, you can move it directly to main space/Article space. But there is no reason to restore a redirect from Wikipedia space to Draft space.

If you have questions about article creation, deletion policy, namespaces or editing on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. I hope this addresses your concern. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed it. TheUSConservative (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete?

Wouldn't Spider-Man and Batman: Disordered Minds be eligible for soft delete rather than relisting? FWIW, since you relisted it, there have been two comments favoring deletion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Another Cringy Username,

I'll consider your suggestion and review the discussion later. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'd make a similar request for Batman & Spider-Man: New Age Dawning once it finishes its AfD period. It's the sequel to Disordered Minds and the AfD is showing a similar lack of participation. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting

It's an entirely new problem which has really only started cropping up in the past week. What happens is that if somebody adds categories to the page while it's still in draft, and then moves the page into mainspace shortly thereafter, then the redirect created by the page move somehow lingers in an incategory search of the categories that the page was filed in, even though the categories aren't present on the redirect and the title isn't visible in a direct look at the category itself. The primary issue was with Category:Living people in particular — because that category has over a million articles in it, it can't be searched for WP:DRAFTNOCAT or WP:USERNOCAT violations just by eyeballing the category, so I have to use an incategory search to check it rather than scanning it directly off the polluted article reports, and thus was seeing them. And they weren't clearing on their own either, as about seven or eight of the ones that showed up last week were still lingering in the search this morning.

Even though I've been doing an incategory search on that category at least once or twice a day for years, I had never seen this happen at all before this year — there was one isolated case in January, the first time I had ever seen it at all, but then after that the problem didn't recur again until last week, when suddenly there were about 20 of them all at once. But I'm sure that "add categories to the draft just before moving the page into mainspace" isn't a new thing that people just suddenly started doing last week, and hadn't already been doing for years without incident, so it's very clearly a new problem.

I already reported it to WP:VPT last week, who advised me to file a bug report at Phabricator — which I did, and it looks like the issue may now have been solved, as none of the pages that were in the incategory search this morning are still there now. So hopefully I won't have to do that anymore, because it was really irritating to try to fix them all manually (which is why I only moved about half of them yesterday before giving up and going to bed while leaving the rest to be dealt with later.) But if it does recur again, at least now you have some context for what I was talking about. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for contributing so much to Wikipedia!

STB (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz!

I'm the admin for the draft Cumulative Dis-Advantage (CDA). You deleted the page on 21:18, 7 January 2023 and I can't seem to tell why. I do understand that it was incomplete, but I didn't notice the draft's deletion until today when I came to communicate with the fine folx at Wikipedia, and add more sections to beef it up. I am working with a few other PhD students, and as you can imagine, getting people to agree on what's important and what's not is, well, trying.

Cumulative Dis/Advantage is the only actual theory in my field, which is Life Course Sociology. One of the first responses to the page submission was that it was too similar to The Matthew Effect, so we were trying to come together and figure out a way to differentiate it from CDA.

Before realizing the page had been deleted, I wanted to ask you guys if you had any specific recommendations on how the page could be written and/or organized better, if empirical examples would help, that kind of thing.

Would you consider reinstating the draft so my colleagues and I can continue working on it?

Thank you kindly,

Micah Micaharafah (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker). @Micaharafah, the article was not deleted. What Liz deleted was a redirect to Draft:Cumulative dis-advantage, which is the page's current title. Star Mississippi 03:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Star Mississippi!! Micaharafah (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vilikesa AfD

I think you knew this was coming... I strenuously disagree that this was closable as "keep". All arguments on what constitutes SIGCOV aside, WP:YOUNGATH is a guideline that makes it very clear coverage must be prolonged to count towards notability, and this is a 15-year-old who has never played even semi-professionally, nor for a national team, so two interviews in local news (most interviews and local news also both being inadmissible per YOUNGATH) published in the same week are objectively unacceptable for establishing notability. Can you please relist? JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoelleJay,

Yes, I expected to hear from you. Ordinarily, I would refuse your request as I believe the consensus was clear to "Keep" this article even if some of the Keeps were Weak Keeps. But I expect then you would go straight to Deletion review and I think it is less disruptive to just allow a relist for another week or until another closer wants to bring the discussion to an end. Now I expect other editors will come here and complain about a relist so it's one of those sports-related decisions that doesn't make everyone happy.

However, I ask that you not do any canvassing about this discusion. You might be offended by even the suggestion of you doing this but it's always a possibility in these lopsided discussions where there is a lone dedicated editor whose opinion is not aligned with everyone else in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thank you very much for considering the relist. I understand your rationale and also why you would want to caution against canvassing. I did start a conversation with SpiderOne at his talk before I saw your reply, but as he's already !voted I don't think that's a problem? JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd also mention the reason this is getting more attention now is probably from my mentioning the backlog at AfD on the NSPORT talk page before asking for a relist (i.e. not from me canvassing anyone). JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorism in 2021

The deletion tag seems a bit premature. Doesn't it say the category has to be empty for 7 days? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Someone who's wrong on the internet,

Well, you are right and wrong. As soon as an empty category is found, it is tagged CSD C1. Then it sits for 7 days. If it wasn't tagged, then we'd have no idea when the 7 day period was over. The tagging starts the 7 day period. If it is no longer empty during that week, the tag is removed. If it is still empty after a week, it is deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?

Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy

In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?

Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter

Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events

From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Odufuye sandbox

Hi, I tagged the user subpage User:Adam Odufuye/sandbox for G11, not U5. The subject of the page is an obvious immediate family of the user and the page is blatantly promotional. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a plausible draft. The page speaks highly of the person and is completely business related, not a genuine biography. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 19:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

I read your closing statement at WP:Articles for deletion/Shiho Yano with interest, and head-nodding. I guess it is better than outright deletion, as you said, but damn, I hate tacking a woman's lives onto the husband's article as though she is merely a fleshy appendage. There are a couple of entries like that on the never-ending list of AfD-merges that can just sit there until they rot. I'm not going to merge them. Joyous! Noise! 22:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aissatou Barry

User:Raymarcbadz removed the redirect for this article (it was closed as a redirect last year). IS this an appropriate edit? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sportsfan 1234,

No, it's not appropriate to change a redirect resulting from an AFD closure back into an article but it happens. It's not rare but usually the editor waits a few weeks or months before they try to circumvent the AFD decision. Typically, if another editor notices, it goes back for a 2nd AFD unless the article recreation is a vast improvement over the original article and the AFD results in a deletion rather than a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there away to compare the articles? Am I allowed to redirect it again, or does it need to go to AFD again? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expiring drafts

Hope you're having a good weekend. Re this deletion, what happened to the bot that used to give a warning? No issue with the deletion, of course, and I'll restore it if I find sourcing, but I feel like the process had a hiccup here. Star Mississippi 22:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

No, no hiccups, unfortunately this worked according to the current system. Firefly Bot gives a 5 month warning ONCE which I think you received in September 2022. It doesn't give a 2nd or 3rd 5 month warning. I've asked Firefly if they could have the bot give out 5 month warnings no matter how many times it's been given out before but the bot still doesn't do this and I don't know why this can't be arranged. Maybe if you could also recommend it to them, my suggestion might get more support. It's not unusual for an editor to have to go to REFUND 2, 3 or even 4 times when their drafts keep getting deleted every six months. For a handful of editors who produce a lot of drafts (like in the hundreds), it can be tricky to keep track of which ones are close to their expiration month so I wish Firefly Bot would give out regular 5 month notices even if they have already been given out once.

But I am surprised that I didn't leave a personal message to you. I usually add a personal note when I see that the draft creator is an admin or a long-time editor but I'm playing catch-up today with the time change and I guess this slipped by me. I don't like posting template messages like this to experienced editors but there is typically anywhere from 150-225 drafts and User pages expiring each day (although it can get up to 400+ drafts) and so handling them all in a timely way can get a little mechanical just due to the numbers. Hey man im josh helps out on weekdays but it's just me on the weekends now that Explicit seems to have semi-retired. Luckily, unlike vandalism, BLP- or copyright-violations, old drafts are not an urgent issue to deal with and I get to them when I get to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, indeed it did. I guess I also didn't realize how long it had been since I started that draft. No worries on the lack of a personal note. Hard to know at a glance who created something, especially with the volume of draft expirations. It does seem that a second set of reminders would be helpful. Not sure how taxing it would be to the bot, but I'll raise it with Firefly. Thanks again for the explanation. Star Mississippi 23:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned RfA

Hi Liz, I recently did some idle rummaging around WP:Database reports/Unfiled RfAs and noticed WP:RFA/Ronjohn, which someone tagged for speedy deletion in 2021 and which you then untagged because the criteria didn't apply. However, you also asked Ronjohn whether he'd be okay with deletion at User talk:Ronjohn#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn 2, to which he both emphatically and belatedly answered last November. Technically, that does count as a U1, no? Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram ebrahimi

Hi dear friend.[11] New resources added. Check it out خاچی (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ME to forestall G13 status – an interesting wrinkle, re: copy attribution

Thanks for being on the lookout for some of my close-to-expired drafts and saving them from oblivion, such as these two saves at Draft:Grievance politics. In the case of this draft, I've merged everything I care about into Grievance politics and am content to let it go, and was going to G7 it to save you wasted effort in the future. But then I noticed this edit summary with copy attribution naming the Draft page, so in theory, now it *mustn't* be deleted! But that puts us in a quandary, because of course it will be/should be deleted.

I've raised this interesting case in discussion at WT:Copying within Wikipedia. You may be interested in that discussion, and your feedback there would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short articles?

I just read your point that articles being short is not a valid reason for deletion. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia so I humbly ask about how to proceed with extremely short articles. Given that stubs exist, if an article is too short, shouldn't it be a stub? Or are there exceptions where a proper article can be as short as a stub? Or is it that maybe the recommendation for an AfD only failing because of size should be to transform into stub instead of delete?

Thank you in advance! Irecorsan (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rev del requested

On User talk:Shahabali839898 All three of this user's edits after Dan's creation of the talk page (with a declined review message) were a copyright violation of worthax.com (specifically https://www.worthax.com/2023/01/patimat-rasulova-bio-wiki-wife-height.html and likely other worthax pages as well) and was a partial recreation of this user's sandbox (db-copyvio nom'd by me) and of their identical draft (db-g12 nom'd by Dan). Talk page Rev dels requested for these three edits. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zinnober9,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I took care of it earlier today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Carter

Are we absolutely sure this isn't a reverse copyvio? I'm pretty sure the New York Public Library doesn't have forks of Wikipedia articles. It's just this article has been around with the plagiarised text, for over a decade. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ritchie333,

The content had been in the article since it was created in 2011. Do you think NYPL would use Wikipedia content to describe their collection without attribution? I'm not sure but I think I have more faith in the NYPL curators and a Wikipedia editor. I'm not against restoration but, as I said, this content has been part of the article since it was created and it forms a large part of the article. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a G12 to me, and I deleted it as such. I just noticed it was on the main page and nobody spotted it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ritchie333, I only came across this article after reading about a terrible B-movie from the 1960s where they mention that Carter was in the film, playing a woman. I was curious about a person being a drag artist in the 1950s and 1960s since it was more unusual then and then I wanted to read more so I was looking at the references to read more about his life. Then I saw the exact language surrounding the cause of his death in both places so I did a page check. So, it's just a random sequence of events that caused me to even notice and tag this article. I always tag G12s and don't delete the articles myself because I'm not sure about instances when the copyright violating content can just be removed (with some revision deletions) but it didn't seem like that was possible here. Too bad, I hope we get another article on this fellow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Submission Problems

New Article Problems

In August of 2022 I finally took the plunge and submitted my very first article. I crafted it to be almost identical to [[List of federal political scandals in the United States]]. When I submitted it, there were no red flags on my sandbox.

Six months later, an automated filter box appeared saying it had detected [[Deprecated sources]]. I checked and found I had used none of the listed 47 depricated sources listed. And none of them showed up in my sandbox, just the warning. I asked for help at the [[Help Desk]] where two editors were baffled by the use of the warning, but one editor mentioned 8 references which he considered questionable, but not deprecated, so I removed them to be safe.

However, when I asked for more examples he declined, but suggested I redo the templates for all the references, and now I see my sandbox article has been flagged with 125 consecutive references for [[Template:Cite news]], when their seems to be nothing wrong with the previous 1500 references. I also checked [[Citing sources]] which states, ‘While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed.’ Is that right?

I have rechecked for Deprecated sources and made sure all of my references are alive and complete. Is it absolutely necessary for new article submission that every reference be perfect? Can you help? Johnsagent (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 55

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

New bundle partners:
- Newspapers.com
- Fold3
1Lib1Ref January report
Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove perm

Hi Liz, I don't have enough time or energy to do new page patrolling any more, and I can't imagine NPPing any time soon. Can you please remove the perm from me? — Qwerfjkl talk 20:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qwerfjkl,

Done Thanks for all of your continuing help on the project! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theme from Shaft by Isaac Hayes US single rainbow crescent variant.png

Hey again. I'd like to have this file undeleted and then taken to FFD again. I asked around at WP:MCQ, and one disagree with me about its copyright status. As I figured, FFD is the safer venue to re-discuss it. George Ho (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George Ho,

Done Glad to help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

Hello Liz, may I ask you why you have deleted Category:Use_Hiberno-English_from_November_2012? I don't think it is a maintenance category and it's not empty either. Thanks --RonaldH (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent category speedy deletion noms

Hi, I thought I'd explain here in a bit more detail why I have removed the speedy deletion tag from 7 categories I recently created. The reason is that the categories aren't empty, the pages just havent shown up yet. For Primitive Irish, there's ᚛ᚑᚌᚐᚋ᚜; for Laz, there's Abu River; for Innu, there's Akamassiss; for Alutiiq, there's Alas'kaaq; for Karelian, there's Alavoine; for Alemannic German, there's Alemannisch; and for Classical Mandaic, there's Alf Trisar Šuialia. The pages just haven't shown up in the categories yet. Thanks, greyzxq ^talk 12:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion or Draftify request

Hey Liz, you have deleted the page Akkaldhamayile Pennu few days before. The person who raised many deletion points User:Akevsharma has been confirmed as a sockpuppet and has been blocked few days before. So the discussion might be manupulated by him in some form and you can some IP votes in that discussion which says delete, which might be from his side. I request you to undelete the page Jayaram Kailas as the discussion might be manupulated and this is the case or you may draftify it as I wish to work on the article Christopheronthemove (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christopheronthemove,

I don't think Akevsharma unduly influenced that AFD discussion on Akkaldhamayile Pennu, if anything, you were bludgeoning the conversation. I also think it's interesting that you thought an IP editor's opinion was suspicious when they had just become active as you jumped into AFD discussions immediately after creating an account yourself which is what led to you being investigated as a possible sockpuppet. As for Jayaram Kailas, you should ask Joyous!, the admin who closed that AFD discussion as I'm not going to overrule another admin's decision to delete an article except for in rare situations.

Of course, you can always file an appeal at Deletion review if you think a deletion was done improperly. But it can be much simpler to just start a new version of the article from scratch than going through the existing bureaucratic channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Megan Elizabeth Euker

Could you temporarily restore this article? I have some concerns related to the creation and acceptance of Megan Euker, and restoring this article would help me explore them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see Megan Euker has now been deleted at AfD (I started exploring this issue a few weeks ago and did not notice the AfD); would you be able to restore that article as well, to draft space or my user space, temporarily for the same reason? BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BilledMammal,

I like to accommodate reasonable requests like yours but I'm going to have to say No for two different reasons. First, the draft was deleted at the request of the draft creator who is no longer active on the project. It seems odd to ignore their request to delete an article they created. As for the main space version, I'd like to request that you ask Randykitty, the admin who closed this recent AFD discussion. Given your experience on Wikipedia, I'd restore this page to Draft space if I had closed the AFD but I don't like to revert the actions of another admin except for in rare situations, like an AFD decision is being reviewed at Deletion reivew. I don't know their policy on article restoration but if you make a reasonable request, I'm sure they will consider it.

Sorry not to be able to satisfy your requests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering the request, and for your explanation of why you cannot do so; would you be able to briefly compare the two articles yourself, and tell me whether they were similar at any point? BilledMammal (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BilledMammal, I'm about to head out and so I'll have to do this later. It's tricky looking at deleted articles, I can only easily look at one version at a time, it's not as easy as moving through different edits on an existing article and looking at each version of an article, it would be time-consuming and challenging to look at every single version of a deleted page, depending on how many edits there have been. But I'll look at the final version before deletion or blanking and let you know.

If I might be so bold, what are you trying to discern here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no urgency.

From what I could determine and what I can recall, Draft:Megan Euker was started by an SPA called Mameoppenheim (talk · contribs). Shortly afterwards, they started a second version, Draft:Megan Elizabeth Euker. They completed and submitted that version, but it was rejected by AfC; they then spent a while attempting to change that decision before giving up and requesting deletion of the draft under G7.

Hours later a new editor came along, another SPA called Atiori Zronkri (talk · contribs), and started composing a draft in their sandbox - I had not noticed this sandbox work prior to writing this post. A day later, they submitted the draft to AfC. Two minutes later it was accepted by a user called TruthGuardians (talk · contribs).

TruthGuardians acceptance is what caused me to notice it; the editor came to my attention last year after an ANI post regarding concerns about covert canvassing; at the time I looked into it, and became concerned that meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry was taking place, and filed an SPI. The SPI found no relation, but I believe it only considered sockpuppetry, not meatpuppetry.

Last month, several members of that group of editors popped up on my watchlist, to take a shared position against a proposal on Talk:Michael Jackson. When looking into their contributions, as part of asking Blablubbs if they could take a second look at the report (they were, understandably, too busy), I came across a few other unusual activities; this rapid acceptance of a draft being the most suspicious.

What I am trying to determine is whether undisclosed paid editing was involved in the creation of that article, and if so whether Atiori Zronkri and Mameoppenheim are unrelated, meatpuppets, or sockpuppets. By looking at Draft:Megan Elizabeth Euker I was hoping to determine whether the article submitted as Draft:Megan Euker was a fresh attempt, or a rehashed version of the initial attempt, which I believe may shed some light on how related those two editors are.

I am also trying to determine how TruthGuardians was involved; I don't consider a two minute AfC turnaround based solely on chance to be likely, particularly considering that 209 articles were submitted on that day, that TruthGuardians does not review many AfC's, and that AfC more broadly was severely backlogged, and that it takes more than two minutes to review an AfC submission. It also might shed more light on what I thought of as the initial issues with the broader topic of Michael Jackson; if TruthGuardians is involved in undisclosed paid editing in regards to Megan Euker, then it could indicate that UPE is going on, on a much larger scale and time frame, on that topic. This would differ from my initial thought, that it was merely a group of dedicated Michael Jackson fans.

Having reviewed the topic further, I am also concerned by some of the editors who !voted keep in the Megan Euker AfD; Carinco Tuck (talk · contribs) was an SPA who created Leo Liu; it was deleted after two AfD's, with the first being flooded by new accounts, and at least one editor expressed concern that Carinco Tuck had an undisclosed financial stake in promoting the topic.

Myna50 (talk · contribs) has a more extensive contribution history (primarily small gnomish edits), but the overlap with Carinco Tuck is suspicious; their first contribution to AfD for almost a year, and their second ever, was to !vote "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex Dane, an AfD that Carinco Tuck did the same on - Carinco Tuck has only voted on three AfD's, and Myna05 five, so the chance of this being a coincidence seems low.

The third keep !voter, LocomotiveEngine (talk · contribs) is less suspicious; they voted in three AfD's, for their first and last time, in the space of 16 minutes. It could have been just that they discovered AfD, contributed, and then left.

My apologies for how extensive this reply is; whenever I look at anyone associated with group it feels like I'm going down the rabbit hole. It's possible that I'm seeing something where there is nothing, but I don't think so - if I was prone to that I think I would find it outside this group as well as inside it, but I don't. BilledMammal (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December and our Annual Report for 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC).

Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes.

Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.

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

Review of Deleted page Maria Horne

Hi Liz,

I was part of the group that wrote articles for youth climate activists from Africa and was sad to see the deletion of Maria Horne from Wikipedia. Please could you give some context as to why, even though I did read some of the deletion reasons. And would it be possible to improve the article and request it to be restored? Thank you! Rosesuccess7 RoseSuccess7 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoseSuccess7,

The reasons for deletion are all present in the AFD deletion discussion that is linked to the deleted article. I sometimes will restore the article to Draft space if you have found some additional sources that address the problems brought up in the AFD but if this is moved back to main space without getting approval from an Articles for Creation reviewer, it will just be deleted again. If you want your own copy of the article, I can email it to you if you have email enabled. But I just can't just revert an AFD deletion decision upon request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you consider restoring to draft space so it can be re-edited accordingly and go through the proper approval process and review for Articles for Creation? I can see why the deletion occurred and hoping to make the necessary edits with additional sources to avoid this happening again. Thank you. RoseSuccess7 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a follow up, if a draft cannot be restored, I do have email enabled. Thank you. RoseSuccess7 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, I am circling back on this. Thanks. RoseSuccess7 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoseSuccess7,

I appreciate you circling back as I have a lot of traffic to this overly long talk page and can lose track of messages. I've restored this article to Draft space and you can find it at Draft:Maria Horne. Please work through AFC because if it you move it directly back to main space, I think it will be tagged for deletion again. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Savile, 1st Baron Savile (second creation)

Sorry to keep bothering you about deletions, but John Savile, 1st Baron Savile (second creation) was not eligible for R3, because This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created. This was found via Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#Not recently-created, which oddly-enough does not explicitly look for this scenario but instead was confused by the use a WP:PAGESWAP making it appear that the redirect was 10 years old. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is an implausible redirect because the term "John Savile, 1st Baron Savile (second creation)" isn't likely to be searched. That alone makes it elligible for R3. Wikilawyering it won't change the outcome. It has already been deleted before, btw, and also: WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. R3 makes perfect sense for deleting a redirect under these circumstances, whether or not it was "moved". btw, it wasn't moved main->main, it was incorrectly moved from Draft to main. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural disputes aside, surely the title the article has had for 13 years is likely to be searched? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. How many would search for John Savile and use the phrase "second creation"? Plus 1st Baron Savile, all together? That is what makes in implausible. As for being here for years, that doesn't really matter, lot of junk doesn't get caught for years, there are millions upon millions of pages here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what to do here. Technically, you are correct, * Pppery *. I saw this page move in the Move log and didn't look closely enough into the circumstances of the move to see that this article has been at this page title for years. But I also think it is a terrible page title and one unlikely to ever be searched for. I will see if there are any links to this deleted page.

Also, sorry for how long this talk page has gotten, I stopped archiving messages when a bot was doing so incorrectly and it will take some time to take care of it now. But it is hard to navigate so I'll do it sometime this week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I slept on this for a day to make sure I wasn't making a hasty, emotional response, but I sill see a fundamental misunderstanding of deletion procedures in need of correction here. Wikipedia's deletion policy is not based on consequentialism, but instead based on adherence to process. Hence, the argument you are using, that you are refusing to undelete the page because you think it should be red, is improperly comingling your role as an admin with your opinion as an editor, and an undeletion is necessary.

I'm not just saying this because I'm a stickler for deletion process, but because I'm genuinely not convinced that, had the proper protocol been followed and an RfD started, it would have closed as delete - RfD regulars generally give a lot more weight to keeping {{R from move}}s than you and Dennis Brown do.

I don't care enough to take this to DRV, but I'll leave that as something to ponder ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, * Pppery *,

Well, I'm also left with a question. I see other admins on that list as ones who have made deletion mistakes. But I only see you coming to my talk page to point out my errors. Why is that? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. See User talk:Less Unless#Piotr Napierała, User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 47#Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale, User_talk:Kaiser matias#2021–22_Kazakhstan_Hockey_Championship. User talk:Paulmcdonald#Chance Odolena Voda, Special:Diff/1127086384, User talk:Cyrius#تراجم_شعراء_السودان. Remember that not every entry in the database report is actually problematic, and sometimes I decide for whatever reason that a problematic entry isn't worth challenging. I may be slightly more inclined to challenge your deletions because of you thanking me for doing so in the past, but I'm definitely not targeting only you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it all boils down to utility and the outcome if you have a more detailed discussion. The redirect is so implausible, again, WP:BURO comes to mind. So even if an action isn't within the exact letter of policy, but it is within the spirit, and the outcome would be the same regardless, I tend to just move on. You see CSDs also get deleted as "test pages" for various reasons that don't really fit ANY criteria, but the page obviously needs to be speedy deleted. Same idea. To me, this is a tempest in a teapot, as the exact number of people that will now no longer find the main article because that particular redirect page is deleted, is exactly 0. Not saying WP:IAR was necessarily written for things like this, but the principle still applies, that we generally don't drag things through extended discussions if the outcome is obvious, as the utility is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vlaardingerbroek (2nd nomination)

Hi, I think you made an error in judgement with relisting. It should have been closed as no consensus to delete. You are never going to get universal consensus to keep on a website of mostly left wingers to want to keep her article. Notability has clearly been demonstrated in the sources written about her and the people who want to delete are clearly ignoring this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate

Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians

In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences

Featured content: Way too many featured articles

Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA

Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes??? re Draft:Seclusion and restraint practices in the U.S. education system

Are you kidding me? I shouldn't get a notification about an abandoned draft at 11:48 and then get it deleted at 11:50. What can anyone do at that point? Is the system broken or are you quickly deleting these without looking? $ɱ$ (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Pinging for your input as well. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're going to take the opposing side and just say 'deal with it at WP:REFUND/G13' or similar. Shouldn't there be a period, several days to a week, that a user can act on their talk page notice before an admin swoops in to delete? $ɱ$ (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ɱ, I understand how this can be frustrating. Is there any reason you didn't make a minor edit after being notified a month ahead of time by FireflyBot here? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that one, I usually ignore bot messages. And it seemingly was auto-archived after 2 weeks, which is my mistake.

ɱ

(talk) 16:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We all miss things from time to time. For what it's worth, some of my G13 nominations often sit for hours at a time and other times they'll sit for just a few minutes. It's always dependent on the timing of admins reviewing the nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Liz will undelete even though you didn't ask very nicely, were notified a month beforehand, and had six months to make any edit to prevent its deletion. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, when I'm deleting G13 without Hey man im josh's help, draft creators don't get any advance notice at all. But all you have to do with G13s is to request restoration and so that's what I've done. You can also ask Firefly to have their bot send 5 month warnings every 5 months...currently, they send a warning message once but not a second or third time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Could there be an automated system for a delay, or could admins delay when the G13 nominator puts the talk page notice on? (Look before you leap?) This has happened to me quite a lot. How can I make FireflyBot notify more Liz? $ɱ$ (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ɱ,

I don't think a delay would work because either a) admins like me are skipping the tagging and doing deletion directly and b) when regular editors tag expiring drafts tag CSD G13s, they show up immediately in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions immediately and admins who patrol CSD categories wouldn't know not to delay deletion or for how long they should wait.

I think the only help in this situation is if Firefly Bot was to notify draft creators every 5 months which the bot only currectly does once. I've asked Firefly if the bot could notify draft creators every 5 months regardless of whether they editor has already received a 5 month notice before but I don't know how complicated it would be to change the bot's operations. You could post a message on their talk page making a request for this, I know that Star Mississippi just posted a recent request for this to happen as well. I've asked before about this but maybe the suggestion just needs more support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Babanli

Hi Liz, this Afd hasn't been closed properly for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, scope creep,

Admins and editors who close deletion discussions use a tool called XFDcloser which handles all of the steps but it looks like an editor here tried to close this discussion manually and didn't use the correct templates. I didn't know how to "fix" what they had done so I just reverted it and reclosed it.

You might have noticed that we are a little short-staffed for admins closing deletion discussions so they might not all close on time until we get more admins to return to helping out in this area. People seem to burn out on doing this task, both as closers and discussion participants. Thanks for letting me know about this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anindita Ghose

Hi Liz, this discussion was NAC-closed, and I have commented on the closer's Talk page with a request that it be reopened so an admin can close it. I also wanted to bring this to your attention because I often see you offering kind guidance and feedback to editors, and potentially so you could reopen and close the AfD. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beccaynr,

I haven't been spending as much time at AFD as I have in the past but I'll give this a look. Typically, we like to wait to see if the editor reverts a NAC close if there are problems rather than overruling them unless there are some major problems. It's how closers learn to be better at what they are doing. But I'll take a look. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Liz, and I am happy to wait for their response - it was after I realized how new they seem to be to the AfD process that I thought of asking for your assistance particularly for offering guidance. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CSDs

Thanks for clearing out all those G5 CSDs. If they'd been articles I'd have done it myself, but templates aren't my usual stamping ground - I was worried that just straight-up deleting them myself might break stuff elsewhere. Teamwork is a wonderful thing! Girth Summit _(blether) 23:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Girth Summit,

I hope you are kidding me. I don't delete templates because they can be transcluded into articles and the only reason I went ahead with this deletion was that I saw you tagged them and thought you had made sure that there would be no complications from their deletion! Oh, well. I guess if there were repercussions from these template deletions, some template editor would have already come to my talk page to tell me that I acted like an idiot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no - I tagged them rather than deleting them myself for that reason, templates are a bit of a mystery to me. FWIW, I think that most, possibly all, were only transcluded to one page apiece - they were mostly sidebars for individual politicians, if I remember correctly. Hopefully there will be little disruption, and they can be undeleted if anyone asks for it (I'll be happy to help with that if anyone comes to you complaining!). Girth Summit _(blether) 12:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Derek Williams (musician)

Hi,

I'd like your assistance with Draft:Derek Williams (musician) which you deleted as author requested. Per some information in this note, the text of the draft was reused by another editor to create Derek Williams (musician) and does not have attribution to the original author. What would be the best way to repair this? My thought was to undelete the draft and redirect the draft with a note about the copying on the talk pages. Or would a history merge be more appropriate? -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whpq,

That sounds like a plan or, to be honest, no alternatives to your idea come to mind. I will leave it to you though since Draft:Derek Williams (musician) has over 2,000 edits to the page! It's going to take several restorations to bring it all back. It's been deleted several times and restored so I don't know how far back you need to go for attribution but it might be easier to just restore the entire history. I see a lot of drafts every day and I've never seen one with so many edits to the page, even ones that have been moved from main space through AFD closures.

Just curious, did the editor of the main space article create it before the draft article was deleted? Or did they find the article on a Wikipedia mirror site? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I suspect the editor of the main space article grabbed it from User:Chrisdevelop/sandbox, but the draft had other editors doing copyedits and other changes to the content so I think the draft needs to be restored for proper attribution. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

request of complete deletion

Hello, i am here to request a complete deletion of my account, the edits and pages I have made, and every trace of this account’s existence due to concerns of personal safety of my own and those around me. I understand that there is a certain level of difficulty so if you cannot agree to this request please tell me other solutions to my problem. Thank you very much I would very much appreciate your help. Lucaspig HK (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lucaspig HK,

I'm sorry that you've come to this decision but I understand, editors leave the project for all sorts of reasons. Unfortunately, your contributions to the project can not be erased. I think your best bet is to change your username so that instead of being attributed to "Lucaspig HK", they would be attributed to a user like "Vanished Contributor 38s9Cd83(#l9". So, none of your edits would be attributed to you.

You can change your username on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Changing username but that information is archived, if you truly want this to be anonymous, contact a global renamer through email and make the request. You can find a list of global renamers at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_renamers. Be sure when you make the request to ask that there is no redirect left from your current account to your new account, this would leave a trail for any curious folks to see what your new anonymous account is named.

I hope this helps. I know it has for other editors. You can find more information about all this at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing which is basically what you are requesting. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help I appreciate it very much Lucaspig HK (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the deleted William A. Starrett page

Hey Liz. I know the William A. Starrett article was deleted, and usually that would be a good reason for removing redlinks to the deleted article. However, unlike articles that were deleted at AFD, this article was deleted mainly because of copyright violations, and I do think he's at least marginally notable. Some sources such as this, this, this, and this do mention him with some level of detail. Do you mind if I re-add some of the redlinks you removed, e.g. on the 40 Wall Street or Empire State Building articles? Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epicgenius,

Oh, I don't mind at all if you revert my edits unlinking their name. When I was starting out as an admin, I was instructed to remove all red links from article subjects that were deleted, which XFDCloser does as well, so that's my habit. And since these recent ones were from articles written by an editor accused of violating copyright guidelines, I didn't think the articles would be restored. But if you disagree, let's talk about it. I've been a little pro-active about this and maybe I should ease up on removing the red links from subjects whose articles might be rewritten by a policy-abiding editor. Let me know what you think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I figured that you were probably removing the links using either Twinkle or XFDcloser. I was thinking that, since the article was deleted for potentially being a copyvio (rather than because it wasn't notable), keeping the red links may encourage someone else to rewrite the article within the bounds of policy. It's not a big deal for me - I was just wondering whether you thought Starrett actually was not notable, or whether you were just unlinking the page because it was deleted at WP:CP. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was recreated and in going through the pain in the ass of searching for links to Starrett, I found the discussion here. While I can't judge the merit of the copyright issues that may have existed, the question of notability is unambiguous, and could readily be gleaned by reading the mentions in all of the places where he was being systematically unlinked. As the primary builder of the Empire State Building, there is hardly a question of notability. In situations like this, where an article is being deleted for copyright issues and where a basic search would demonstrate both notability AND the strong likelihood that the article would be recreated, leaving the red links not only avoids wasting time but actively assists in the process of recreating an article and reconnecting it to the rest of the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alansohn,

Well, it's been a lot of copyright violating articles deleted lately and I don't have a good way of knowing which ones might be recreated in the future. But I'll be more conscientious about this and be less aggressive in removing the red links. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great way. Look at the article. Look at the sources that were in the article. Look at the other Wikipedia articles where the article you're deleting is mentioned. Look at this edit, where the result of your action was that the entry was removed from a list. Consider the situation BEFORE starting a mass unlinking effort. Understand that your actions have string potential negative consequences that are difficult to undo. Alansohn (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the deletion was in the context of the WP:DCGAR business, which is as a depressing a tale as you'll find on Wikipedia. Scores and scores of articles are getting nuked on WP:PDEL grounds. Many of these articles may never be created again, because no one else is going to dig as deep into now-obscure 19th century American commercial history as DC did. (Starrett is a bit of an exception, in that he is more recent and more well known. My involvement is that I ended up passing it for GA, although in retrospect I should have dug deeper into this one than I did.) I for one would like all of the obliterated DC articles to be kept as red links, because if nothing else it will serve as a reminder of how badly both DC and his reviewers failed over a prolonged period of time. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Time R, that's how I was looking at it. I sincerely doubt many of these articles will ever be recreated again. Alansohn, I didn't go on a "mass unlinking effort", I just saw what articles were being recently deleted as copyright violations, many from the the Doug Caldwell Copyright investigation efforts and removed some red links. I said I'd be more conscientious and I don't think it is fair to suggest that my activities are damaging the project. Do you also have a problem when XFDCloser removes every link from deleted articles at every AFD that closes as "Delete"? Because that's what happens there. I don't see how may actions are different than the unlinking that happens with every single AFD or PROD deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U5

I agree with you on the over-enthusiastic U5 taggings and would like to collaborate with you on those I find questionable. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike wishes Liz was on IRC -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was one just now with just the infobox person, but infobox user has even more spaces. I watched it and now it's gone. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I've had no luck with IRC. I don't even know how to assign myself a name. Is there a special admin channel or just a general channel?

I'm on my phone right now at a friend's house but I can look into this when I get back to my laptop. You know, March Madness, and all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for scrolling all of the way down this absurdly long talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Longer than EEng? Yes, but I'll need to look up the info. There are hoops -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

#wikipedia-en-admins is the admins only channel

You can request access at Wikipedia:IRC#Pending requests for access to channels.

It gives the option of creating a "cloak". You will need a cloak.

Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deepfriedokra,

Just a couple of questions. That page says I have to register a nickname before making a request for access but it seems strange to type in their suggested string with a password and email address into a regular IRC chat box. And what is "a cloak"? Is that the same as ones username? The two examples shown in the existing requests don't make it clear what it is or what it is for. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know the answers to any of that. Perhaps JJMC89 can help. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The initial IRC chat box that you see is likely the one interfacing with the IRC server itself. Yes, it may feel weird to enter the username and password in plain text, but that's how IRC was initially setup back in the 90s. However, you may want to explore authenticating via SASL (I personally uses Hexchat (configuration instructions)), which eliminates the need to enter the password in plaintext after the initial setup.

the purposes of the clock is to verify your registered account to other users of IRC. you can read more about cloaks at m:Cloak. – robertsky (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ueuss I'm too simple for a lot of that. Once I was granted access, I just logged on with Chrome -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz Khanate

Hi Liz! I think the 16th-17th century (circa 1510-1680) Kyrgyz Khanate article was probably quite legit [12][13][14][15][16][17], although it was indeed a bit inflated and mainly serviced by a sockpuppet/IP from... Kyrgystan. It's a bit sad to see a rather important part of Central Asian history vanish, just because of sockpuppet stuff... Is there a way to block the sockpuppet without killing the article? Couldn't we just protect the article from this recurring single-purpose "newcomer"? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, पाटलिपुत्र,

You certainly didn't give me much time to respond before deciding to take this case to Deletion review. I get a lot of traffic on this talk page and typically respond to a group of messages once or twice a day, I don't drop everything to respond to each message as soon as it is posted. But my response now is irrelevant as the fate of this article will be determined at the Deletion review. In the future, I suggest giving an editor or admin at least 24 hours to respond before escalating the situation further. Thanks and I hope the deletion review can respond to your concerns about this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop pages

Hi Liz,

This is around decision of merging Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop pages. I wanted to let you know that these pages should not be merged or redirected as these are two separate products designed for two separate types of users with different user needs.I wanted to let you know that both the pages should exists independently.

Some Wikipedia users told that AFD has decided to merge the Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop pages and have asked me to contact you in case I think it is not correct. I don't know who provided this wrong information to you all. Please let me know how to get it corrected? Also, I was not part of any AfD discussion so feel free to invite me next time so that I can provide accurate information around Adobe Photoshop Elements. Here are two product pages for your reference: https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.htm

Let me know if you need any official information related to Adobe Photoshop Elements to get this corrected. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, FYI, here is that user's declaration of being an employee of Adobe. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred.

Liz, if you want, I can have communication via my official company ID as well. I am providing the accurate information in the best interest of my company and Wikipedia users. This wrong redirection has been brought to my notice by users of Adobe Photoshop Elements. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also updated my userinfo page with employer info. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sharmavikas2k,

Sorry for the delay. I'll look into the circumstances of this further today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected at ANEW. There's nothing to "correct" unless you decide to revisit your closure @Liz. Star Mississippi 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz Khanate

Hello Liz! Thanks for deleting this article for me. I had seen it in my watchlist for a while and upon the most recent sockblock of the article contributor, I noticed basically all of the most recent changes were by socks. So I kept going back and only saw socks, so I checked the article creator and what do you know the creator is a sock themself. I wasn't exactly sure if G5 was appropriate so after a brief discussion on the Discord server i Decided that I should just G5 it and see what the admins decide. The article topic is most likely notable but I'd say that this was a case of WP:TNT in which there was no useful edit history since it was full of socks. So thank you for deleting it cause, uh, I wasn't even sure if that was the right thing to do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the device I'm using right now doesn't seem to like your user talk page so feel free to reply to this on mine. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blaze Wolf,

I'm sorry about this talk page. Someone set it up to be automatically archived which created havoc in my talk page archives (discussions were randomly added to pages for different months and years) so I stopped archiving until I could get it straightened out and it hasn't been a top priority until this week. Sorry that its size is overwhelming your browser. I welcome you to comment at the Deletion review (mentioned below) to give your side of the story. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kyrgyz Khanate

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kyrgyz Khanate. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hi Liz, I'm just trying to rescue what can be rescued (my previous message above). Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, पाटलिपुत्र, thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! An idea... could you simply restore the content of the Kyrgyz Khanate article in my User space (such as my Sandbox), so that I can at least work on it, check the sources, and try to salvage what is salvageable? Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, पाटलिपुत्र,

While I ordinarily have no objections to doing this on request, this is a complicated situation and right now the article is in the middle of a deletion review. I need to check in at the review and see what the participants are saying. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Undeletion Request

Hello, I recently have been redrafting a new article in my sandbox that one of my friends left off a few years ago. If you could restore the draft Ubuntu Cinnamon so I can see if I missed anything, that would be great. Thank you. SparrowSparrow (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SparrowSparrow,

Done That's an easy request to fulfill. Good luck with your articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cloth of St Gereon

You're doing it AGAIN!!! Doesn't it TELL you something when there are a whole lot of links to a deleted article? Who deleted it, when, and why? Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod,

Do you expect this article to be recreated again in the future? You can look at the deletion summary at the top of Cloth of St Gereon to see which administrator deleted the article and the reason for this deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, or it certainly should be, and probably will be. Certainly deserves a redlink. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) it appears to have been Justlettersandnumbers following a tagging] by SandyGeorgia. They were pretty much the only edits after yours in 2020 @Johnbod. Star Mississippi 02:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course I can't see that link, nor remember what I did in 2020. This is supposed to be a Doug Coldwell article. Once again I had no notice of the impending deletion, despite watchlisting it! Just like Lithophane, now back up & getting 70 views a day. Was it you who found the Internet Archive version of that? I tried but couldn't find it for this. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I deleted that as part of a massive copyright clean-up, a week after it was blanked and listed at WP:CP – during which time anyone who wanted to could of course have rewritten it. If you like, I can restore the structure of the page (images, references, categories, infobox and so on, but not the running text) either in your user space or in draft space, in mainspace with an {{inuse}} tag on it, or otherwise email you the markup text – your choice, just say the word. But is it really helpful to shout at people (particularly when you've got the wrong person)? Hi, Liz, Star Mississippi! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Liz is the right person to complain about her systematic removal of the links to deleted articles. This came up in the Lithophane section above, when her defence was "As for the red links, I was "instructed" when I was a beginning admin to remove red links from deleted articles that were unlikely to be restored and, by its nature, articles which are copyright violations will never be restored." Spot any flaws in the logic there? Yes, please let me have the skeleton and my text if possible, at User:Johnbod/Gereon (just start it). Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod I'm unsure what you mean about "no notice ... despite watchlisting", as there is a seven-day wait at WP:CP after tagging. Also, after the January AN, hundreds of articles and editors were notified of the WP:DCGAR on February 9, so the cleanup should be pretty widely known by now.

On finding the internet archive versions, I want to recommend against that. Having now read almost all of DC's content, the problems are so far beyond copyvio that starting fresh is almost always a faster way to rebuild an encyclopedic article. He simply had faulty research methodology along with poor writing and organization, and when digging in to the sourcing of his content, one often finds blatantly wrong information along with the oddest choices of what to include, apparently in a rush to expand and get DYK and GA credits, along with no sense of encyclopedic writing. I've now watched half a dozen editors try to fix his content by cleaning up what was there, and in every case, they could have written five new articles in the time they spent (unsuccessfully) trying to clean up one DC article. Even his use of archaic sources has rendered inaccuracies in quite a few articles; digging up any local news story that is a hundred years ago, while seemingly unaware of the need to locate more modern sources, seems to have been his research method, once he chose an article to expand based on a book of fun first facts. I recommend not using his version as a starting place for recreating encyclopedic content. It is just too hard to tease out the source-to-text integrity, undue attention to fun facts, poor writing, contradictions from newer sources and his own COI along with the copyvio issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "no notice ... despite watchlisting"! This kangeroo process allows articles to disappear without its watchlisters being warned. Are you seriously suggesting I should watchlist the vast WP:CP? No. Obviously some notification should be added to the articles. I'm well aware of the issues with DC articles, but apparently I wrote some of this myself, perhaps 50,000 edits ago. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archive your page

I archived your page for you and you reverted it! What's the problem Liz, the page is massive! It was just very difficult to scroll down on my ipad and leave a message, took absolutely ages. Your page is well over 600,000 bytes! I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Not a criticism of you personally as many of the AFDs only have two or three comments and I agree that they need more of a consensus. I think the real issue is that we need to generate more interest in AFDs in the first place and reduce relisting articles and reducing the bloat of the listings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's crashing my mobile browser loading it.

ɱ

(talk) 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Blofeld and Ɱ,

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. What happened is that someone (not me) set up an automatically archiving on my bot on my talk page last year but the bot randomly moved discussions to different archives that had no relationship to the months and years when they actually happened. So, those talk page deletions were rolled back. I have to go through my archived talk pages and straighten things out, a very tedious task. But I will take care of it this week and catch up. My apologies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've moved off several months' worth of messages to a temp User page and I'll spend time sorting out what goes where another day. I hope this helps. This page gets a lot of traffic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, smaller devices really can't handle it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:German American (resolved but still interesting)

Hi Liz, re this conversation you had with The Earwig about your deletion of the "German American" redirect back in 2021: the plot thickens considerably ... neither of you seemed to have checked the talk page! In normal cases the talk page would've just been a redirect but here it was left behind from a move from "German American" to "German Americans" back in 2015, due to a cut-and-paste move to "Talk:German Americans" by 70.23.161.113 back in 2006. As a result, the talk page had 497 deleted revisions worth restoring and six years of archived discussions from 2010 to 2015 (which I've now restored to Talk:German Americans/Archive 2). I also restored the offending edit to the "German American" page that started this whole mess off, to make it easier to figure out what actually happened. I've straightened everything out but I thought I'd give both you and The Earwig a heads-up here. I found this situation because yesterday I made my highest number of edits ever, 1434, mostly due to dealing with contributions by AlexBalder01 (which I know you saw Liz because of the thanks note). I went to check out my deleted edits from my previous record of at least 1,270 edits in a day ... and that's when I found the "Talk:German American" page and kinda flipped out! Graham87 07:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles needing subsections

Hi, would you be able to undelete Category:Articles needing subsections? It was a tracking category and should have been tagged with {{Possibly empty category}}. Cheers, MClay1 (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponniyin_Selvan:_II

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ponniyin_Selvan:_II resulted in a DELETE, which you closed and deleted. A new user has created the article again Ponniyin Selvan: II, despite there being a draft under development at Draft:Ponniyin Selvan: II. I could not figure out if there is a speedy delete criterion I could cite to request SPD, so I am turning to you to seek help/assistance. — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created this new version has apparently done a cut-and-paste from the draft to this article and has started to link every cast and crew member to the article. Suggest that if/when the article is deleted that it be salted until the draft is accepted. — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]