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 Summer!

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.

Looking for the creator of a draft

Not being an administrator I can't see who created Draft:King Street Sounds. The person asked a question on the Teahouse and I just wanted to make sure they saw the response, but the IP had no other edits, so it's not clear who asked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete ShakeDeal

@LizLiz, Writing to express my concern about the deletion of the Wikipedia page ShakeDeal. As one of the major contributors to the page, I believe that it met the notability requirements and provided valuable information to readers. The page was created three years ago and had 30 references from reputable news channels. However, it was recently nominated for deletion and removed due to a lack of citations. I am confused by this decision since the page already had sufficient sources to meet Wikipedia's standards. Furthermore, I noticed that the deletion was carried out without proper discussion or consensus among the editors. The page was not under speedy deletion, yet it was deleted too quickly. Also after checking the edit history of the user who nominated the page for deletion, concerned that the deletion of the page may have been based on personal motives rather than the content itself. believe that all contributors should be treated fairly and that actions should be taken based on the content rather than personal motives. Request that the page be restored and that we have a proper discussion among the editors about its notability and any necessary improvements. Niclepo (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Niclepo (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, Since my initial request for clarification and restoration, I have not received any updates or responses regarding the deletion. As the primary contributor to the article, I am eager to engage in a constructive discussion about its notability and address any concerns that were raised.

I kindly request that you provide an update on the status of this matter and whether you have had the opportunity to review the deletion and the arguments presented in favor of restoring the article.Niclepo (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I am not Liz, but can help address some things in your undeletion request. Your claim that the deletion was carried out without proper discussion or consensus among the editors is not correct. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShakeDeal had 7 participants including the nominator, and yourself. The only dissenting opinion was yours. The other participants did not feels that the sources were sufficient to meet notability. Note that an acceptance of an article via AFC is not a guarantee against deletion. You also state The page was not under speedy deletion, yet it was deleted too quickly. The deletion discussion was open for a full week, which is the standard amount of time before a discussion closure is taken. It was not closed too early. You also claim after checking the edit history of the user who nominated the page for deletion, concerned that the deletion of the page may have been based on personal motives rather than the content itself. That is a serious accusation, and unless you have strong evidence that is the case, then you should retract such accusations. You can appeal a deletion at DEletion Review if you feel there was a defect in process, or an error in the interpretation of consensus, however given that the AFD was open for the requisite amount of time, and the near unanimous opinion to delete, I see no defect in the close that could be successfully challenged through a deletion review and a filing of such a review would be a waste of everybody's time. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and clarification regarding the deletion process of the article. I appreciate the information provided. Considering the efforts made to enhance the article with additional citations, I believe that it deserves a fair evaluation to determine its compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines and notability requirements. Moving the article to draft status would allow for a thorough assessment by editors, who can provide constructive feedback and suggest further improvements if necessary. Niclepo (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Niclepo,

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShakeDeal was the opportunity to argue that the article should not be deleted and the consensus here was to Delete. You even reverted my closure of the AFD! An article on this subject has actually been deleted three times now (through speedy deletion, PROD and now AFD) which is not a good sign that the company meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Do you have a conflict-of-interest with this subject, do you work for this company or are you being compensated to write this article and get it in main space? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and clarification. I appreciate your understanding. I would like to clarify that I am not personally affiliated with the company. My usual area of interest and expertise is in writing about movies, and "ShakeDeal" happened to be the first company I wrote about. I apologize for any confusion caused by the mistaken closure of the AFD. It was an error on my part Given the additional citations that were added during the deletion process and the potential for further improvement. Niclepo (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Goldendict

The software is usable and have active development for more than 10 years.

Due to the nature of free software, it is hard to estimate actual user number, but there are a lot of links and mentions to it https://www.google.com/search?q="goldendict"

It deserve to have a wikipedia page. slbtty (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Shenlebantongying: Since this was deleted as an expired proposed deletion, I've listed it at requests for undeletion on your behalf. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 22:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

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

Administrator changes

Spicy

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting copy of deleted article

Greetings @Liz

I am trying to provide some collaborative draft expansion support to an existing draft Draft:Gender power gap.

It seems the article of the same name Gender power gap (probably created by new user?) was deleted previously through this AfD discussion.

Requesting copy of the deleted article Gender power gap in my sand-box to avoid same mistakes being repeated and find out any useful citations if any.

Bookku (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2x CSD G5 articles

Good morning... I only retagged those two articles - Draft:Miss America 2024‎ and Draft:List of new members of the 119th United States Congress - as CSD G5 because ‎NinjaRobotPirate blocked both IP's as sockpuppets of ApprenticeFan. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApprenticeFan. I would not have done otherwise because the previous administrator explained the requirement for CSD G5. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the process. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bebel2024

I'm taking a look at their edit history right now, and I see what you mean. I've already deleted a handful of completely empty categories (no sense keeping them for a week), and I've applied a temporary partial editblock so that they can't create any new categories for one week, to give us time to clean up the mess. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mess I'm looking at is trending close enough to vandalism to warrant some straight deletion, in my estimation. I'm also listing some stuff for discussion when it's more debatable, and redirecting some stuff where it's straightforward duplication, so I'm not just blanket-deleting everything. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Agyrocircularis

The IP address which created Draft:Agyrocircularis and others were known for adding random gibberish and Taxoboxes to the article Francevillian biota. It has also created Draft:Agyrocircularis and possibly others. Are you able to block the IP addresses to stop them from creating random non-sense? Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hemanth Choudhary/sandbox

Hi Liz, I deleted this page before I realised that you had declined an earlier CSD, since it had been retagged by experienced user Cahk. I have to say that I cannot see how this isn't blatant promo (Get 20% On Your First Move😃), but I'm not going to wheel, so I've restored, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that I've indeffed the editor as a UPE. but feel free to unblock if you disagree Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was still nominated and it should remain deleted. Deb (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valerio Zamboni article

Dear @Liz,

I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to consider my request and for your potential response.

I have prepared an article about the legendary ultracyclist Valerio Zamboni in my sandbox and intended to publish it in the main space. However, I noticed that you had deleted an article under the same title several weeks ago. The reason for deletion was stated as, "Expired PROD, concern was: They get several mentions, but there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG."

I believe that the Valerio Zamboni referred to in the articles is the same individual, and I am confident that my article provides comprehensive coverage to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. Would you be so kind to examine the version in my sandbox and evaluate if it now meets criteria? Here is the link to the sandbox version.

Thank you sincerely for your efforts in making the wikipedia a better place. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.

Best regards, 124Sanroque (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU

In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics

Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions

Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!

Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion

News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation

Special report: There Shall Be Seasons Refreshing – Stories from WikiConference India 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You doing ok?

Hi Liz, you are usually great at responding to queries here but I have noticed over the past couple weeks or so, you haven't much. Maybe I am reading too much into it but if you need break from Wikipedia, take it. Either way, I hope you are well. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

You are right, I've been absolutely terrible at responding to talk page messages lately. The thing is, and this is no excuse, is that I have about a dozen daily tasks I do on Wikipedia and once I get into one of them, I like to stay focused rather than dropping everything to respond to a talk page message. So, I leave responding until the end of the day when I have mostly finished up my jobs. But, I've gotten lazy at coming back here and reading over messages. Also, I tend to leave really long replies to queries that take time to compose and so I have procrastinated. I need to get more concise in my replies because most times people are not looking for long, involved responses but simple "Yes, I can do this" or "No, I can't do this" answers.

But I appreciate you calling this to my attention and I hope to catch up on them sometime today. It probably doesn't matter but I'm not ignoring individual messages and requests, I'm just not tending to my talk page. But your message caught my eye, hit a nerve because I know I've been remiss and I could answer relatively quickly (for me). Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do so much here thus get so many messages I thought it might be burnout which, if that were case, is understandable and you, the person, comes well before you the Wikipedia editor/admin. I am glad to hear it is nothing bigger than you simply haven't gotten to them yet. Also it does not come across, at least to me, as you ignoring specific inquiries. None of us are perfect so not always on top of everything and sometimes things will fall in the cracks. S0091 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to hear you are fine. Please can we move forward on the situation with my Roxanne Fontana article. I have written above a reply to you, and further comments. I have written to one of the two editors who carelessly, without research, and unprofessionally using offensive words with no legit explanation. We must discuss this please! Brooklyn Smith (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move deleted SimpleX Messaging Protocol to my userspace?

Hi Liz,

In October 2022, I was informed the article would be deleted because of lack of significant coverage/relevance. There were very little at the time and there weren't much I could do.

Their user base has grown, and got a security audit, but maybe there isn't still enough media covered for Wikipedia standards.

So I would like to ask if you could copy or move the deleted page to my userspace, to User:Arthurfragoso/SimpleX Messaging Protocol, so I could work on it in the meanwhile, as I expect that it may soon have enough coverage for Wikipedia standards.

Thanks -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Rojas Bazan

Hello Liz,

I see that you have deleted the Guillermo Rojas Bazan page. Could you explain why? Thank you very much for your help. I appreciate it.

Orlando Davis (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

restream

Hi Liz, I've came across this deleted page that I was editing in 2021, could you move it to my userspace so I'd improve it? Please and thank you. Goo3 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Award for Best Play

Hi Liz. You listed a category as speedy deletion for being empty I worked on, Category:Tony Award for Best Play and my notice said to contest it at a specific entry which is not actually linked on the category notice. All but one of the relevent plays were removed from the Category and I'm unsure why, especially as it is identical to the Category:Tony Award for Best Musical which still has all of the winning musicals included in it. I just was not sure where to go to contest this deletion as the link to do so was not present, and if anything can be done to restore this. thanks! HighlandFacts (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

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.

Drafts removed

I have seen you have removed my drafts. I kindly request the full wikitext of each page such that i may copy and then store them for later editing and work in a more permanent place where i have control.

Kindísimo regards, 56independent (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 56independent,

Please provide me with a list of pages you are concerned about. It could be that they can be restored, it depends on what the grounds were for deletion. But just provide a link which looks like this [[Article title]] or [[Draft:Article title]]. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The grounds were, as stated on my user page, the 6-month period having ended.

These are the pages:

Happy editing, 56independent (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

Hi, about this & this, please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mainul_Saiman that's why i tagged it. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Restoration of promotional and unsourced content at Festivals in Aruba. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnuniq. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Freitas

Hi. Could I contest this PROD? The nominator's rationale for deletion is not well-founded and this is, at the least, a likely redirect target to elsewhere. If incoming links can be restored as well that would be great. Thanks Chubbles (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chubbles,

Done Finding all of the links involving combing through my contributions and yesterday I had 500 edits. I'm more alert in the morning so I think I will handle that when I get up tomorrow morning if that's okay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Chubbles (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind Page

Hi Liz, I was just about to start a page for Rewind after reading about them getting a big financing round and then saw that you had deleted a previous page with the same title last year, because Advertising. It seems the company has made progress and there are lots of articles about it. 04:35, 25 August 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Rewind (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) Tag: Twinkle (thank) I've got no connection to them. Is the topic ready for a wikipedia page now? Thanks. Livysmite (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Livysmite,

Always provide a link to the page you are talking about so I don't have to go searching for it. Then I can see why it was deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, this? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Rewind&action=edit&redlink=1 Livysmite (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that all of these people have hijacked your message to Liz. I meant to put a few sentences in reminding her that I was still waiting after a week to hear from her, before having all these people jump on and into something I am merely discussing with her. I would not have done that had I known this would happen, apologies. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot about responding to my article above ROXANNE FONTANA. Waiting for several weeks. You asked questions, I replied, still waiting, had further information, still waiting... Perhaps consider doing things in the correct order if you begin a 'situation'? Wouldn't that make sense. At least restore the page to where I have access to it, as you offered to do weeks ago. Thank you. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brooklyn Smith to be clear, Liz did not "begin a situation" and making unfounded accusations is not helpful to your case. Another editor nominated the article for deletion and a discussion occurred at WP:Articles for deletion/Roxanne Fontana. Liz simply assessed consensus which was a clear delete and as an admin carried out the deletion per consensus. The previous draft (not the deleted article) was restored for you, you submitted it for review and it was declined. None of that is Liz's doing. As the deleting admin, she can choose to restore the deleted article to draft space, but she is under no obligation to do so. S0091 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not true, she nominated it. Left it up to two editors who didn't read the article properly. They referred to this artist as the 1980s, which one of them said she was expert in. The artist's first release is 1999. The draft was given to me, and immediately re-submitted without knowing it was not the deleted article. Liz replied above, and ask for an answer which I gave,and further information, and have not heard anything back. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, Brooklyn Smith. The article was nominated for deletion by User:JSFarman. Liz assessed consensus and only then deleted the article. Just read the debate. If you want to debate with experienced Wikipedia editors, please get your facts straight. Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "the 1980s" was neither mentioned nor alluded to in that deletion debate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, @Cullen328. @Brooklyn Smith you are heading down the wrong path here so my best advice is to cease lobbing accusations at other editors as it is a waste of your time (along with others trying to explain that you are wrong) and focus on improving the draft. All of this can be rectified by improving with draft with sources showing Fontana meets WP:GNG (read that thoroughly) then resubmitting for review. S0091 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. Just read the debate, and the conversation on your talk page where you brought her in. A conversation I found shocking. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no accusations. There are just facts based on the debate and the original conversation between Cullen and JS Farman. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. You brought JS Farman on. Getting facts straight is definitely correct. Why did you: refer to this artist as the 1980s when the article clearly stated that the first record release was 1999, with the majority happening post 2011? Why did you state that even if the artist was notable the article should have a machete taken to it? Why did you accept that every single line written by JS Farman which is absolultely false: "some videos" when the artist has over 60 videos on the page of the record company as well as fan pages? Why did you accept JS Farman who was an expert of 1980s San Francisco punk rock as someone to trust on an artist based in London post 2000 where most of the recordings are done? Why did you accept that none of the citations were legit, when ShinDig Magazine has a huge worldwide circulation? Many pages on google, yet it was stated nothing was found. Liz asked questions of myself, I answered them above and am waiting for her answers. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brooklyn Smith time to move on. You are not going to get anywhere with this particular approach or discussion. As I said above, focus on improving to the draft to show Fontana meets notability then resubmit it for review. That is the only path to an article about her. S0091 (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I need to hear from Liz please who asked me questions. Which I have answered. She can speak for herself please. Thank you. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination was in regards to conflict of Interest. I would appreciate if you just leave this situation to Liz based on the history, and the questions she has asked me. Thank you. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brooklyn Smith it is not up to Liz to assess whether an article should exist or not. Your only path is submitting a draft. Please see my note above as well. I will not be commenting further. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Smith, you are correct that I asked JSFarman to assess the article, which is routine collaboration among editors. On her talk page, the 1980s were mentioned because the article said Fontana began her music career at New York City nightclubs during the 1980s. This included multiple performances at CBGB, The Bitter End, and Webster Hall, among many others. Fontana's bands The Blue Way, Kid Blue, and Ruzenka and the Big Dream, were male rock groups that Fontana dominated by writing all of the material, and fronting. Those bold assertions were entirely unreferenced, in violation of the core content policy of Verifiability. I am an administrator and can read deleted articles. So again, you are incorrect. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please there WERE citations for that history in the published interviews she gave with publications post 2010. She is a recording artist. She would never be in Wikipedia for playing nightclubs, so I actually disagree that is a bold assertions anyway. That era is a prelude, and nothing compared to what she is now doing. That was merely historical information which had citations listed, all of which could be found online. I appreciate your concern Cullen. If you want to help me with this instead of debating it, can we take it somewhere else? My talk page for example? Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to applaud Liz! I've seen you around Wikipedia for years but today was the first time I had a reason to read your talk page. You go above and beyond. WAY above and beyond. I am in awe.

Re: Roxanne Fontana ~~to quote the very wise S0091, I will not be commenting further~~ , I'll comment on your talk page. JSFarman (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) JSFarman (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is always a reply when someone is at a loss for a cohesive and proper reply in a debate. In your case every thing stated in your conversation regarding the deletion was a falsehood and untrue with evidence to prove it. So of course you cannot comment further. The other editor was helpful to me on my talk page, thank goodness. The hallmark of a worthy conversation, is a conversation. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the time for conversation was the week the page was discussed. I was out of town at that time and unaware. Had I been available, I would have corrected your false assumptions with evidence, and argued the censorship mentality that certain published evidences are unworthy, and even falsely deemed not "legit". Alas, considering it's taking Liz 20 days to reply to something she requested, it might help if the nomination/deletion process was pushed to one month, for fair and proper analysis. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete: St. Aloysius Primary School, Mbarara

Hello Liz, Kindly undelete the page I created a few months back called St. Aloysius Primary School, Mbarara.

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.

BoubIT (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change Essay, and Education Projects

You write that you are tired of dealing with misguided class projects that think that their essays will replace Class-B articles. Yes. I will add that, in some cases that I see from time to time, there is a Start-Class draft submitted to replace a stub, which is a real improvement, except that it is submitted as a draft to AFC, and the instructor apparently doesn't know that the draft review process does not apply to expanding of existing articles. These projects are often about biological species. They really are trying to add knowledge to the encyclopedia, which is what we are all collaborating to do, but the instructor doesn't know how things work. The general issue seems to be that too many WikiEducation projects are being run ignorantly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon,

I think what is happening is that I pay a lot of attention to our Move log so I see a great many pages that are moved from User sandboxes directly into main space. This has been going on now for about 3 weeks. Frequently, these articles still have sandbox tags on them and the editor has left their username in the page title. It's happened dozens of times since April. I don't know why they think these articles are ready. If you look at the comment below this, I'm being asked why we shouldn't replace an existing article with a student article. Not going to happen! But I also have seen great student-written articles which only need a little polishing to be main space ready. But that is probably 5% of what I see from students. I just hope instructors aren't implying to their students that they will get a better grade if they move their articles into main space because that is just not true.

We're getting to the end of the school term so it should ease up. And I have to work on my patience. I really admire our WMF Ed folks who act as liaisons with course instructors and students. I messaged one today about a student who received an indefinite block because of continued copyright violations. At this point, I just don't think some students pay attention to messages on their User Talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Autonomism

Hi Liz, I noticed that you removed the revisions of @Miamiheat12 from Jewish autonomism and returned them to his Sandbox. Can you explain why you think it's not yet ready for the main space? It would be helpful for the student to have more detailed feedback so he can correct his draft—many thanks for your help. @Brianda (Wiki Ed) Dolly City (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dolly City,

Well, first, the student moved their article to Miamiheat12/Jewish Autonomism which is not the correct title for an article, it is a move mistake. So, I moved it back. Secondly, we have a 17 year old article on Jewish Autonomism and we are not going to delete it in favor of a student project. They should have worked on a subject that we didn't already have a well-established article on. At best, they can work to include some of the better, referenced content from their page into the existing article.

But mostly I'm seeing terrible student pages being moved in to main space which are not in any condition to be in the encyclopedia. They usually still have sandbox tags on them and they aren't given decent article titles. What is acceptable for a student paper may not meet Wikipedia's standards. Our regular editors submit their drafts to Articles for Creation to get an experiened editor to review their work. I encourage students to make use of AFC so that their articles aren't deleted as soon as they are moved into main space.

If you have questions about Wikipedia policies and practices, I encourage you to take them to the Teahouse where experienced editors and admin can offer you advice and a second opinion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for the quick response. I instructed the student to integrate his edits into the existing article instead of trying to replace it. Nonetheless, this "17 years old article" has been graded Start Class on both WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Politics. @miamiheat12's article significantly expands it and is based on various recent scholarly contributions, as well as primary sources. It also includes 29 citations compared to exactly THREE in the original article (quantity isn't everything, but it is something). I am sure the student's article still requires revisions, but I don't understand the eagerness to toss someone's serious work with no real explanation (Beyond the "move mistake" and the mere fact that the article is 17 years old, I mean) Dolly City (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here. User:Dolly City - I will add to Liz's comments that many students don't understand Articles for Creation. Many students and too many instructors think that it can be used as a process to submit a draft article to replace an existing article. That isn't how the process works. Only drafts on new topics should be submitted to AFC. If there is already an article, which may be a stub, it can be expanded or changed or replaced by normal editing. Many editors and instructors seem to think that replacements for articles can be submitted via AFC. They are just mistaken. I think that students need better orientation as to how Wikipedua world, so as not to waste their time and our time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for administrative assistance regarding harassment/uncivil conduct from user

@Liz,

I am a fairly active user here on Wikipedia, and I was redirected to your page per "recently active administrators" tab for dealing with harassment from a user that had apparently gotten irritated when I sent them a template warning regarding an edit they did in which they removed a cited music genre on the basis of their opinion/original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia's rules.

He removed the template warning, calling it "rude" and warned to not template him. I then messaged him about being kind, and then the user began using profanities towards me. He persisted with this aggressive behavior even after a generally positive and understanding response.

I've looked at their history in the past and the user appears to been very aggressive in the past and has been warned on behavior before. I will share a link to the issue at the user's talk page so you can consider any actions to be taken if any are warranted.

Link to aggressive exchange

I look forward to your response and I appreciate any help on resolving this dispute. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on some kind of genre warrior crusade, which is bound to irritate music fans. Just because some random website calls Patti Smith "punk rock" or "heavy metal" doesn't make it so. Note that I have not edit warred over this. As for "harassment", you're the one who keeps posting unwanted templates on my page, not the other way round. I made it very clear the first time that I don't appreciate this. So leave me the hell alone. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that Robert Christgau's critic page for music and Rolling Stone are a bit more in regard to reputation than being "random" websites. I acknowledge that you have NOT edit warred over this, but it is my perception and impression that I did not edit war with you. I apologize if you received that impression.

It is in my best interest to use Twinkle reply templates when warranted, i.e. your edit that started this. In your edit, you removed content because you personally disagreed with the cited material, and used your own opinion to justify your edit, "As a punk rocker I declare that site to be crap. It's not punk, it's just tock," being your reason. This reason is based on your original research/thought, which goes against Wikipedia's rules as linked here, since you essentially cited yourself.

Just because you view the template edit to "rude" doesn't mean it was meant with rude intent. I never meant to provide a rude or aggressive intent with my template replies through Twinkle, which prompted this comment here discussing why I made those comments after you told me to "fuck off" and called me a "dickhead."

My claim of harassment is warranted because of you werenot being civil at all towards me in resolving this dispute, as mentioned earlier, telling me to "fuck off" on multiple occasions and calling me a "dickhead." It is a bit concerning that this is the behavior you have expressed towards me, despite having the Don't be a dick rule on your main user page.

--AppalachianCentrist (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just can't drop the WP:STICK can you? Like most experienced editors I hate people posting templates on my page per WP:DTR. The template was completely unnecessary and my dismissal of it was appropriate. But you still came at me and at me with successive templates, and now you're trying to get your favorite admin involved. And you still have the nerve to accuse me of "harassment"? Just go away, I have no desire to interact with you. LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Icebreakers of West Germany

Thanks for the notification that the Category:Icebreakers of West Germany had been nominated for deletion. What had happened was that the category had been incorrectly emptied. I've now corrected that. Can I remove the deletion template? Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mjroots,

This is sadly not uncommon. And, unfortunately, sometimes it's some of our veteran editors who choose to empty out a category so it gets tagged for deletion. I post notices on User talk pages but I find that they are usually not taken seriously by experienced editors. In this case, I reverted the edits that placed the CSD C1 tag and also removed the parent category. All should be fine now. It could use more categories but there may only be one that is appropriate.

By the way, last year, I discovered a script that shows you what pages have been added or removed from a category and which editor is responsible for that addition or removal. I wish this had existed years ago! But it is helpful if you suspect a category has been emptied out of process. Also, we have a real problem with editors emptying out categories that are currently being discussed at CFD. This behavior is a real concern since most editors do not have categories on their Watchlists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Deletion from October

Hello, I had a couple articles speedily deleted by you on or around October 11, 2022, mostly under the G5 criterion, due to the fact that I was blocked from the site for being a sockmaster. However, not only have I received the Standard Offer and requested the articles to be undeleted, but I believe that my articles being deleted under the G5 criterion may have been incorrect in the first place. Here's why:

G5 clearly states:

To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.

The articles in question, which were deleted once I was blocked from the site, were created well before the block occured and were in progress when I was blocked. Not only that, but I did not violate the terms of my blockage and did not partake in any article creation or editing, on this account or any others.

While G5 does have a specific clause pertaining to sockpuppet blocks,

...any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5...

Via the sock account(s). This account is not a sock. This was the main account in the investigation, the sockmaster, and not only that but all articles which were speedily deleted, were created before any of my accounts were blocked.

Therefore, all laid out I do believe that each deletion which was filed against an article I have created after I was blocked, is invalid and should be reconsidered. Please check the active RfU and weigh in, as the other administrators are unwilling to do so without your input. WhichUser AmI 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, if you'd like to just continue deleting hundreds of articles instead of actually taking part in the discussions you have involved yourself in, then I can just open a review and have them undeleted whether you comment on your past actions or not. Thanks for participating. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for New Hampshire Administration Division

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Hampshire Administration Division. 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. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for New Hampshire Corporation Division

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Hampshire Corporation Division. 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. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for New Hampshire Division of Archives and Records Management

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Hampshire Division of Archives and Records Management. 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. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for New Hampshire Division of Uniform Commercial Code

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Hampshire Division of Uniform Commercial Code. 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. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for New Hampshire Division of Elections

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Hampshire Division of Elections. 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. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for New Hampshire Division of Vital Records Administration

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Hampshire Division of Vital Records Administration. 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. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:Fatwire

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Fatwire. 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. WhichUser AmI 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petition Not To Delete Article On Restlezz

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (This Article should not be deleted because it meets the Standards on Wikipedia guidelines on notability from https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GNG&redirect=no Reliable Sources, the citations used in the Subject Article are from reliable sources, The Source, All Hiphop Earmilk, Guardian, and Tribune Online these are reliable sources as said in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources )

Significant Coverage The subject has had significant coverage you can look over the citations he was on an interview with Earmilk a Reliable trusted source for Wikipedia on music-related subjects.

Reliable Wikipedia already listed these sources as reliable so the citations from these sources were used in the article.

Sources and it's not from a single source it's from multiple sources, not just one and they all meet Wikipedia standards for neutrality and reliability.

Independent of the subject The sources used for citations are independent of the subject as you can use they are from Major Newspapers publication that can't sell their reputation because of a subject.

As you can see the Subject Restlezz meets all the standards for Wikipedia neutrality and notability as stated in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Talking About Notability the subject has a Knowledge Panel Generated by Google Knowledge Panels cant be bought or created it's autogenerated when an entity is a public figure that is well known.

Thanks for your help in helping the community grow its in your hands now I hope you consider my petition and see the reasons why the subject article should not be deleted. Digitalageohio (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hello, I think that you are administrator.

Can I ask a favor of you?

If you have spare time, Can you participate in below discussion?
Spartan_3000 Discussion

Topic is about South Korean military unit. Even though you are not good at military field.

It's OK. Because issue of discussion is very simple.

South Korean press's reliable sources vs Western press's reliable sources. It's a matter of choice.

Anyway, Thanks! Footwiks (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Professional boxing userpage protection

Hi! I'm asking on behalf of User:Professional boxing for unprotection of their userpage, which was protected by you. You protected it because it was repeatedly recreated with no user with that name, but there is now a user with this name and they cannot edit their own user page (see m:Special:Diff/25029838). Best, — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who re-created it and why? Professional boxing (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I still get a quick recap on why people created this page before I joined Wikipedia? Professional boxing (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common for new editors to move their articles from their sandboxes to User:Article name instead of Draft:Article name or Article name. But it's rare for this to happen repeatedly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chanakya College of Management

An AFD that you have marked as soft delete is still a live article. There are no entries in the deletion log and no WP:REFUND requests. Would you mind deleting it? Heart ^(talk) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HeartGlow30797,

The AFD wasn't set up so that closure of the discussion deleted both articles. This is very common in bundled nominations. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Thanks for undoing my redirect to 6–3–3. Tony (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD

Just a heads up that I've undeleted Transportation and Communications in Mexico, as I had previously contested the PROD. I need to look further into it when I have a bit more time, but it seems that in the past it was split into two separate articles, and therefore may need to be retained for history and attribution purposes. Once I've worked out what happened, I'll add the necessary templates and possinbly carry out a history merge to fix any cut-and-paste moves that may have taken place. — Voice of Clam (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Voice of Clam,

Thank you for looking into this. That disambiguation page had quite a page history. I think it will be safe now that you have restored it (appropriately so) as the attribution issues would come up in any AFD. I appreciate you noticing mhy error and fixing it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{copied}} to the relevant talk pages. When I have time, I may look at doing a history merge, after which the DAB page could be deleted as per original PROD. — Voice of Clam (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You Got Mail!!!!!!! VWebre/Carnival Article Deleted

Vrwebre (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Hi Liz, I was wondering why was my article on Mardi Gras/Carnival deleted at 07:42 on May 17, 2023. That was a group project that was for my Information Literacy class at the University of New Orleans and consisted of a year long worth of hard work and research between me and my peers. This is our first times every editing and publishing so some errors may have occurred. I will need the article for a final grade and if not I will fail. Anyway I could get it undeleted by you? I did realize I utilized copyrighted pictures on accident but the info is all non-plagiarised and fully cited. Vrwebre (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrwebre: It still exists. It was moved to a better place: Draft:Vrwebre/Carnival. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vrwebre,

Thank you, UtherSRG, yes, Vrwebre, you moved it to an inappropriate page title so I moved it to Draft space. You should submit it to Articles for Creation for review to lessen the chances that it will be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Roughstock Series

Good day to you. I noticed today in my Watchlist the following changes: Apparently, the article "Professional Roughstock Series" has been deleted recently. And about other five articles have been modified to accommodate removing the links to it. This is my first notification of any of these actions. I have either created some of these articles or made significant contributions to them. I can't see the article, obviously, to decide if I want to take any action. Could you let me view it please? Thanks! Have a great rest of your day! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) p.s. If there is an AFD page, please link it. thx! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Critchfield.

See the discussion on WP:AFCHD. She meets WP:NPOL (the position she has is elected statewide in Idaho) and the original creator has (at my request) added a secondary reference. If you think there is a need for additional secondary references, let me know, I'll request it from original creator. I'd add them myself, but I'm a reviewer there. Naraht (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Burger 2

I know I requested a speedy delete once on a page [1], I was getting ready to move to get rid of the redirect, did I click the wrong option than? I submitted the article for review, but seems to be ready as the film is now in production as I was just going to by pass that process. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

News and notes: Golden parachutes: Record severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

In the media: History, propaganda and censorship

Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"

Recent research: Create or curate, cooperate or compete? Game theory for Wikipedia editors

Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles

Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs

WikiProject report: Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little help needed

Hello Liz, hope you're doing well. I'm a partially blocked user who is trying to get my block lifted. I have made several unblock requests which were denied in the past. Although my recent unblock request denied reason was something that I could not comprehend.

Yamla, the admin who has blocked two of my requests recently gave a denied reason that seem to be a bit sarcastic and mockery. I'm not sure what to do, I tried asking questions as to what my unblock requests actually need?

There has been no answer from him yet. I really want to contribute back to this community. But on the other hand, I don't want to give nonsense unblock requests and have my talk page access revoke too.

I hope you can help me guide in the right way as to what I should do next? I'm just stuck at this point.

Thank you Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 22:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

New partner:
- Perlego
Library access tips and tricks
Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other editor, was already notified, weeks ago

Howdy. Presuming you're pointing to the IIHF World Championship & IIHF Women's World Championship pages? The other editor was pinged on that matter, nearly two weeks ago, at WP:HOCKEY. AFAIK, we haven't heard from the other editor (on the topic-in-question) since. Therefore, I had to assume they were no longer interested & had moved on. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GoodDay,

I don't recall the exact pages, I just look at the Move log daily and saw that Hey man im josh changed a lot of sports events to lower case ("final") about a week ago and then today you changed them all back to upperclass ("Final"). I assumed you found the articles that needed to be changed by looking at his editor logs so I was hoping you would contact him and discuss the changes. I don't think Josh has any involvement with that WikiProject discussion or hockey. Sorry I wasn't more specific in my comment to you but I thought you would know exactly what I was referring to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, was made aware of objections to his unilateral page moves, about two weeks ago. Now, an RM on the matter (which Hey man, should've done in April 2023) has been opened up. I'd recommend that you advise Hey man, to go the RM route, in future. If he's planning on moving numerous related-pages :) GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warring at Margham

Hi Liz. I don't want to go to ANI, it's not a great place to be - but one of the articles on my watch, Margham is constantly being blanked by an editor who's replacing the content with virtually unsourced stuff about a 10-house village and nixing the intended subject of the article, the more notable oilfield. Apart from creating a slew of citation errors around the place, having been warned for that, we're now using IPs to continue edit warring - and reverting the changes will undoubtedly have me in similar territory, too. I've tried dialogue but there ain't no engagement on offer. Help? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's worse than I thought. The editor has a copy of a Dubai Statistics Centre PDF and is banging in new articles about a whole rake of dubious places such as Al O'shoosh and Al Meryal (duplicated as Mereiyeel) naming them as 'communities' while they're actually desert areas, using book references that don't hold up the article, captioning pictures as being of the place when they're not (the Mereiyeel article being one example) and generally introducing redlinks and citation errors all over the place. As it happens, there are already existing pages for some of them (Al-Ashoosh, a little like Margham, is notable as an archaeological site but is otherwise a subdivision of desert on a map) - as well as dubious place names, unsourced articles and constant errors, we're also socking, posting both as Jad Krimeed and 94.207.250.234. The clean-up is too much for me to contemplate already - and it's still going on... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. Bbb23 blocked. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Qi

I can't tell for sure now that is is deleted, but I suspect this was an article I WP:DEPRODDED so I'm not sure it is eligible for WP:SOFTDELETE ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kvng,

I looked at the deleted page history again and don't see any previous PROD taggings and no edits by you to the article. But, of course, as a Soft Deletion, you can request restoration if you want to work on the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine

Hi Liz,

According to this, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Elmezzi_Graduate_School_of_Molecular_Medicine, the page was deleted last year, but it appears to be still standing (if I'm reading this correctly) because someone moved a former name (of the same institution) to the new location?) They seem to be the only editor since then. Should this page still be standing or should it be deleted? Wozal (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup after article deletion?

An article I previously worked on, Conversations_(software)#See_also, now has a red See also link. Search found it was deleted and you were closer. It still exists in several articles.[2] I know in the time I wrote this I could have deleted them all manually, but isn't there a process to check and fix such things as part of a deletion, similar to cleaning up after a move? Better, a bot like I see going around changing or deleting categories? If not, should there be, and where should I suggest it? Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No response, taking it to Helpdesk, FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Zamkaft

Why was the article undeleted? You closed and then unclosed the AfD for some reason. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Festucalex,

When I was looking at the day's AFD log, I was looking at May 24th instead of May 23rd. So, I closed a number of AFDs a day too early. So, I needed to revert myself. This was just a technicality due to an error on my part, it wasn't a relisting. The AFD may very well be closed tomorrow, at its regularly scheduled time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I thought some judgement was made on the quality of the article or something. Keep up the good work, Liz! 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help out

Hey Good Morning, hope your doing all good? pls i will love you help check this article for me Draft:Mile 17 - Wikipedia. Ecobrown (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple copyright violations from new editor

Hi Liz, hope you are doing well. The new editor Naiwaar has been on a tear of editing book articles, and by edit I mean copy-pasting plot summaries from the publishers' websites wholecloth. I have removed and reverted almost all of these and left a standard template warning on their talk page but this has continued. Could you or another admin step in? I'll send another warning but they don't seem to be getting the message. Thank you! Kazamzam (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The editor in question has acknowledged the problem, and has not added any more copyright violations since. I've applied revision deletion to the copyvios, and left a welcome message with advice to take the tutorial. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for 0402臺鐵第408次車清水隧道重大鐵道事故

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 0402臺鐵第408次車清水隧道重大鐵道事故. 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) 08:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

User:@Curbon7 is accusing me of being a sock despite your verification. And I have never seen the account that he claimed I am until now. Plus there was no issue with my IP adress when making my account. I am new to Wikipedia. —- Floridamanfan (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For extra clarity, I am simply part of a twitter circle on Florida politics and they showed me how to edit Wikipedia. I never used it until recently. Floridamanfan (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Now blocked as a confirmed sock. Bad case of Déjà moo. BilCat (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Teddy Warria

I am a little puzzled as to what happened to this draft. I looked at it somewhat after midnight local time (-0400). and then went to bed. When I got up, I looked at it again, and it didn't look like it was any good, and I then looked at its history, and discovered that both it and Teddy Warria were deleted. It isn't obvious to me what happened. So my question is: Did the originator move it into article space, where A7 applies and where G11 is applied more strictly? If so, we have another case where a user who was not here constructively worked against their own selfish interests. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Fuzheado | Talk 02:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/help on NASCAR article drafts

Hi Liz,
I edit NASCAR articles and I talk page messaged you last year. You were helpful to me then so I thought I'd go to you with questions I have:

The article draft that I messaged you about last year was deleted again. I actually don't really want it back as what it is about does not exist anymore. (The Sioux Chief Showdown was a program in the ARCA Menards Series, a lower level NASCAR series, that awarded an extra championship during the season and drivers ages 15, 16 and 17 who aren't old enough to race at all tracks could win it, unlike the full season championship.) However, is it possible that I could somehow receive a copy of what the article draft looked like before it was deleted as well as the edit history? This is because I instead want to add info about the Sioux Chief Showdown into the ARCA Menards Series article. If this can only be done by bringing the article back, then that's OK and we can delete the article draft later.

Also, tonight, a user (A.lanzetta) copied and pasted another one of my article drafts (Draft:DoorDash 250 (Xfinity series)) into mainspace instead of moving it from draftspace to mainspace. As a result, the edit history was separated. The draft article was deleted soon after. When I created this article, which is about a new NASCAR Xfinity Series (second highest NASCAR series) race on the 2023 schedule, it was not ready for mainspace due to lack of sources and moved to draftspace. However, this race is now next week and I think it's time for it to go in mainspace regardless, and this user thought the same thing but failed to move the page properly. Can you fix this/get the old article draft back with the edit history and have that be moved back to mainspace? Also, another issue with this article and the similarly titled DoorDash 250 (truck series) articles is that the words in the parenthesis are not capitalized. They really should be because "Truck Series" and "Xfinity Series" are proper names (so having them lowercase looks silly too). Although in the edit history, User:MB stated that proper names aren't used as disambiguators, I think this should be an exemption- there's no other words that could really distinguish the two articles besides the racing series' names. Can this be fixed and how can it be fixed?

Lastly, there's an article, Draft:NASCAR Brasil Sprint Race, that I had created in mainspace that became a draft due to lack of sources but other users have significantly expanded to the point that IMO it's ready to be moved into mainspace. In February, someone else submitted it to go back into mainspace, but over 3 months later, nobody has acted on that request- that's a long time. Since then, an article about the series' 2023 season, 2023 NASCAR Brasil Sprint Race, has been created and it's kinda weird that that article is there without an article about the series in mainspace. I hope that you or someone else take a look and approve it/move it to mainspace.

Thank you and I hope you can help me/us NASCAR Wikipedia editors with all three of these concerns!

Cavanaughs (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Østby family

Hi, I see that you've deleted the article titled Østby family: a concise, well-sourced article on a notable subject as per Wikipedia criteria. The deletion seems to have been requested by another contributor who was dissatisfied with my removal of unsourced claims of princely titles and the like. I'm wondering why there apparently was no (announced) deletion discussion and how the article may be restored. Brox Sox (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting sandbox of socket puppet

Hello there Liz sorry to bother you. I was just wondering do you mind deleting sandbox of socket puppet user:User:LSS 2552/sandbox? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarkHorseMayhem,

Sorry for the delay in responding. This case is a bit tricky. If you look at the SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LSS 2552/Archive), User:LSS 2552 is actually the sockmaster, not a sockpuppet and they created their sandbox prior to any sockpuppet being blocked so I don't think the page is eligible for CSD G5 because it wasn't block evasion (User:Yakuzar123) when the page was created. Or it is close enough to the borderline that I don't feel comfortable deleting the page myself.

I have two suggestions: a) either tag the User page and go through WP:MFD (but you'll need a good reason for deletion) or b) go to the admin or checkuser who closed the SPI case involving LSS 2552...they will be the most familiar with the situation, who was blocked when, whether this page qualifies as block evasion, etc. They go through and delete pages based on CSD G5 all of the time and they would be a better judge of the situation than I am. Sorry I can't help you with this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea

In the media: Section 230 stands tall, WP vs. UK bill, Miss Information dissed again

Featured content: Poetry under pressure

Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "Harlan Institute" page!!!

Hi Liz,

I'm trying to figure out how to point out to someone who has deleting-power here that the "Harlan Institute" page ought to be deleted forthwith. I can't seem to find where there's a discussion of this. The page is a pure advertisement apparently created by people who work at the Institute; not only are all the sources in the page sites at the Harlan Institute's own web-site, but also, a google search on "Harlan institute" shows ten hits, all but one of which are the Harlan Institute's own web-site and social-media pages. I haven't been able to find mention of it in any mainstream journal or news-source. I posted a PROD but you removed it and pointed me to a WP page (WP:AfD) but that page has no discussion or mention of the Harlan Institute.

Where do I go to argue the case for deleting this page which if I were not dedicated to the assumption of good faith, I would call a flagrant attempt to commercialize WP into an advertising platform? I am fogged, in waters which to me are uncharted, by this. Please advise. Thank you, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in good standing are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 51 editors signed up for the month-long May Backlog Elimination Drive, and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted here.

Blitz: Sign up here for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 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 Zippybongo.

*All times and dates in this newsletter are in UTC, and may significantly vary from your local time.

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

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

help request

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia email from user "Justin Weinberg" re "Daily Nous".
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.

Thank you! Justin Weinberg (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Why did you delete my sandbox?

Good afternoon, I am new to Wikipedia and recently had my article deleted twice in a day. I have permission from the person to create this Wikipedia article as well. I am not sure why this continues to happen as I was correcting an unintentional mistake. Will you reinstate my Amaramoore/sandbox? Amaramoore (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amaramoore,

User:Amaramoore/sandbox ~~had no content~~, it was a broken redirect to Luwucifer. We remove or delete broken redirects. ~~There was nothing on the page other than a link to a deleted page~~. If you are wondering why Luwucifer was deleted, you can see which administrator deleted that page and the reason why it was deleted by looking at the pink deletion rationale at the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so quickly. Will you reinstate my Amaramoore/sandbox and the article so I can make the necessary corrections. I cannot create/redo any articles within my page. Amaramoore (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore your sandbox and remove the broken redirect link. As I said, you'll have to talk to the administrator who deleted Luwucifer and ask them about restoring it. But you'll have to make the article less promotional, it read like it was written by a fan. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of people who have popular social media accounts. You'll need to have better sources that show why the person is considered notable. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am currently speaking with Kiwi IRC to make better corrections to the article. I only require access to the original article and the sandbox. Thank you so much for your assistance. I will also contact the administrator that deleted the article initially. Amaramoore (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amaramoore, I see that my words were incorrect. There was content on this page. I didn't look into things sufficiently. If I had, I would have simply removed the broken link which is what I just did. I made a mistake here as the page appeared on a list of broken redirect pages and I acted on an assumption. My apologies to you. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note on deletion of lists under G14

Hi, Liz,

According to WP:G14, G14 also applies to pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

I see you declined three of my CSD G14 requests of lists. I have to show you this note to clarify the criteria on deletion of lists and SIAs which has been sent to EurekaLott before, see User_talk:EurekaLott#Deletion_of_SIAs_under_G14. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NmWTfs85lXusaybq,

Well, when I reviewed them, they seemed more like list articles that the standard disambiguation page that typically gets tagged for speedy deletion. You can retag them if you'd like but I'd recommend using WP:PROD instead. I think they are pretty uncontroversial deletions and using PROD won't bring up the issue for the reviewing admin on whether they are or are not a disambiguation page. I think if they are tagged again for speedy deletion, most patrolling admins will just pass on deleting them and leave them to someone else to evaluate because they seem borderline cases. That's just my suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SAPO (company)

Hi! I notice that en:SAPO (company) had an expired PROD. I asked the PT Wiki community if they knew of some additional sources about the web portal and pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Aren't there reliable sources about SAPO (the web portal)? (5jun2023) some were added to the PTwiki article. In the edit summary it seems some sourcing from Portuguese web portals was added. Do you think I'm ready to request undeletion?

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tippy (YouTuber)

I noticed that you recently deleted this page. I am not the page author, but can you please email me a copy? I plan on writing an article on a YouTuber with a similar name, and I want to check if this draft was on that YouTuber. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Pinging you to make sure you see this. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Klinger

Hi I am a fan of Jeff Klinger. I made a webpage for him and updated his wikipedia article so that it has working links. please let me know what to do with it? Mickeygray1985 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Liz, but I think I can help you. It would appear you are talking about Draft:Jeff Klinger. You need to cite reliable sources in the article to verify the added content and establish notability, otherwise the article cannot be published. If you want to know how to do this, see this guide. If you want to know what sources you can use, see here. Have a nice day, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Reventlowsgade

Hi there. I am very sad to see that my Draft:Reventlowsgade has been deleted. I was still intending to do more work on it but have been waiting for a still ongoing redesign of it to be completed to be able to use more pictures and media coverage. Os there still away that I can get access to the deleted draft= (ot was quite long and I really don't thinkt it should have been moved to draft space in the first place).?Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This user is reverting my referenced edits I ask you to stay away from my contributions before you deleted my edits for not having sources and now you revert them because it suits you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1159241449

--Jusaset (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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

Grorp (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Østby family

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Østby family. 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. Brox Sox (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brox Sox,

I think you have made a mistake here. I just deleted a page with a broken redirect. You want a deletion review of the article that it was pointed to, Østby noble family. That was deleted as it was seen as vandalism. You might pursue a deletion review about that article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi there again my bad for bothering do you mind deleting Hassan Yousefi user created again despite being moved to Draft:Hassan Yousefi, also pls warn user not to do it again., DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I didn't know under which category i should put as speedy deletion so i ask you directly mb DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarkHorseMayhem,

Well, you shouldn't go looking for a speedy deletion criteria in order to delete a draft you don't like. Only articles that fit a valid criteria should be tagged for deletion. Editors are given a lot of leeway in Draft space to create and develop articles so most of the CSD criteria that pertain to main space pages aren't valid in Draft space. One that is, is CSD G11 advertising or promotional articles. If you think that criteria fits this draft, you can tag it, ideally with Twinkle. But most times when editors find a draft that they is unacceptable, they just leave it alone and it gets deleted in six months by CSD G13, abandoned draft articles. Taking care of these abandoned drafts is how I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia. Many editors start drafts and then leave and don't return to work on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article was originally deleted because it was moved to draft space by new pages patrol user.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Hassan+Yousefi&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Hassan+Yousefi&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A10 doesn't seem to apply, but both the article and draft can't exist, one has to go. Not sure how this one falls. My gut would delete as housekeeping, as the content was already moved to draft to save it from AFD. The only other option would be to delete the draft and possibly AFD the article, but that doesn't seem to be very constructive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown Hi thanks for answer i think its best to deleted article cause its totally messy and not ready for mainspace... DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work at AFD!

Thanks for all the work you put into at AFD! In particular, thanks for helping me clean up the recent Adam Davenport AFDs, hopefully I/we got it into a good state. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Social Darwinist" and BNP userboxes

Hello, Liz. I would really appreciate your input on what should be done with the "Social Darwinist" and the BNP userboxes, per the comments posted by StrexcorpEmployee and myself at the recently closed RAC MfD. Any thoughts? — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible oversight needed over at an AfD

Hello Liz, I am sorry to bother about this, but after giving a vote on this AfD that you've been diligently relisting, I've been bludgeoned, cast aspersions, and pinged 3 times (so far) in response.

Pburka has not been constructive on the AfD, with spurious comments for keeping[3][4] and going off-topic with aspersions[5][6], including after I addressed the off-topic matter.[7]
Phil Bridger made a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES/WP:ATA#CRYSTAL vote for keeping it[8]. After my vote, he started bludgeoning my answer[9][10] including implying I'm dishonest about the sources he linked. When no one defended this accusation against me after 18 hours, he started started commenting again and pinging me, going off-topic including threatening more accusations.[11][12] In response to the last 2 diffs, I gave more detail here.

I'm trying to steer it back on topic but I'm requesting your oversight if needed. In my personal view, if the case for keeping the article are non-arguments, followed by bludgeoning and incivility in response to a detailed case for deletion, then I don't see a reason to re-list it a third time. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, just leaving you a note that I linked to this thread: here. - jc37 00:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Elizondo

I want to know why did you remove the deletion template from the Laura Elizondo article? In the Spanish Wikipedia it was deleted several times and now it is protected against recreation, therefore, if it does not exist in the Spanish Wikipedia, I consider that it should also be deleted in English, since it has nothing relevant. Sorry I don't speak English perfectly, it's not my native language, and I created this account on the Spanish Wikipedia. I await your response about your action to remove the delete template. Pelon Pelonete (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing CSD tag

Hello! Can you explain, please? The user tried to give 43rd (Howitzer) Brigade Royal Field Artillery a different title by copying its content and pasting into 43rd (Howitzer) Brigade, Royal Field Artillery. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6: for cut-and-paste page moves that need to be temporarily deleted to make room for a clean page move. Laxeril (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another administrator has already taken care of the deletion. However, if you don't mind, could you kindly provide some insights into your decision to remove the CSD tag? I would greatly appreciate it since I'm still learning my way around here. Laxeril (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Applause Store

Hello, Liz. I see you deleted Draft:Applause Store; could you please restore it to User:Launchballer/Applause Store because I'm satisfied that they meet WP:GNG and I'd like to see if there's anything useful in there? Thank you. --Laun chba ller 08:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Launchballer,

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling table Y/Doc

Hey,
This afternoon I made a template, my first on the English Wikipedia, and I had trouble, or better said, I could not find a proper way to put the documentation in. I thought I had found the correct way and I was filling the page but then when I tried to so the result, I got the message you deleted it. I am not to glad about it, for in the process finding what had happened and how to react I also lost de text I already head made. :(. Never the less I will try again, hoping for a longer lasting result.

PS: It took me three attempts to discover the single line under the static part of the deletion log page. Maybe the colour or its background could be changed so is stands out more clearly.

T.vanschaik (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T.vanschaik,

This page was clearly not an article and didn't belong in the main space of the project. The Teahouse is a great place to go with questions like "Which namespace does this page belong in?" I can restore the page and move it to your User space until you figure that out. You can also go look over WP:TFD where templates are discussed and approach one of the participating editors who frequent that forum and know more about templates than myself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proper classification of Speedy Deletion of Ukrainian_Academy_of_Sciences_(non-governmental_organization)

Thank you for pointing out the classification requirement for Speedy Deletion of Ukrainian_Academy_of_Sciences_(non-governmental_organization). I have now indicated "Request for speedy deletion with the proper classification. A7. No indication of importance (organizations)" . What is even more surprising to me, is that the creator of the page provides a statement of UN-importance, namely, the article contains the following quote: "the public organization "UAN" has no known scientific achievements." ! Danko Georgiev (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:MR

Hi @Liz, I saw that you removed the CSD G4 tag because: G4 doesn't apply to Draft space, editors can try to write a new draft and submit it to AFC.
Before this ends like last time, I decided to come here and explain my nomination. Before I nominated the draft I read WP:CSD#G4 and as you probably know it says: It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). Since the current draft is a one-to-one copy of the deleted article I assumed that content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy) did not apply. Nobody (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Craxy - submitted for... re-review? :)

Hi Liz! Firstly I'd like to thank yourself and the other editors who gave me valuable feedback on my first-ever article on Wikipedia. Using Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources and a lot of discussion with @BoyTheKingCanDance (who has been amazingly helpful, I must add!), I've managed to get the article to what I feel is a submittable state.

As the person who initially moved the article to draft state, would you be able to give this a once-over and advise on whether you feel it's good enough for mainspace now? Any additional feedback you might have would also be appreciated! Loony BoB (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Malhotra (2nd nomination)

Hi! To answer your question, it looks like @JzG: dropped it to confirmed in 2020. I've split the difference between that and @The Bushranger:'s 2017 SALTing and made it e/c in light of the consensus that he's still not notable. Ping me if you (collectively) have any issues with that decision. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs a trim. Pinging @Abecedare, who I think is watching here anyway per the parallel conversation on my Talk. Thanks for flagging it (and hi!) Star Mississippi 16:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a revamp, as an editor had noted on the talkpage 8 years back. More of the descriptive stuff; fewer lists and random sections. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any experienced editors who edits articles related to Indian corporations. The area usually attracts edits by inexperienced editors who add tidbids without looking at the article as a whole, or UPEs promoting companies of borderline notability. Abecedare (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improve article

Hi, Liz. I would like to improve this article. Could you please restore it in my Draft space? –MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 05:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Owais Al Qarni,

Done Please do not make a few cosmetic changes and then move it back into main space or it will be deleted as a CSD G4. It would help to run it by an AFC reviewer first to make sure that the concerns that were brought up in the AFD have been addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of a recent deletion you closed

Hi, I noticed you recently closed my nomination for deletion of Daryush Shokof as a delete for that article and that article only. However, I asked for a deletion of all articles related to him. I'm not mad at you, but I think it would be a waste of time for me and everyone else involved if I nominated everything for deletion. Is it possible for you to change the outcome retroactively? Thanks! RteeeeKed 💬📖 17:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RteeeeKed,

This was not a bundled nomination (listing more than one article), it was a discussion about this article only. That's what participants reviewed and expressed their opinion on. If you want other articles considered, you have to list them at the same time (there are instructions at WP:AFD on how to do this) or make addition AFD nominations. Considering this outcome was unanimous, I don't think it would be a waste of time on your part if the other articles were similar to this one.

I can see what you mean about promotion though, when I closed this discussion and unlinked or deleted mentions of Daryush Shokof's name in other articles, I think he had been added to about 60 other articles and lists. So, some person or people went to great effort to add his name to a lot of other articles on a wide array of different subjects. I kept his name added to cast lists (which is what I do with actors) but I believe his name was removed from most of the other lists it was added to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will do. Thanks! RteeeeKed 💬📖 18:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the rabbit hole goes deeper than I thought. There are a whole lot of pages for actors who have appeared in Daryush's films. Do I need to nominate all of them? RteeeeKed 💬📖 18:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, as an aside, if the page creator has left and is no longer active, it can be easier to use Proposed Deletion than make an AFD nomination but PROD'd articles can always be restored while it is much more difficult to restore or recreate articles deleted through AFD. And you can try CSD speedy deletion if the basis is that the articles are purely promotional. This works best on newly created articles, many admins don't like using speedy deletion on articles that have been around for years.

My only other advice is if you find a certain group of editors who are focused on creating promotional articles, it can be worth the time to create an Sockpuppet Investigation but this does take time. If they are found to be sockpuppets or paid editors, this can be a more permanent solution. However, I've noticed that some paid editors create a new account to create one article and once it is in main space, they abandon the account and create a new one for the next article assignment. Thanks for fighting the good fight! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about doing some WP:BEFORE before these nominations? Alvaldi (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting AfDs

Hello Liz, thank you for handling the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest. In your closer statement, you gave me some advice: Closer statement: This was actually a time-consuming AFD to close as each article had to be handled individually. In future bundled nominations, please follow AFD guidelines on formatting additional articles so that closing the discussion takes care of not only the primary article but all other articles included in the nomination. Thank you. I'd like to take this advice on board. I'm still relatively new to AfDs, and this is one of the things I don't understand well yet. How could I do this better? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, I did follow the WP:BUNDLE guideline V. namely:

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:
:{{la|related article 1}}
:{{la|related article 2}}

But I noticed that some users didn't see that I co-nominated Comparison of the Turkic states, and they only !voted or commented on the primary article List of Turkic dynasties and countries. So I boldened it, and made a comment about it to raise participants' awareness that this was a bundle of 2 articles. That seemed to work, and people !voted or commented on both. That's why I did the same at the Tyumen Oblast AfD, and again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states. How did this cause a time-consuming problem for you (sorry about that!), and how could I do it better in the future while still making clear to participants it's a bundle, and not just about 1 article? E.g. in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries, I only boldened the sentence I am nominating the following pages:, but I'm not sure if this fixes the issue for closers. Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, did I format it properly this time? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying Categories prior to CFD Closure

Hi Liz, The Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates A-G conversation really caught me off guard because WP:AGF is being completely disregarded on what is a pretty mundane nomination. I almost didn't notice your comment that categories were being emptied prior to the nomination being closed.

As a regular contributor to CFD, I'm opposed to that happening but I don't know what action to take there or other times you've raised the issue. If I see, I'm certainly willing to tag that user's talk page to fix and start warnings etc. but I haven't seen it.

I don't know if you can answer this here, but is the behavior a single editor or the same group of editors? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RevelationDirect,

It's tricky. I see the emptied categories each day on the Empty Categories list and I try to mention it at the CFD involved and occasionally mention which editor is emptying them as there is a script that will now tell you about recent moves in and out of categories. Sometimes it is the nominator but other times it's an editor who hasn't even participated in the CFD discussion. But it drives me mad that people can't wait until the CFD discussion is closed before they start emptying categories, especially because there's a bot that can handle that after a decision has been made.

The biggest problem is that. for the most part, the editors emptying categories "out of process" are editors who work a lot with categories who just think they know better and that the rules don't apply to them because they are so knowledgeable about categories. And while this emptying is discouraged, it isn't a blockable offense. So, I don't really know of a solution besides applying peer pressure by pointing out their behavior in a public forum like a CFD discussion. So far though, I'm not sure if my scolding has had any effect. But thanks for your offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert (who is banned from cfd discussions) was the main emptier/upmerger of categories he created; why he did not wait for the bot I have no idea. A category with 1 member can easily be emptied in-process if the member is not valid: eg this edit emptied Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines expatriate sportspeople in Japan (although he was an expatriate in Japan in 2012, becoming an immigrant in 2020). Many of these expatriate/emigrant/descent categorisations are highly dubious, based on a hasty reading of the article, surmise, guesswork etc, and so a 1-member category is often founded on sand. (It was a mundane nom, following on from previous smaller uncontroversial mundane noms. I agree about AGF.) Oculi (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello miss liz

I have removed the copy righted content on Sindhi traditions and rituals you can check, so can you kindly remove the copyright template. Thanks. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AngelicDevil29,

Please do not do any more "borrowing" of content. Doing this repeatedly can result in an indefinite block, copyright violations are taken very seriously on Wikipedia.

Also, this is becoming a huge, oversized article. Do not be surprised if another editor comes in and cuts down its size. It is much bigger than articles on very notable subjects and events. You might want to trim it yourself before another editor comes in and does it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, liz, i not copy any content now, but i guess i can get idea and write it in my own words, also i will trim the article,the article is still in progress, its not completed yet, i probably have to add more content and citations. Thanks. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daryush Shokof

Hi Liz, I was hoping that you could restore the article Daryush Shokof to draft for me. You deleted it on 13 June as it lacked sources to pass WP:GNG (which was the right call IMO given the discussion). I didn't participate in the discussion and only became aware of it through another AfD. Since then I've found multiple sources of SIGCOV that were not mentioned in the AfD which sparked my interest in reworking the article. Alvaldi (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, any chance of getting this restored to draft? Alvaldi (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the CSD tag on Vårberg Tunnel Rail Station

Hi Liz! Hope all is well. I saw that you removed my CSD tag on the aforementioned page with the edit summary "Removing CSD tag, I don't see how you can claim a sockpuppet created this page. Maybe you are referring to the target article." and just wanted to explain why I had added the tag. The page history is very weird and probably precludes a WP:G5 deletion, but my rationale for adding the tag was that Southwest Place who is a sock of sockmaster Linde Place moved the page from Vårberg metro station to Vårberg Tunnel Rail Station here on 31 May 2020 which is after Linde Place was banned, so I thought it might be G5 eligible because the redirect was created by a sock of a blocked account after the initial account had been blocked via moving the page to that title, but it seems that the sock's move isn't in the redirect's history because Dicklyon who reversed the undiscussed move is credited as the page creator. I'm completely fine though if the page doesn't have a CSD tag added back or anything of the like. It was already at RfD before I added the tag and seems to be heading towards a delete regardless. I mostly wanted to show that I wasn't accidentally saying that Dicklyon, a very helpful editor, is a sock or blocked, which I realized my CSD tag could have been implying. Have a great rest of your day! Cheers! TartarTorte 13:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Liz,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Helping at AFD

Hey Liz. I saw your message at my RFA about needing more closers at AFD. Got any recommendations for AFD closer tutorials/tips I could read? Might be an area I can ease into and help out in a bit after I get up to speed. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Move and Delete article

Hi Liz! I sent you an e-mail. thanks for everything you did to me. goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalicoo (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gastón Reyno

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gastón Reyno. 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. JTtheOG (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the discussion of an AfD

Hello, and thank you once again for your comments to improve my editing skills. I would like to ask you about the discussion of Fancade. There was a relist on 17 June to generate a clearer consensus, after that there was only one additional weak keep on June 18 that also states: If more references don't appear, I would support a re-nomination or merge discussion at a later time. Since there were only proposals for weak keep (and one to delete), most comments were actually bordeline, but the discussion closed one day later (relisted on June 18 and closed on June 19). I think it might be better to keep the discussion open for more time, since there was only one additional comment which was actually a bordeline proposal and one day after the relist with one proposal, the discussion was closed. Let me know if you think it might be re-opened, thank you. Chiserc (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing

In the media: English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia

Featured content: Content, featured

Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HNLMS Triton

I see that you recently deleted a page by this title on the grounds that it was an unneeded dab page. I did not see the page before it was deleted but I suspect it was not a dab page but a Set Index list page which performs a different purpose and can feature only one or even no blue links with the rest being red links. If so can you please restore it Lyndaship (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 320 or so emigrant categories

I have gone though all my edits since sometime Friday are made sure none of them emptied a category currently under discussion. I still think no evil of these cases are good fits for the categories under discussion, but I am trying to avoid emptying categories out of place. When we have thousands of categories with one entry, this leads to a situation where editing even egregious mistakes can require way too much discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

Hiya. As a member of this group, could I trouble you perhaps to have a quick review here? (Relative to RD2 and RD3). I'll consider opening PP myself separately. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guliolopez,

Done I've also protected the page for a few days since it seems like the same editor returning on different IP accounts. Let me know if you become a target on any other articles. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon for those who revert vandals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. And, indeed, not first rodeo. Guliolopez (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page Daria Ramirez

Hello! I’m an editor trying to add Philippines-related topics on English wiki. I was alerted to the fact that you deleted a page on one of our veteran actresses citing source problems. I’d like to ask where I can find the final version before it was deleted and see what I could salvage should I find the time to recreate the article with better parameters. Thank you for your understanding. Borgenland (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borgenland,

Can you provide a link to the page you are concerned about? Then I can see why it was deleted and if there is anything that can be done about that. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s @ Daria Ramirez. Borgenland (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borgenland,

Oh, that helps a lot. I wasn't sure whether it was a draft article or the exact title. That page was deleted as a Proposed deletion which can be restored upon request. So, I see two options: I can restore it to main space but the editor who tagged it for deletion could take it to Articles for Deletion for further review. If it is deleted through AFD, it is much more difficult to restore. Or since you are talking about working on the content, I could restore it to your User space or Draft space where it would be relatively safe for you to work on improving the article. But it's your decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think draft space is better since I might not be able to challenge a potentially renewed AFD proposal immediately for now and also since it’s currently night time in my timezone. Thanks again for your help! Borgenland (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and...

Hi Liz! I did hang around for a bit to see if you were going to revert as part of your test, but after a while I guessed that maybe you'd simply forgotten... Pity, 'cos I was hoping you were trying out some cool new anti-vandal tool! Regards, Technopat (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion on User:CastJared's talk

@Timothytyy, MarchOfTheGreyhounds, and Star Mississippi: It seems Jared has no intention of listening to any reason in this discussion as they have now slammed the door on it. Is it time to elevate this to a board? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user has received 4 messages about this topic over the course of a month with seemingly no effort to change or improve their behaviour. Recent AfD !votes argue for delete with comments like "I don't care", "this is the second nomination", indicating they don't yet have the policy knowledge to participate in these discussions.

Additionally, they are showing no signs of doing any research into the articles the articles they are discussing. They simply regurgitate consensus. I would support some further action if they are not willing to stop. Discussions can get clogged up enough without this sort of thing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely support bringing this to AN. The user isn't making a single useful contribution to AFD, and has no signs of improvement. The user even closed the discussion by himself, which shows that the user doesn't have any intentions to stop adding unconstructive "comments" in AFD discussions. Timothytyy (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for handling this on your talk, Liz, but you were the most recent one to attempt to correct their behavior, and I thought their door slamming was particularly rude. I've opened an AN. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I was offline today. I almost filed this last night when they closed the section on their Talk after Liz's note, but didn't want to file and dash. I'm not sure if it's a badly programmed LLM or what, but they were not a productive contributor. I don't think it's a language issue since it's inconsistent, but that could also be thanks to google translate. I think we'll be apologizing to @Deepfriedokra soon as I see them losing TPA and therefore in UTRS. Star Mississippi 02:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier. I swear I'm going to get better about being more timely and consistent with talk page messages. I don't blame you, UtherSRG, for going to AN at this point. When I see behavior at AFD that concerns me (and it's typically newer editors who are over eager and authoritative), I leave a talk page message. Luckily, I've frequently found that it leads the editor to take a break from AFD activity until they gain more experience which is the outcome I was looking for. But in CastJared's case, he seemed to dismiss warnings he received so I don't see that there was an alternative. Plus there were problems beyond AFD participation like harassing IP editors and posting warning notices days after an edit was made. I hope that he can move over to another project like Simple Wikipedia and develop his editing abilities and comprehension of policies and practices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DFO waves, wipes sleep from eyes, sips more coffee. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I look forward to using my standard, "does not address," boilerplate if needed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those royalty checks for my use of your boilerplates should be coming in any day now... XD - UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. You've always been a great help. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Liz. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mann Mann (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Liz, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy happy! - UtherSRG (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 years!

I actually started editing in 2007 with my previous account but I edited very irregularly and then moved to editing logged out for years until I created this account. I thought I started in July 2013 but I'll take the well wishes whenever they come my way, so thank you very much! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slowjamistan/Slowjamastan

It's been deleted before under criterion A11. Twice. And there's already a draft at Draft:Slowjamastan. We don't need two drafts for the same questionably-notable micronation. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sumanuil,

The fact is, that I put in my edit summary, is that we have dozens of articles on micronations that look just as made up as this original article did. And I think many articles that are Kept could be viewed as promotional as they are one-sided presentations on a topic. I just thought that this one should be evaluated at AFD on the basis of the fact that we have other articles on micronations. If another admin decided to delete it, that was their decision, it doesn't affect my reasoning. It's not unusual for admins to disagree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I still don't see why we need two drafts on the same topic. I'll probably just wait until one of them gets abandoned and can be legitimately deleted for that reason. The people who made the second article clearly don't know about the first one. If they had, they wouldn't have written a whole other article. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sent some days ago, you might've miss it. Nobody (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a redirect in User Talk namespace

Hi Liz! Am I allowed to blank this page? I have been trying to get rid of it forever as it contains my personal information and you said I can blank it but then when I did it was immediately reverted. What can I do about this? I should be able to at least remove the redirect as the username change is logged in the page history of my talk page. Thanks. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 16:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FatalFit,

Sorry for the delay. I've blanked the page and left an edit summary asking that the edit not be reverted. I understand why the editor chose to revert your edit but it's a small issue and I think your wishes should be respected. And, if this happens in the future, you can ask the renamer not to leave a redirect and then there won't be redirects from your former User pages to your current ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum

I noticed you deleted it G5 and I was wondering if it was anything other than a redirect to The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum, which I assume is fine if I make such a redirect now? (Actually that should maybe be moved back to Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum?) Thanks for your time. Skynxnex (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skynxnex,

This sockpuppet created quite a few redirects from titles of childrens' books to their author's article or, like this one, a redirect to The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum. Feel free to recreate any of them that you wish. You can find a list of them in my deletion log from the past few days. But thanks for checking in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

can you please fix table here, i added new leagues but so hard to keep order; content is fully correct as im familiar with it, just leagues need regional/letter order. even one i added earlier seems to vanish. local users take more time so hoping you read before. regards!

2022–23 Indian State Leagues 93.140.223.73 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 93.140.223.73,

The only tables I've worked on have been for film credits, not sports leagues so I won't be much help here. I'd see who else has edited this article or similar articles or, better yet, go to the WikiProject talk page for the sport and ask for help there. I'm sure someone who familiar with the sport can fix it up quickly for you. If all fails, go to the Teahouse and someone there will either know how to fix it or know who might know. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zfort Group

Hello, Liz. I am new here and maybe I don't understand everytning correctly, but I encountered one problem. My article about Zfort Group company constanlty deleted. The reason for this is that for some reason people consider it advertising. But my company has existed for a long time, it employs a large number of people, it is going through a war in Ukraine now and deserves to be on Wikipedia, we show that we are present in this world, several of our employees went to the front, we moved, but we still hold on . I'm not trying to sell anything or put up malicious links. We have been working since 2000 and have the same placement rights as all other similar companies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPAM_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalLogic. So I don't really see why everyone deleting my article, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey Porubai (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexey Porubai,

Well, there were a few problems with Draft:Zfort Group. The language was entirely promotional, it wasn't neutral at all. It looked like a page from the company's website, not an encyclopedic article which has to have a neutral point-of-view. Wikipedia isn't a business directory with sections about clients and the company's accomplishments. This looks like advertising. Secondly, unlike those articles you mentioned, there were no references from secondary, independent reliable sources establishing that this company is notable while the two articles you linked to had dozens of citations. If there are existing articles for companies similar to the one you write about, review those articles to see the tone they have and the citations they have listed which establish a company's notability. If there is no coverage in newspapers, books, magazines or mainstream media websites about this company, then it is likely too soon for the organization to have the notability that is required for a Wikipedia article about a business (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more information).

Also, since you refer to the business as "my company", you have a conflict-of-interest here and should not be writing this article as it is almost impossible for an owner, subject or employee to be objective about themselves or their employers. But if you want to work on an article over time to practice, I suggest you create it in your User space, like a Sandbox, and place the tag {{user sandbox}} on the page and it is less likely to be tagged for deletion.

If you have specific questions about article creation or Wikipedia policies on notability or deletion, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that answer. My interest completely coincides with the interest of the company, I have been working in it for 5 years and have never had a desire to be added to Wikipedia. And now I see that our partners are known and generally accepted, but we are not, although we do the same thing, and the only difference that I see is only in the number of employees.

You wrote that it is "not an encyclopedic article which has to have a neutral point-of-view." I'll try to rewrite it due to this style, but I though I already did this, I'll try again.

Also you mentioned a dozens of links to GlobalLogic and Epam, but most of them from their own sites, you can check it by your own. And I have at least 15 mentions about Zfort Group on goverment sites, local news sites and hight-autority niche sites about software developent, will it be enought if I make all this refferences in the new version? Alexey Porubai (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi @Liz, I hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you have any technical skills. I'm trying to fix some issues with the new articles on the Algeria Portal. I've already reached out to the creator of the robot, but they haven't been active for a year, so I'm not sure if you can help me with this or not.

Best regards Riad Salih (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Riad Salih,

I'm sorry but I don't have very strong technical skills. And regarding the page you linked to, it looks like the bot has been inactive for 12 years and, as you say, the bot operator has been away for almost a year. The only advice I can offer is to look at similar pages for other subjects to see how those pages are structured or go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and pose your question there. Unlike some talk pages, editors are generally fairly quick to respond at VPT and I think you are more likely to find knowledgeable editors there than at the Teahouse. Alternatively, you can scan over VPT and see which editors are most helpful there and approach one of them on their User talk pages. I'm sorry that I can't offer you more specific technical help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and for your advice. I appreciate your suggestions and will definitely look into posting my question on the Wikipedia Village pump (technical) page. I'm glad to know that there are knowledgeable editors who can help me with my problem.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my message.

Best regards, Riad Salih (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Atlantic League team rosters templates

You deleted Category:Current Atlantic League team rosters template on 5 March 2020 as an empty category. I'd like to recreate it to hold five existing templates. Are there any problems with my doing so? -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pemilligan,

I have restored Category:Current Atlantic League team rosters templates. Empty categories are one of the few CSD criteria deletions that are easy to restore if the only reason the category was deleted was that it was empty. Unlike categories deleted in a Categories for Discussion deletion, CSD C1 can be restored as soon as they are needed. You can either a) ask the admin who deleted the category, b) ask for it to be restored at WP:REFUND or c) just recreate it yourself. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dime Store Prophets

Hi, could you please userfy this article for me? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chubbles,

Done You can find it at User:Chubbles/Dime Store Prophets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chubbles (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DWPM

Hi, you declined the speedy on DWPM, as is indeed your prerogative, but I was surprised you did it based essentially on the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. We spend half our time at the AfC help desk telling people not to worry about what other articles may be out there, and instead only to consider what the various guidelines say.

This article cites three sources, two of which don't even mention DWPM, and a Google search finds nothing of substance – not surprising, really, considering the station hasn't even started operating yet. If this isn't speediable, then I guess I don't really know what is. But you must do as you see fit, and I'm not even asking you to change your mind, I just thought this was a curious decline. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @DoubleGrazing: That station is still under test broadcast and I submit it for review hours ago but suddenly, a user has bypassed it to move it to article space. If you mind, you may take it to WP:AFD if there are problems in it, if not, might better to leave it as is. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThisIsSeanJ: "if there are problems in it" – you mean other than inadequate referencing and complete lack of any apparent notability? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Yes. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:AFC

Hi Liz, there is a discussion concerning you at WT:AFC#Replacing a redirect. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented there. I see some many pages tagged with CSD tags every day, I didn't know a decision to remove a tag would prompt a debate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HI Liz, you didn't respond to @KylieTastic's explanation/offer so I will try again here as I have before to explain an AfC reviewer cannot move/accept a draft if there is something preventing it so a redirect must be deleted before acceptance so it will always still be in pending review status (or under review) with all the templates, etc. For AfC Db-6 requests, you do not need move the draft yourself, nor should you. All you need to do is let the reviewer know you have deleted the redirect and they will handle everything else as the acceptance script does many things automatically including cleaning up the AfC templates/comments so it is silly to require a reviewer do it manually (wastes a reviewer's time). The acceptance script launches a user interface where the title of the article is determined (this is key because if the title exists it cannot be accepted via the script) and where AfC reviewers selects WikiProjects and categories that the script adds (these are selected prior to hitting the 'accept' button). It also automatically adds AfC WikiProject to the talk page and leaves the acceptance message on the user's talk page among other things. I ask you trust us in what we are telling you for AfC Db-6 requests rather than insisting drafts need to be 'ready' (whatever your criteria is) OR as KylieTastic suggested installing the AfC script and do a couple reviews or so to get experience from an AfC reviewer's perspective. If doing reviews is something you are up for, I don't mind picking a couple examples from the feed (a decline, an accept or so) so you can experience it yourself. If you are like me, a picture is worth a thousand words. S0091 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I feel it satisfies the general notability guidelines necessary through WP:NFF. Project's filming and it has eyes on it due to it being Eastwood's swan song. I'd be more hesitant if it went from announcement and then the next phase was production without any inbetween, but with the month of casting news preceding, I felt okay it being in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 01:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rusted AutoParts,

Okay, I appreciate the explanation. I don't pay special attention to film articles except for a lot of them are PROD'd or sent to AFD. I saw the article on the Move log and the edit summary prompted me to look it over and I was surprised that there wasn't more content. But you deal with film articles regularly so I defer to your judgment. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Elizondo (second message)

I wrote you a message and you didn't feel like answering me. Why did you ignore my message that I wrote you? Please reply to this message that I wrote to you a few weeks ago. Pelon Pelonete (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted on Wikipedia Spanish, and therefore, I want that this article be deleted on Wikipedia English, for the same reasons than eswiki. --Pelon Pelonete (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I await your response carefully, because it was unpleasant that you did not respond to my previous message. By the way, you shouldn't have undone my edit on Laura Elizondo. --Pelon Pelonete (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pelon Pelonete,

I'm sorry that I missed your message here. I get a lot of activity on this talk page and it's a challenge to keep up with responding while having a lot of other duties on this project. I believe I removed the speedy deletion tag because the only deletion rationale you provided was that the article had been deleted on another Wikipedia. The Criteria for Speedy Deletion on the English Wikipedia are very specific and limited and your rationale didn't fit our CSD criteria. I encourage you to review them at WP:CSD so you can better understand the reasons why we delete articles via speedy deletion on this project. You might have more success with WP:PROD or WP:AFD but you really need a valid reason for deletion other than "this article was deleted on another Wikipedia".

If you have questions about the deletion processes on this project, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where editors can provide you with advice and support. Again, my apologies for the delay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nossa Senhora do Perpétuo Socorro Church

Regarding the revocation of CSD hoax for Draft:Nossa Senhora do Perpétuo Socorro Church. Please see User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Yeezard's_edit for background. It's been shown that every single one of their contribution has been to add materially incorrect information. A quick glace looks legit, but their cited references are either broken or the information it is trying to verify fails verification. It's happened so often that it could not be an error. The church article is clearly such example. How should we approach this? Graywalls (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Graywalls,

CSD-tagged hoaxes have to be obvious ones that an admin reviewing a tagged article can easily and quickly see. If they require investigation, then you should either PROD the article or take it to WP:AFD. In these alternative forms of deletion, you can present information on what you have discovered about Yeezard and editors that are interested can research the sources and spend more time on the article than we spend on those pages tagged for speedy deletion.

Alternatively, you could ask Ohnoitsjamie to just delete the page, presenting the argument you stated here. They have spent more time reviewing the editor's work and has a better feel for their activity than I do. I don't have time to do an investigation right now. I'm sorry not to be more help here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenema Government Hospital

Hey Liz, do you think you could start the Kenema Government Hospital wiki article? I would like to contribute to it. Thank you! 2600:1700:8660:E180:A70C:219B:A47A:EF2E (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see that it was moved to drafts, thanks!

Hello, 2600:1700:8660:E180:A70C:219B:A47A:EF2E,

Yes, I moved the page to Draft space because it would otherwise be deleted. Feel free to work on the draft article. I am very busy on the project and, unfortunately, I don't spend my time developing draft articles. You might go to articles on similar subjects and see which editors have worked on the article and approach them for help. For general help on editing on Wikipedia, please bring your questions to the Teahouse. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Manor

Hello Liz. Hope you are well. Please explain to me what is wrong with my articles Arc Manor and Larry Hodges and why are you deleting them? I have several articles written for money, or rather for a nominal fee, because this is not earnings. I found an interesting niche for myself and started writing an article in the direction that interests me, I develop other articles, find references for articles in which there are not enough of them and do other useful things for the Wikipedia project. Please help me recover my articles like Lastofthem (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not writing these articles for money or for remuneration, but because the topic of science fiction and its authors is close to me and I would like to develop this side of the Wikipedia project. I want to write about authors, books about awards, like Mike Resnick Memorial Award which for some reason was merged with article Mike Resnick. Please reconsider your decision, I really want to contribute to the project, and when my endeavors are so thwarted, my hands drop and the desire to do anything disappears. thanks in advance and have a nice day Lastofthem (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query update

Hi Liz, just so you know, I have an update to the non-existent user pages query here: quarry:query/68613 that now filters out false positives like that Hobomok account and any pages that are redirects for discussion. Hope you are well, thanks! Uhai (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uhai,

Thanks so much for letting me know. That Hobomok account was driving me crazy, I went to the administrator who FULLY protected the user page, asking them to let us delete the page or, at least, let me put a redirect on the page but my suggestion didn't go over well. Thank you for fine tuning your query. I use several of your queries on a daily basis. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol needs your help!

Hello Liz,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FountainVest Partners

Hi @Liz: You never gave me a chance to reply to this. The thing only active yesterday, and the stuff added by Cunard is the same press-releases covered above. scope_creep^Talk 09:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

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

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bbg

Issues with User:LibStar

Hi User:Liz, I recently raised as an issue to User:LibStar that they have been failing to notify me when nominating articles i’ve created for deletion. I notice you have also reminded them to notify in the case of PRODs. He responded by removing my message and telling me not to post on his talk page. I’m concerned that my work is being set up to disappear without having an opportunity to rectify any attendant issues. Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

News and notes: Online Safety Bill: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK launch open letter

Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia

In the media: Journo proposes mass Wiki dox, sponsored articles on Fandom, Section 230 discussed

Featured content: Incensed

Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?

Humour: United Nations dispatches peacekeeping force to Wikipedia policy discussions

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the Deletion process you done for the page "Vishnu Venu'

Hi Liz,

We hope you havn't detailed knowledge about the people from Southern Part (Kerala) Of India. The page "Vishnu Venu" is about a Nationally acclaimed person from India who made movies that won National Awards and State awards. Please do the Undo/Undeletion process of the same page and we can improve the page with more details with the help of lots of articles about the same person. Please don't assume and don't do this prejudice activities and that may lead to make people to hate this platform.

I hope you can Undertsand..

Regards,

Kadhaas Untold Private Limited Kadhaasuntold (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Liz, saw your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mourad Badra which looks perfectly good to me, except I was told in the past that AfD cannot be closed as soft delete as if an expired PROD if a PROD was already removed on an article. Can you confirm the correct position? I am not saying anything needs to change for that closure, even if the other admin was correct. To me it seems like a perfectly reasonable close. Just pointing out a possible inconsistency. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sirfurboy🏄,

Your understanding is correct. However, that rule only applies to PRODs and this article was tagged with a BLPPROD so Soft Deletion is still an option. But I appreciate your observance and helping keep us closers honest!

I think we are doing a lot more Soft Deletions than in the past because participation in AFDs has fallen to new lows. It's not unusual to just have one person commenting in an AFD or even no participants other than the nominator. So, your participation is very much welcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. That clears that up. And thanks for the comments too, as well as your own tireless work at AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, I saw you are mostly involved in deletion process of the pages. Can you help me with something? recently I noticed some users keep creating articles about highly non-notable Iranian athletes (and celebrities in general) I follow all sports and I know who is notable and who is not. that made me suspicious and after a bit of search I found some ads online about creating wikipedia articles to make you famous. while I can't prove but I'm 100% sure some users are doing paid edits. like this guy for example. this guy User:A2004b who got banned was doing the same. (not saying they are the same person but doing the same things) so my question, is this against wikipedia rules? if yes what we should do anything to stop it? thanks in advance. Sports2021 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sports2021,

My advice, in general, is if you have suspicions about a new editor resembling a blocked account, go to the administrator who blocked the original account and make an inquiry. Often admins do some investigation prior to a block and the blocking admin will likely be more familiar with the tell-take signs that the new account might be a sockpuppet of the blocked account.

If you are seeing signs online of offers to hire people to create articles for pay, it's best to alert administrators as a group on WP:AN. It doesn't have an elaborate statement, consider it an alert to be on the lookout but provide a link to where you saw this offer. I say this because if there is money involved, there will likely be more editors popping up to write articles on the same group of subjects. There are admins who spend their time blocking vandals and sockpuppets (I don't do this much) who should be aware of this development. It's not against the rules to be a paid editor as long as it's disclosed paid editing and the editor follows the terms of use. But most paid editing goes undisclosed. There are some admins who have a good nose for what we call UPE (User:MER-C is one) so they have a better feel for it than I do. And of course, it you spot promotional articles that try to look encyclopedic but are just advertising, you can tag them for speedy deletion or nominate them at AFD.

But I'll look into the links you provided later today and see if I see anything obviously wrong. Thanks for the notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'm not saying this is the same user. I saw multiple users doing that. like this one which I nominated some of the pages his created for AFD, probably not the same person but maybe the same organization or different organization with the same job. I see online that some websites (or instagram accounts) are offering "creating wikipedia pages for you in different languages" of course in exchange for money. for example these are two ads I just found by a short search 1 and 2 (both in Persian) no problem so far but they are creating pages for unknown (or semi-unknown) athletes to make them famous. and their articles usually look OK if you don't take a very close look carefully. they add some phantom results. like Shadi Farajpour being a World Champion which is nonsense. I will tag those articles for deletion whenever I see one. but I was wondering if it needs a bigger investigation. when I saw a new user creating articles for 5-6 athletes (mostly unknown) from completely different backgrounds to me it's clear that they are paid edits. Thanks alot for your answer. Sports2021 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShadowRuby2023!

Hey Liz. Regarding your rejection of my G6, the page User:ShadowRuby2023! had been hosting content that would most likely have been deleted by U5. I decided to move the page to draftspace due to the fact that it had been submitted for AfC. Would you mind rethinking the rejection, as I believe that the content did indeed fall under the criterion "unambiguously created [...] in the incorrect namespace", hence the move? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schminnte,

You used a CSD Criteria that stated that the page had been created in error. We typically tag pages in Wikipedia space when draft articles are mistakenly moved there as CSD G6. I don't think this User page was created in error but I did blank it if that will suffice. I don't think it needs to be deleted. You can always tag the draft article for deletion if you have issues with the content of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was more the fact that it was obviously meant to be a draft page, so I thought it was the wrong namespace. I think blanking should do, I've additionally posted a userpage notice on their talk. Thank you for your time, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enric Bernat (disambiguation) (edit) speedy delete

Hello. You removed the speedy delete tag at ~~Enric Bernat~~ [edit: Enric Bernat (disambiguation)] because "it's not clear why this individual should be moved to this page instead of the other Enric Bernat." The reason for this choice is stated at the move request, which resulted in a consensus for the move and deletion. Namely, because it is the "massive PTOPIC by pageviews." Is that good enough reason for a speedy delete? SilverLocust (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paine Ellsworth has tagged it again for speedy deletion after making the page move. SilverLocust (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has reinstated the dab page with a {{One other}} template, just FYI. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gege Gatt (2nd nomination)

Hi Liz, I did make an edit that combined what appeared to be two versions of the same discussion. It seems to work for me, as I have just made a very minor edit, removing a blank line. So, I am afraid, I do not know what your issue is. -Bduke (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bduke,

Please do not be defensive. You have an edit on the page where you state that you moved content around on the page. And now instead of ONE AFD, there are TWO AFDs on the same page. I don't understand what you did and what content and headings you moved so I can't undo it. I was hoping you would know. But I will leave it for an admin who is smarter than me to fix. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I confused you. It was total mess that appeared to be two AFDs as you say. I was trying to combine them so it was a single AFD. I think I have now made it clearer that it is just a single AFD discussion. -Bduke (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mind doing me an easy IP Block for NPA and Socking?

Morning Liz. ANI’s ‘Recently Active Admins’ list says you’re up and about. Mind grabbing this IP for Socking, and NPA? Let me know if an SPI would be a good call. It’s my first NPA from a sock since my return, so I’m finally a real Wikipedian! Haha!

cheers. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MM,

Since the editor admitted to being a blocked account, I have blocked them for block evasion. But it's not a long block. So, keep your eyes open. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet as a cherry bakewell tart. Cheers Liz.

MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mundy

Hi Liz, would you mind going ahead with moving the Talk:Bill Mundy (baseball) page to Talk:Bill Mundy as a follow-up to your renaming the subject page? Much appreciated! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paine Ellsworth,

Done I don't know why the Talk page isn't moved when the article is moved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Happens to me too sometimes. Thank you so much for your help! Oh, and I was unaware of your involvement with the Enric Bernat page moves and went ahead with them, since there was a successful closed move request at Talk:Enric Bernat (businessman). Hope you're good with it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oops

I only just noticed your interaction at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Usernamekiran I had come in lower down the page and didnt see the more substantive conversation above - how long do we wait? JarrahTree 12:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JarrahTree,

Well, I'm going to wait a little while longer, maybe a few days. I can see that User:KiranBOT has been active. It's just that it takes literally seconds to create a category page and hours to populate them. I'm hoping that this was just a limited experience involving footballers and won't be repeated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding lack of civility in WP:CFD. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RevelationDirect,

Thanks for alerting me about this discussion but I'm not sure how I'm involved. I know that BHG can be a perfectionist but she is the most knowledgeable editor we have about categories and I value her experience. There is a lot to review in the case you brought to ANI but once I work through it, I might offer a comment. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the participants in the 4 listed CFD discussions and you had made several comments (although they were procedural about categories being emptied out of process). I'm new to ANI, was that the right level of notification? - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule it's deemed sufficient to only notify the subject of the discussion (in this case BrownHairedGirl herself) and not others who were only tangentially involved such as Liz or myself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Oh, I had put the template on BHG's page but thought it sounded like a template for someone tengentially involved. I don't think removing this from talk pages would be effective at this point. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)RevelationDirect, I disagree with Pppery, if I'm in peripherally involved in a discussion that has been brought to ANI, I'd rather know about it. I was just surprised to read the ANI complaint and not see myself mentioned (which is always a relief). It's a judgment call but you don't need to notify every participant in a discussion, just those who engaged in the topic under debate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried that, if I only tagged some of the people in the noms, it would look uneven. I'm going to note who I tagged in the nomination so there's not any unintentional distortions in who participates. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI question

Hey, I mostly lurk around on the various noticeboards. I have found a pretty good case of paid COI. I was wondering if you could walk me through the process of reporting it to the board.

Article

User

Thanks Salty Ducks (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salty Ducks,

If you are talking about User:Silicopt, they have disclosed on their User page that they are being compensated and, therefore, have a COI. We are primarily concerned about UPE or, undeclared paid editing (see WP:UPE). But if you think you are seeing this editor not abide by the paid editor guidelines, you can report them to WP:COIN. Please be sure to have evidence, in the form of "diffs" or links to edits, because that's the first thing that other editors will ask for and look at.

I don't have a great deal of experience at COIN so you might contact editors or admins who have been active on that noticeboard or bring your concerns to the Teahouse where there is a greater diversity of editor experience. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I will start at the Teahouse if I run into something undeclared or outright promotional in the future. I totally missed their declaration. Thanks so much for the quick reply! Salty Ducks (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2023

Good day! I just recently returned to English Wikipedia after a four month break to continue my edits at articles related to beauty pageants and at the article Miss World 2023, User @Joseatienza is still adding unreferenced, unsourced content that is also grammatically incorrect. I do not want to resort to an edit war, and I am tired of him reverting back his edit that he's been adding since February 2023. I just wanted to edit in peace and organize the articles of Miss World in tranquil. I hope you could help me, thank you! Allyriana000 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allyriana000,

I had to give you both a warning because it looked like you two have been edit-warring over the past three days. Please do not let the behavior of another editor lead to you violating policy guidelines. A dispute over one sentence on one article is not worth receiving a block. If this escalates, this could happen with you both. I'll give this article a fuller look later today but I encourage you to not let a disagreement with an editor in one article lead you from improving other articles. If you think the other editor is really doing serious damage to the project, you could take the issue to a noticeboard but attempts to get an editor blocked can often backfire. If you haven't already, I encourage you to use the article talk page to work out your differences or review Wikipedia guidelines on Dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or draftify possible?

Hi, is it still possible to draftify or userfy Teashark. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teashark (2nd nomination) per consensus. I didn't really think about it until too late, but I'd like to take a proper shot at pulling together sources and writing a better article, and it'll be easier to start from the draft. Thanks! —siro χ o 07:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siroxo,

Done I have moved the restored article to User:Siroxo/Teashark and tagged it as a User sandbox. I realize you are an experienced editor but please do not make a few cosmetic changes and then move it back into main space. I think an AFC review is appropriate for all articles that were restored after an AFD "Delete" decision or the page can be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. Good luck!

I also wanted to thank you for all of your thoughtful participation at AFDs recently. We have a dearth of active editors who participate in such a wide range of article subject discussions and you seem to often find reliable sources where other editors do not. It's appreciate especially when it leads to article improvement. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all you do... Keep it going! Volten001 ^☎ 05:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

Hello, reaching out to you again for this request both because we've talked a couple times recently, and I found you on the category of willing admins. I believe this revision falls under WP:RD2. Would really appreciate if you could take a look. Thank you once again. —siro χ o 03:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siroxo,

Done Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the IP editor with the terrible opinions has also been blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...

I don't mean to be a tattletale, but I'm getting very tired of Scope creep's hounding and even threats to continue hounding. I don't understand why we are tolerating this as a community. Just an FYI because I feel like there's nothing else I can do but make others aware of this inappropriate behavior. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Another Believer,

If you look at their User talk page, you can see I've posted several messages there recently including one about personal attacks. But it's very hard to change the behavior of longtime editors. If they ignore warning messages, then it will take a noticeboard discussion and I would guess that they have already been brought to ANI before (I don't keep track of such things any more). That's a big step to take and I'm not sure if it's important enough for you to take on. But I'll look at that AFD and see if that hounding is blatant enough to warrant me taking action. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newer AfD participant but would like to add some observations. This user in question has received 2 blocks in the past for problematic behavior on AfD:

They also have a history at ANI including:

In addition, on my talk page they left an AfC rejection notice which did not apply to me and claimed to have accidentally done in "human error" (how easy would it be for such an experienced and "senior" editor to make this kind of mistake?), and then immediately followed it with a threat of warnings. And on my request for a draft refund for an article that was deleted so that I could improve coverage, they called it "time-wasting and predatory" behavior. I see that User:Oblivy has also called them out for civility issues at least twice. - Indefensible (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The joys of WP

Thanks for cleaning up my Talk... Now I have a new fan club member, it would appear - I bunged this on the end of the ANI thread, but basically I have what appears to be a US-based IP (Virginia) - [[13]] - removing references and tagging various of my article creations - all today, 11th July. Given the previous focus on my articles, and timing, I can only assume it's the same actor, different IP... It's all disruptive - can it all be reverted? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,

I actually don't think this is the editor of the article you sent to AFD but a regular vandal who hopped on the bandwagon and is giving you a hard time. I regularly see IP vandals coming from this certain areas of Virginia (Reston and Ashburn), there is also our obscene vandal from Louisville, KY (same rude edits now for YEARS) and another IP vandalup around Redmond, WA. Then there are some from Texas who are more ideological and political in their vandalism. You'd think that a range block would keep them at bay but Checkusers honor their privacy rules and won't identify IPs as sockpuppet/vandals.

But any way, I've given this one a time out and this might give you time to undo their damage. Sorry you've become a target. If it helps, it seems like the majority of trolls have a short attention span so hopefully they won't be shadowing you forever. And remember, DENY. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the links that were removed? Seems irresponsible to just accept the word of someone who admits they are a paid pr consultant on their user page, had their 1st barnstar given to them by a sockpuppet, been accused of paid editing and is vandalizing wikipedia and causing a ton of headaches for all the editors.135.148.233.37 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the links he does use, some of the pages are like a tourism guide with links to every hotel and business in the area. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 135.148.233.37,

I don't see that Alexandermcnabb's work as a consultant has anything to do with their editing on Wikipedia. If you think there is a case to be made for a specific conflict-of-interest (and not just based on suspicions), then present a case at WP:COIN with diffs/examples. But do not shadow editors and sabotage articles they have worked on. That behavior will get you blocked no matter how many times you switch IP addresses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the links that were removed? Show me one that is sabotage. He consistently sabotages other editors.. omg.. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand we're on a reverting spree now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Afd Close

Hello,

You happen to have very recently closed an Afd as Delete, stating that users favouring this outcome "successfully refute the reliability and importance of sources brought up in this discussion." I am most sorry but I am not convinced by that assessment of yours. Some users do indeed deny the reliability or importance of sources provided, as it is very often the case when users want a page deleted at Afd venues, but that this is a successful attempt is, I am afraid, not quite as obvious as you apparently think it could be, unless you consider the mere fact of asserting something sufficient proof of it. Anyway, notwithstanding what I think of your close the discussion was only relisted once and yourself state that the discussion was at one point "close", so would you please consider relisting this Afd at least one more time? Yourself and other users quite very often do so. Am I not correct? Thank you very much in advance. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 21:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MY, OH MY!,

You are a little bitey for an editor who wants me to accommodate their request. My closures don't reflect my own opinions of what should happen with an article, I'm simply assessing the arguments presented during a discussion and drawing a conclusion. You and another editor presented four sources and I thought other editors demonstrated how they didn't provide SIGCOV to this article subject. I was persuaded by their arguments.

But it also wasn't a unanimous "vote" and I have no issues with relisting this discussion. And I'll let another admin draw their own conclusion based on the participants' opinions and sources presented and they can close this AFD. I predict that unless new information comes to light, there will be the same outcome but I leave that to the next admin who comes across this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. If i have been bitey I sincerely apologize, such was not my intent. (as for being insulting, very sorry, but no). I just wanted to make clear that the arguments in favour of Deletion are not compelling. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 22:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: you apparently edited your text and removed the word "insulting" while I was replying; I thank you for that. Again apologies if my explanation sounded feisty. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 22:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query on my userpage

Hia Liz,

You edited my userpage an hour ago asking why I was posting warnings to my user talk page. I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean? I don't see any warnings on my user talk page! Could you explain what you're seeing, please?

Best, Qcne (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qcne,

Maybe "warnings" was misworded but almost all of the messages on User talk:Qcne are from you which is unusual. User talk pages are there for other editors to come and talk to an editor about questions or concerns so normally most of the messages on them are from other users. I check out a lot of User and User talk pages because I do so much work with expiring draft articles so I was surprised to see all of the messages on yours were posted by you. It was more of a query than complaint. I just was wondering what was up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry Liz, but I just don't see what you're saying: my user talk page has a couple of messages from other users that I've replied to. I don't see lots of messages posted by me? would you mind sharing a screenshot of what you're seeing, as I am very confused! Here is a screenshot of my user talk page.. it just has five topics, each of which I've replied to? https://files.catbox.moe/wxf17t.png

Best, Qcne (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Liz, did you mean the messages at User:Qcne? It almost looks like they've spooled up some boilerplate warnings on their user page to copy/paste for future usage. Especially since you left a message at their user page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred yep, that's exactly what my userpage contains. Some quick templates that I use when on the Teahouse etc.. Is that an okay use of my user page? Qcne (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my God, {{self-trout}}. This month marks 10 years on Wikipedia with this account and I'm still making, easy-to-avoid mistakes. Thank you, C.Fred and my apologies, Qcne, for my blunder. No wonder you were saying to yourself, "What IS this editor talking about?!" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, no worries at all! :) Qcne (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion dispute

Hi, could you take a look at this? I feel we owe it to the subject, a child, to delete this immediately rather than let the AfD run its course. I trust your judgement. Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this -- the article was deleted 19 minutes after I posted this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your efficient heading allowed me to see something which needed attention immediately. Thanks. People undervalue edit summaries and headings. Yours made a difference today. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A. B.,

Sorry I didn't spot this and act faster but it looks like BusterD go to it first so thank you both for that! This was a totally inappropriate subject for an article and you were right to contact an admin, even one who is not swift at replying to messages. This AFD discussion shouldn't have lasted even one day, much less a week.

Also, A. B., I've been meaning to tell you that I appreciate you frequently responding to relisted AFD discussions. They often get overlooked but we have a handful of AFD regulars who don't just look at the most recent AFD listings and will take time to look over discussions that didn't receive much attention. Thanks for that! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was an admin 10+ years ago before getting de-sysopped for inactivity. I guess I still think like an admin -- how can I help with a tricky deletion, where are we getting stuck? I check the "AfD debates relisted 3 or more times" list periodically. There are plenty of AfDs I skip such as popular culture (I'm sort of nerdy and clueless) and AfDs from some countries where I have a hard time evaluating source reliability.

Also, after about 2 months of AfDs, I've come to regard you as the admin's admin when it comes to deletions - very thoughtful and also sort of shrewd and subtle when seeing through editors' agendas. Call it stalking, but I look at your contributions for your relistings because I think I can add more value in a wise judge's courtroom. I also seek out certain types of AfDs where I think a rush to judgement over an article's COI creation blinds participants to the underlying need for an article. I've seen $1+ billion companies nominated for deletion with articles about all their corporate actions dismissed as "WP:ROUTINE" (which of course applies to events, not people or companies).

But I digress. That's my screed and I'm sticking to it.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the news coverage, this is not the last we're hearing about this president's seventh grandchild. It appears media is brewing up a way of keeping this child's three names (and the unspoken fourth one) in the news. BusterD (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must add I look up to Liz as an example as well. BusterD (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but too far? I think I'm safe from misunderstanding in this case. They objected on their talk. I've replied. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: A contrarian recommendation from lots of spam work in my days as an admin long ago. Do not block them - they'll just go underground to a new account and make it harder to spot their articles as they emerge. Leave them unblocked and keep an eye on them.

The way to stop them is in their wallet -- go after their articles.

That said, I !voted keep at the latest AfD but usually such articles fail notability. You can still put big COI notices on a kept article. Not good for business. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong. In this particular case I chose to make the behavior look ugly and futile. It was bad behavior, obvious and poorly done. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft request for Village Capital

Hello, can you please refund the draft for this article that was recently deleted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Village_Capital so that I can try continuing to improve coverage? Thank you. - Indefensible (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Indefensible,

"Refund the draft"? Was there a draft version of this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant could you please restore the deleted article but in draft space instead of article space. I understand the consensus for AfD but would like to see about getting it up to acceptable standards. - Indefensible (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Indefensible,

Just so that you are aware, if I do restore this article to Draft space and you move it to main space without approval from an AFC reviewer, it will be deleted as a CSD G4. I want to make sure that you know that this is not a way around an AFD "Delete" decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I do not have a COI or anything with the subject, I just think it should have encyclopedic coverage. - Indefensible (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Indefensible,

Okay, I didn't mean to insult you, it's just that this thing has happened before with articles I've restored that were deleted in AFD discussions. Incidents like that are one reason that many admins wouldn't accommodate a request like yours. But you can now find the article at Draft:Village Capital. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No insult, just explaining my view. Some of the deletions are excessive and damage encyclopedic coverage in my opinion, so I will try looking for ways to improve the draft so that it can meet the standards and be accepted for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's Australia

we must bring back McDonald's Australia 675930s (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 675930s,

I don't know if we "must" but feel free to start a new draft. This article, as written, won't be coming back because it was created by a sockpuppet. We routinely delete all page creations by sockpuppets unless other editors have made significant contributions to the article. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for Talk page edit

Hi. Apologies for having posting on the (nonexistent) Talk:EnergySage. I am writing an article for said company and wanted to park a small sign about my efforts, but apparently that is not the way to go about it. Thanks. QRep2020 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:15th-century Danish women farmers‎

Hello. You have recently added a speedy delation to the above category, as well as a number of similar categories. The reason was: the categories was empty. The reason these categories are empty, is because some user has apparently removed the categories from the articles pages the category applied to. That is a method of ensuring that a category is deleted, which is banned by wikipedia. Of course, I am not accusing you for having done this: but some user apparently has, because each of these categories had plenty of article pages before. I do not know how to solve that predicament, but it is a shame, since the categories are indeed usefull. Someone has emptied them, in order to ensure that they are deleted because they are empty. I just thought I should made you aware of this. I do not have the energy to search for the pages that was removed. Who ever emptied the categories (again, I am not accusing you of this), it was indeed an ugly method, and it is sad, that the categories are deleted because of this. Aciram (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aciram,

There is a script available that shows you who has added or removed categories from a category although it only goes back about 2 or 3 days. I can't check right now but what I remember is that what was removed was "women landlords" categories for the same time period and nationality. I can get more information in an hour or two. By the way, I don't empty categories, I just tag the categories that show up on the nightly Empty categories list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I have said above: I do not accuse you of having emptied articles. I only wanted to make you aware, that someone has, in order to make you tag these categories under falsle pretenses, and that that person - whoever he/she is - has done wrong and, as far as I am aware, have broken wikipedia regulations. I repeat: I do not accuse you of this, as I have said several times: I wanted to make you aware, that someone apparently has. --Aciram (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aciram,

It looks like User:Smasongarrison removed articles and categories from these categories. If you don't want to install the script to see what pages have been removed from them, you can probably look through their contributions over the past day and see what articles and categories were affected. It might also help to have a cordial, polite discussion with them on their User talk page so you can understand why they edited as they did.

I have no opinion on whether or not these page moves were appropriate but I did want you to know that this happens very frequently, especially with editors who focus on editing categories. They often move pages around from one category to another, creating a new, slightly different category and emptying an older one. I have posted notices on talk pages asking them not to do this but it's hard to change the behavior of editors who have been on the project for many years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments:

@Liz I'm not aware of any notices you've posted asking me change how I edit categories. I genuinely don't thing the behavior you're describing accurately reflect my behavior.

@Aciram I'm happy to have a conversation about the difference between farmers and landowners. I was trying to tidy up the categories to reflect the higher level structure, as someone can own land that isn't a farm, and someone can farm without owning the land. Mason (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Mason,

I didn't say I had posted them on your talk page. But I've given them to about 6 or 7 editors who are active editing categories. I realize it's faster to empty categories rather than wait for a CFD to be discussed and closed but it's preferable to use the existing forums to seek category deletion. But, you're right, I haven't told this to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. My intent hadn't been to delete the categories, but I can see how that it looks that way. I actually tried really hard to find pages to fill the categories back up, including digging into the planters and plantation owners pages. I think that both categories are useful, just that they were accidentally nested in the deeper levels. Mason (talk) 12:50, 13 July 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. PriusGod (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PriusGod,

Thanks for letting me know. I don't check email very regularly but I'll be sure to check it tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

((done)) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poop: A Natural History of the Unmentionable

Hi, Liz. It looks like this redirect, which you G5'd, was created before the sockmaster's block? Either way, it's an r from pagemove, so either the move should be reverted or the redirect should be kept. All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just fix the 22 links at WhatLinksHere... - jc37 19:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)z[reply]

Hello, Tamzin,

I'll have to look at this but I likely will not have a problem with restoring the redirect. Of course, I should have looked at it prior to responding. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done I guess this answers a question I've had about why so few redirects created by sockpuppets are deleted via CSD G5. I noticed that the other day.

By the way, thanks for allowing me to fix my mistake, and at the same time, remind me about a policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I imagine the lack of redirect G5s is part that, and part because in most cases it's so easy to vet whether a redirect creation was prudent, so the normal G5 argument of "We shouldn't have to vet edits by people we've already shown the door" doesn't apply as strongly. Personally I only G5 redirects if I don't think they're useful or if I'm going for the scorched-Earth approach of trying to disincentivize future socking. In this case, though, it makes me wonder if redirects from pagemoves, and maybe redirects with backlinks more generally, should be an explicit G5 exception the way that in-use categories and templates are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Renfield (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Renfield (upcoming film) 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 July 13 § Renfield (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pageant editor problem (or problem editor) July 2023

Hi, I saw that you'd warned this editor about hoaxes. They don't seem to have ever communicated on a talkpage or user talkpage. I wonder if they are aware they are causing disruption. I added a note to their userpage asking for a reply, after being reverted without any explanation, and haven't gotten a response (yet). Another editor reverted them without explanation in turn, not that that really makes things any better wrt communication. Thought you might want to check up on it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you warned them about editing logged out last September, but it looks like they are still doing it, as of a few days ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bri, I'll look into it. I'll see the extent of the disruption, it might call for a short block just to get them to communicate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shaw (Georgia politician)

Liz, you mentioned that the article, "had an excessive amount of intricate detail." I'm happy to make edits if needed, if you could just give me a few suggestions about what you believe is excessive. Thanks. Brandonseigler (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brandonseigler,

Well, the article just seems very, very long for a standard biography on Wikipedia for an ordinary notable person (meaning, not the U.S. President or a multiple Academy Award winner like Meryl Streep). It's 20,030 bytes which is at least twice if not three times as large as a typical biography. Articles on the project aren't meant to be comprehensive and mention everything that happened in a person's life or every job they held (leave that for LinkedIn) but just summarize the highlights that indicate why this person is notable and has an article. I think you could substantially reduce the Political Career section to just the most outstanding postions he held or where he made the biggest contributions.

To be honest, my strengths as an editor and administrator are not in content creation but I think you could ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, where the editors specialize in copy editing and making articles more concise. I think that it is a great sign though that you responded to the tag by coming to me and asking questions. I think the important thing is that it should be you who decides what content could be removed rather than have an editor who is not familiar with the subject come along and remove large sections of content (which is typically what happens). Also, having what might seem to some editors to be a bloated article can make it vulnerable to being tagged for a deletion discussion (WP:AFD).

The important thing to keep in mind is that length of a biography doesn't reflect the notability of a person. I've seen articles on award-winning musicians that are only 2 or 3 paragraphs long. So, Bob Shaw can have a decent article that is a quarter of its current size and if it mentions, neutrally, his major achievements (as covered by reliable sources), then that would be just fine.

If you have other general questions about article creation and editing on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it and removed about 20% of the previous article. I think it is much more succinct now. Please give it another look. Brandonseigler (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brandonseigler,

Well, it's improved but it is still pretty long. But it's a start. But don't be surprised when other editors edit the article. That's the thing about moving an article into main space, it becomes available to all editors to edit. You still might request some assistance from the Guild of Copy Editors, they can be very helpful and their goal is to improve readability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished

Yikes!.

Not a promising start.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A. B.,

I am very bad about returning to User talk pages where I have placed a warning to see responses so I had not seen this. It's one of my weak spots as an administrator. I just don't keep up on my "pings".

As for this editor, I really had the best of intentions but perhaps my wording was too sharp. I've just been around the project now for 10 years and I have seen so many over-eager new editors get in above their editing ability by taking on administrative work and then get slammed down by editors who have less patience than I have. But I'm not persistent about it, I said my peace and wish this editor the best of luck. Unless they become disruptive, I won't engage. I have too much work to do here to keep track of individual editors unless they are causing damage to the project. But thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) They have been quite aggressive of late, but nothing out and out disruptive. For a fairly new user, they seem quite precocious, which leads me to think ot might not be their first rodeo. Nothing definite, but my instincts are often right on these. But instincts aren't enough to warrant a SPI, and that is how it should be. BilCat (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BilCat, when relatively new accounts lecture veteran editors about following policy, using the correct acronyms, it's a red flag for me. But I worry more about brand new editors whose first edit is on an AFD and this editor did do some editing some before discovering deletion discussions so I'm not as worried. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the PROD at The Essential Bugs Bunny

As I said in the topic. This DVD set is notable, and the tagged didn't do sufficient WP:BEFORE, or else they'd have easily found the reviews of the set (and the commentary on the contents) that were published around the time of its release. Notably, The Essential Daffy Duck has been deemed notable (and has an article), so clearly the corresponding Bugs set is also notable. oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm a sucker for a carrot-eating wise-cracker. I'll trust you to locate and add supporting sources. Give me a call if you need help. BusterD (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, oknazevad,

Thanks BusterD, I get so much help from talk page stalkers! I removed the PROD tag from the article. Good luck with in, Oknazevad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Liz. You or another adminsitrator can probably also restore File:The Essential Bugs Bunny.jpg since it was deleted per F5, most likely as a result of the prod. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Marchjuly, I am trusting your incredible knowledge of images and our policies on files and restoring this page. This is not an area of the project I am well-schooled in so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could claim my request was due to some incredible knowledge, but the file was deleted for F5 reasons and F5 is one of the things covered under WP:REFUND as a non-contentious deletion. It's essentially a side effect of the prod deletion because the file became orphaned only because the article was deleted. So, once you restored the deleted article, the reason why the file ended up deleted basically became no longer an issue. It's basically the same reason why you and other admins delete old versions of non-free files. FWIW, this doesn't mean the file can never ever be deleted again for some WP:NFCCP reason, but it's probably OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Okoslavia

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Okoslavia § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramkishan Suthar. Okoslavia (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Okoslavia,

Thank you for letting me know as I don't keep up with my "pings". I posted an additional notice on the editor's talk page asking them to do the proper disclosures. We have a few admins who really focus on dealing with UPE but it seems like this editor has self-identified as a paid editor, they just need to do the formal disclosures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

Hi @Liz, I hope you are doing well. I would like to delete the redirection of the page "Yassir", which currently redirects to "Yasser". However, I am having difficulty finding the appropriate page as there are many pages and I am feeling lost.

Best regards, Riad Salih (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Riad Salih,

I think you meant to type Yassir. What is your reason for wanting this redirect to be deleted? It seems like it is serving a useful function as it is a variation of Yasser. If you want to write an article about an individual who goes by the name "Yassir", I don't think it will be allowed to replace the redirect. But if you still want to seek deletion, the place to go is to propose a deletion at WP:RFD and follow the instructions there. You'll need to present a persuasive argument for why this redirect should be deleted.

Putting together deletion discussions is made much easier if you start using Twinkle, an editing tool used by many editors on the project. I encourage you to try it out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Liz, thank you for all your advice. You're right, I wanted to delete it because there is a company named Yassir. But it's fine if the redirection isn't beneficial. What do you suggest for naming the article? Yassir is called the 'Uber of Africa', so you will have an idea.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Rachel Amber AfD

I'd like to withdraw the afd at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Amber_(2nd_nomination). I'm still iffy about it, but the article we're discussing now isn't what was originally AfD'd, and has seen some improvement so I feel moreso off keeping this going. Plus like even you noted there isn't a really good merge target at this time to boot.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kung Fu Man,

I have noted this on the AFD but because several editors have argued for a Merger, the AFD can't be automaticaly closed. Thanks for letting me know and for noting this change of opinion on the AFD itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes of darts sites

Hi Liz,

I chose you to ask for your help. I have a dispute with another editor (ItsKesha)

you can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_World_Matchplay

and the history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_PDC_World_Darts_Championship

I'm obviously not asking you to tell me the truth, I just want to see a person on the discussion board who might understand what several of us are explaining, that flags have a very important role in the infobox, and I'm looking for people who notice that the above-mentioned how editor doesn't help, but rather just makes things worse. You can look back at the previous darts events, and they are all neat and follow the rules. I've been using wikipedia for a long time, but I've never come across anything like this :( Szpity88 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Szpity88,

To tell you the truth, I know very little about darts, sports, infoboxes and flags. What I am familiar with is editor disputes. When it's a recurring discussion between you and another editor, there are no winners. What you need the most are other, knowledgeable editors to offer their opinions, in this case, whether or not it is okay to use flags in player descriptions. By having more editors participating in a discussion, it isn't a Win=Lose situation, it's about arriving at a consensus that is in agreement with Wikipedia policy.

By looking at the pages you linked to, I saw User:Lee Vilenski, User:Bagumba and User:Tvx1, who are all experienced and competent editors who seem to know something about this dispute or, at least, have an interest in the subject area. I hope these pings will cause them to check out our discussion and follow up with your links, especially the first one, that leads to the ongoing dispute. If they don't respond here, I'd feel free to approach them on their talk pages. You could also go to a relevant WikiProject and ask participants for their input, posting a link to your discussion.

Just know that content disputes like this happen every day on Wikipedia, they are very common. Just don't let it become an edit-war and if you can involve other editors, even if the consensus is one you disagree with, at least you will see the dispute resolved in some fashion. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still going on? We have had many discussions about this, and the clear majority view is that Wikipedia:INFOBOXFLAG is suitable. These people are not representing a country when they make a nine-dart finish, or a high out. We need to do our best efforts to minimize usage of flags, especially in infoboxes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Rawde Article Speedily Deletion

Ashish Rawde Is The Musical Artist He Have Most INFO On Each AN Very Platform SIR do Not Delete It JordenFranskijo (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JordenFranskijo,

I just tagged the article, another administrator will decide whether or not to delete. I suggest you move the article to Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. You moved it to main space of the project too soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok sir JordenFranskijo (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JordenFranskijo,

You have moved this article to 7 or 8 different locations. Please stop and work on this article in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke TPA

Hello; please consider revoking talk page access from Haiyenslna due to talk page abuse. Thank you! User is pinging multiple other editors right now from talk page. :3 F4U (they /it) 07:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, F4U,

It looks like User:David Eppstein got to it already. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:715Liz

You have a "fan" that named themselves after you. APK whisper in my ear 07:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Til Death Do Us Part (2023 film)

I just created the entry for the upcoming film Til Death Do Us Part (2023 film), about 7 men who are trying to rape a woman and she is going the whole distance in fighting them off. If you could consider what film genre that is, that would be really insightful. Also, there is the I Spit on Your Grave (film series), about administering vigilante justice to rapists who are trying to rape. If you could classify that more specifically, that would also be insightful. Jaiquiero (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

News and notes: Big bux hidden beneath wine-dark sea as we wait for the Tides to go out?

In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia

Obituary: David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) and Ingo Koll (Kipala)

News from the WMF: ABC for Fundraising: Advancing Banner Collaboration for fundraising campaigns

In focus: Are the children of celebrities over-represented in French cinema?

Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)

Recent research: Wikipedia-grounded chatbot "outperforms all baselines" on factual accuracy

Humour: New fringe theories to be introduced

Cobwebs: If you're reading this, you're probably on a desktop

Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!

Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!

Can you check your email, please. Aden213221 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

Suggestion improvements
Favorite collections tips
Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zakia Abu Gassim Abu Bakr

Hallo Liz, you deleted this one G13 last November. I've started a new Zakia Abu Gassim Abu Bakr but I wonder if you could let me see the old draft in case there's anything useful to glean from it? Thanks. PamD 20:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I've just found the formal way to do it ("If all else fails, read the instructions" as they say!). PamD 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand I've now found that Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 won't let me request it, because the new page exists: so, again, could you let me see the old version! PamD 20:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for prompt action. I'll see what Google translate can make of the two sources. PamD 20:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PamD,

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've stored the two useful-looking refs at Talk:Zakia Abu Gassim Abu Bakr, so the draft can now be redeleted ... or do we just leave it to disappear in 6 months? PamD 08:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore template assessment categories

Hello there Liz,

I recently activated WikiProject Globalization.

In the past you deleted this template's categories:

Template:WikiProject Globalization

See if you want to restore those.

Thanks --BeLucky (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeLucky,

They were all empty when they were deleted. But I'll restore them today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thanks. --BeLucky (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Zhang Side

hi - just noticed that this AfD was closed as delete but then the page wasn't.. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Zhang Side best JMWt (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JMWt,

If you look at the page log, you can see that the page was deleted and then another editor created a redirect from this page title. I hope that explains things. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sorry. JMWt (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox

Hey, Liz. Sorry to disturb you, but can you restore my sandbox page or, at least, send me its source code? All the content in that page can be sourced by reliable sources: [14], [15], [16] and [17]. See also: d:Q118985836. I simply prefer to write articles first (in Portuguese, my mother tongue) and, then, reference them. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RodRabelo7,

It looks like the sandbox was deleted by Bbb23. Have you spoken to them about the sandbox deletion and the reasons why? Since they deleted the page, you'd have to ask them if you want it restored. Do this first and if they say "No", I'll email you the content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I will not restore the sandbox. I stand by the G10.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, Liz, can you email it to me? I’ll write the article elsewhere in order to avoid these sort of things. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy tonight but can get to it tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ll be waiting. Thanks for the help! RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears edit revert

So, that's it? You just revert my prod nom just like that, without asking? Are you tyrannically stifling my right to free speech? Jaiquiero (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaiquiero,

Any editor can remove a PROD tag for any reason, or for no reason at all. PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions and this one was controversial. If it wasn't me then another editor would have quickly removed the tagging.

As for your accusation, please read Wikipedia's policy on free speech at Wikipedia:Free speech. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)ec: Any editor can undo a PROD, and had I seen it first I would have undone it myself. Your comment is dangerously close to a personal attack. I'll be taking you to WP:ANI the next time I notice you overcategorizing, making a comment like that, making a blatantly inappropriate PROD request, making unsourced claims, or any of the other activity you have been warned about., Meters (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Austin (journalist)

I came across Emily Austin (journalist) in the news and wanted to create a page for her. I'm writing to you as you deleted the page in November 2021, and it says "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below."

Since then she was a Miss Universe judge and there's been press about her new NBA podcast so I don't think notability is now an issue. There's at least 10 good references.

I have no idea what the previous version of the page was and to be honest, I'm not interested in using anything from it. I want to start something from scratch that isn't tainted from what was.

To sort of further complicate things, Emily Austin redirects to Emily Austin Perry. It is possible to cancel the redirect and make this new page just Emily Austin without (journalist)?? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaskedSinger,

I don't think you meant Emily Austin (journalist), which you can see was just a redirect page, not an article, you probably meant Draft:Emily Austin (journalist). As far as the title goes, that can be handled if a new draft article is written and approved. There are editors who handle disambiguation pages and title conflicts. But it comes later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok great. thank you so much and yes that's what I meant! MaskedSinger (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sportsfan 1234 moving several articles into draftspace

Hi Liz, Sportsfan 1234 has been moving several pages to draftspace. I don't know whether he/she is completely aware of Wikipedia policies or not before doing that (as far as I know, as long as the information provided in the page is correct then Wikipedia allows any user to add information to a page). Recently he moved one of the page named 2023 Asian Kabaddi Championship to draftspace. I have spent so much time to improve that page and included references wherever I felt necessary. As I haven't created that page I didn't get any notice about that page being moved to draftspace, I was simply searching for something and found that page was moved to draftspace. I left a message in Sportsfan 1234 talk page regarding this 2 days back to know the reasons behind it, but no response from him/her (even though he/she is active in other conversations). This is not a complaint exactly but don't know what else to do. I thought of raising this issue in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but saw that I can contact admin before raising an issue. I am contacting you as the user I am talking about recently had a conversation where you are also part of. My concern is that, firstly it might create a negative impact in new contributors like me, who has spent few hours of time creating that page which is now not available in mainspace with a single stroke. Secondly some other contributor has to spent few more hours creating it, if the draft is un-attended within next 6 months (if I am correct). Please let me know if you can help, also correct me if I am wrong. Juice Bucket Jr (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahmid Hassan Chowdhury

Why did you move User:Tahmid Hassan Chowdhury to Draft:Tahmid Hassan Chowdhury? —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anomalocaris,

Because we have no editor by the name of User:Tahmid Hassan Chowdhury. It's a common error for new editors to move their drafts to a User page or even Wikipedia/Project space rather than to Draft space. Or sometimes new editors think they can change their username by just moving their User pages to that username. But perhaps, this was a User page that should be moved back to an editor's user space. I look at hundreds of pages a day and I'll give this one a second look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I got it straightened out and back to Tahmidazuwad's User space. My problem was that I just looked at the User page and it looked like a standard promotional bio and not the User talk page where I would have seen all of the notices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notification

Hi Liz. I have reminded User:LibStar multiple times to please notify me when nominating article's I've created for deletion. Despite these reminders, he continues to nominate without notification

I also note the large proportion of my authored articles nominated by this user recently; although that may be due to a mutual fixation on restaurant-related articles rather than wikihounding, or so I hope Jack4576 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jack4576,

Can you tell me whether or not this is happening with articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion, PROD or AFD? Or all three? I have already asked LibStar at least once to post reminders to page creators so I'd like to have details before posting another message about this. If you spend any time reviewing AFDs, you'll see that you are not the only editor who is feeling targeted. I've found that LibStar usually targets not editors but articles on specific subjects so you might have written articles in an area he is trying to "clean out". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked my talk page. I cannot find any diffs of being asked "multiple times" by Jack. The only time it seems he has asked is only once yesterday. So unless diffs can be provided, it is not multiple times. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi User:Liz, as far as I can see, in respect of my edits, it’s only AFD nominations

User:LibStar denies its multiple. Their denial is false; I also reminded them on the 2nd of July (diff)

I’m not surprised i’m the only editor that feels targeted. I have noticed those complaints. LibStar’s explanation may indeed be valid, it might be because they are targeting subjects like ‘restaurants’

However that doesn’t explain their recent nominations of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church, and Lego Junkbot, both of which were recently created by me and are outside the restaurant topic area. I suspect that every page I create is scrutinised by LibStar specifically. I often see them in the edit log of any page I create, nominated or not

More time is needed to confirm wiki hounding is what’s going on, but if other editors are making similar complaints, I think it increases the likelihood that there may be an issue Jack4576 (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artlist

Artlist is an Israeli tech and media company. Our page was deleted for being non-notable. We believe this is improperly assessed as our references and media coverage are extensive. We are a small country and this seems like it should count in a global encyclopedia. Restoration to draft or the main space would be preferable. Thank you Sl4pdasher (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sl4pdasher,

My decision to delete this article had nothing to do with my opinion of this article or of the company. As an AFD closer, I assess the consensus of editors participating in the AFD deletion discussion. I'm reviewing the arguments, not the article. This was about so much more than a lack of notability. I suggest you review the AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artlist, and tell me how you would respond to editors arguing for Deletion. It would help if you were specific.

There are some things we can do but I can not revert an AFD consensus from editors and put this article back into main space. If I did that, I would no longer be administrator! Tell me what you think of the AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a good look through the conversation and it seems that the delete voters seemed very akin to dismissing tons of notable references. When that didn't work they decided to go after the page for paid editing but, if you look at the editing history, when published the paid editing was disclosed and moved in through afc as a top editor and deemed notable as by the notes in the history. There has been virtually no editing by anyone paid since. In fact, mostly the edits seem to be to remove references and material that had already been proofed. That's all I can say without being too overly detailed but I hope you would consider restoring the page. Thank you. Sl4pdasher (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sl4pdasher,

I think I said, if I was to restore this article to main space, I would be taken to arbitration and would no longer be an administrator so that option is not available. Ordinarily, I offer to restore to Draft space but given your attitude, I think you would immediately move it back to main space since you believe this deletion was not justified. In that case, the page would be deleted AGAIN, via speedy deletion criteria, CSD G4. So, I no longer thing that is a good possibility.

I see two possibilities. The preferred one is that you start a new article in Draft space that doesn't have the baggage of the previous version. Then, when you think it is ready, submit it for review to Articles for Creation where experienced editors can advise you on whether or not it is in acceptable condition. I could email you the last version of the article but it would be better if you started from scratch.

The other possibility is, if you think I didn't read the consensus of the AFD discussion correctly, you can appeal the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. On this noticeboard, editors do not review the article, they review the deletion discussion and determine whether or not I made the correct closure. So, it is basically an evaluation of my decision, not the article. I don't enjoy this process but this is an option you can pursue. The possible outcomes I've seen from Deletion review in the past have been Endorse, where the editors support the deletion, Overturn, where the editors determine deletion wasn't appropriate, Relist where the discussion is reopened and continued for another week or Draftify, where the article is restored and moved to Draft space. If your decision is to pursue that course of action, you can do that on your own.

If you want to start a draft, you can also begin that on your own or if you want me to email you the article, you can let me know. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bennett

Can I ask for a rev/del on this please...[18]. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knitsey,

Done Thanks for bringing this to an admin's attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email

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.

Notrealname1234 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Notrealname1234,

Message received earlier today but another admin had already gotten to the problem edits. But mission accomplished. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 July 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. Jennifersigler (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Please confirm receipt. Thanks.

Hello, Jennifersigler,

Yes, I responded to all of your comments earlier today. If you still have additional questions, please contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and those friendly folks will provide you with answers or, at least, a second opinion if that is what you are seeking. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Thanks so much for your generous and detailed response. Much appreciated!

Jennifer Jennifersigler (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adshead123 / Adbarnesh

Jujuzadeh looks like this sock you blocked. 80%+ sure but not familiar with this one. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ferret,

It looks like another editor actually opened an SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adshead123. I just compared the edits of the two editors. It has to be glaringly obvious for me to block for sockpuppetry. I can't tell about this new editor but it seems like they are a little disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail you sent

Hi! If you sent yourself a copy, would you mind re-sending? I see the alert here that I have an email from you, but it doesn't appear to have reached either my inbox or my spam filters. If you didn't, no worries. DOn't want to make you do double work, just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Also. Is Kittehmaster new? He's cute! Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear, Star Mississippi,

I don't have your email address but I'll cut and paste (oh no!) the message and resend it through the Wikipedia email system. If you don't get it a second time, then email ME and I'll email you back. Nothing urgent, just a comment I was making about AFD land, a place where admins typically disappoint half of the participating editors. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it this time. No idea which gremlin was hungry earlier, probably the same one that was eating my closing statements the other week. Will answer in the morning as my eyelids are about to turn into a pumpkin. Have a good evening. Star Mississippi 02:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, Star Mississippi! You're still talking to me. That's a good sign. Get some rest and I'll talk to you in the AM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please never worry about raising anything. Even if I disagreed with you - I don't with respect to the issue you raised - I'd still be talking to you. We need each other to wrangle the crazy! Star Mississippi 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold merge/redirect after AFD close.

Hi Liz,

You appropriately closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Supermen of America with a result of merge to Brigade (comics). I boldly chose to merge to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics, while leaving a redirect to Supreme (character), as that seemed more appropriate after examining the subject matter more closely. I documented the decision in this diff [19], but I figured I'd leave a more easily searchable note about it on the closing admin's talk page as well. Best! —siro χ o 08:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siroxo,

I'm not following your explanation but when I get a free moment I will look into this. Just the fact that you wanted to be transparent about your editing decisions makes me less concerned about anything inappropriate happening. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I want to ask a question purely for my own elucidation as a relatively new editor (been active in the internal workings of Wikipedia since this February). It is mentioned in this AfD that you PRODed a blatant self-promotional article. My question is: why not WP:G11? I've participated at length in CSD and AfD, but not PROD. That still remains a grey area for me. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Festucalex,

It's nice to see someone come here with a question, not a complaint or hard-to-resolve conflict. ;-) I could have tagged that article as CSD G11, it was self-promotional and that's a valid reason for deletion. But my preferences, as an editor or admin, is to use speedy deletion for recently created articles and PROD or AFD for articles that have existed in main space for years. This article was created in 2019 and had lasted for four years without being challenged. I prefer PROD and AFD in these cases because they allow editors time to consider the quality of the article over the course of a week. I don't think it is appropriate to speedy longstanding articles but I don't know whether or not that is just my point of view or a general held opinion.

There really is no record of speedy deletions, these articles can be tagged and deleted within minutes without editors even being aware of what has happened. We have records in Project space about articles that have been PROD'd or sent to AFD so, even after they have been deleted, an editor can see the justification provided for why an article should be deleted. I really only think CSD is suitable for obvious problems or uncontroversial deletions but I think others share this view as well.

Some editors do not care for PRODding articles because the page creator, or anyone, can untag the article. But that doesn't bother me, the article can always get sent to AFD. But if you want to see the current roster of articles that have been PROD'd, you can see them at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. I hope that helps explain my decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "I don't think it is appropriate to speedy longstanding articles". Thank you so much. I will endeavor to lighten the mood on your talk page whenever I have a question or need some guidance. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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

Mar4d (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of an old version of an article

Hi @Liz,

I wanted to clarify the speedy deletion author request I made (G7). Within the past few months, I translated the page Big Baby Tape from the Russian Wikipedia. I did not realize, however, that the page had been deleted before, and when I published the translation, some of the content didn't transfer over so I admit it was a kinda subpar draft. When it was deleted, I asked the editor who deleted it to at least make it a draft so I could work on it/make it better. That is what Draft:Big Baby Tape is. So, technically, that is "my" article but someone else brought it back so that's where some confusion might be.

I finally got around to revising it from ContentTranslation and I published it in my userspace. That draft is more fleshed out, and has a bit more sources. I requested that the current draft be deleted so that article can be brought to the mainspace; I didn't want there to be a redirect. Would you be able to help me? If not, where is the ideal place to ask for assistance? Please let me know. I hope this clears up some confusion. Thanks once again. Losipov (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Losipov,

I understand your explanation but CSD G7 isn't valid for a number of reasons. First, you are not listed as the page creator and we have to go by the page history to determine that. But even if you had made the first edit, a number of other editors had worked on the article and if other editors besides the page creator made contributions to the article, then G7 isn't valid.

There is no reason I see that you couldn't submit your draft to AFC for review. Or turn the current draft into a redirect to your draft but other editors could revert that move, I don't know. If your draft is approved and gets moved to main space, then it doesn't matter what page title it originally had. Right now, I don't see a valid reason to delete the Big Baby Tape in Draft space. But I'm just one administrator, you are welcome to approach another for a second opinion or ask at the Teahouse for advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply @Liz. The G7 explanation is fair. I published the new version of the article into the mainspace as Big Baby Tape, so we'll see if it gets kept. Thank you once again for your willingness to help me. Losipov (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU. I've kind of had a rough day so I appreciate the sentiments. I actually started editing back in 2007 but it was July 25, 2013 that I first started using this account. I guess I'm eligible for that 10 years of editing group now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper's (bakery)

Thanks for that close. I generally try to avoid emotional entanglement with AfDs but I have to confess, Cooper's story sort of got under my skin, so the 'keep' was a wee warm, fuzzy moment. If we go by the book, it should have been a delete, but I didn't tell you that and you didn't hear me anyway. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,

You know, almost every day I review all of the open AFDs so I don't have a clear memory of that one. But it's late and in the morning I'll search it out. I might get myself hauled to arbitration for saying this but--without reviewing the details of this AFD--I think there has to always be some flexibility or, for lack of a better word, "humanness" in our interactions on the project. It's people, the editors, who created this enterprise and people can be contradictory, have blind spots but sometimes be absolutely brilliant. If we were going by policy alone, then we could hand this entire project over to AI and that technology would probably double the size of the article base in a few days. But we are a community and that means we are going to disagree and we need to find a way to work together, sometimes that means compromise and sometimes that means letting go of some position that you are sure is correct but everyone else disagrees with. It's messy and complicated and you don't always get your way but I think it's worked out pretty well so far. Well, at least compared to any of the alternative ways of running a project of this size. Good night. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'night! Save you a search in the morning - Cooper's (bakery) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper's (bakery). Thank you. Well, there was no support for deletion except for the nominator and they had gotten themselves indefinitely blocked so I was persuaded by those advocating Keep. It would have been a more complicated discussion if another editor was arguing for Deletion but I simply closed this according to what I perceived as the consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rash decision by Administrator needs re-evaluated

I need ears to listen. I am familiar with your administrator duties and believe you can help looking into a problem. Please look at all these accounts that have been rashly blocked as being sockpuppet [20], (such as Elifanta23, Jaagit, Mian Singh, Khidrana Singh and others) instead of having checkusers complete the investigation. These accounts that have been blocked could be innocent and falsely incriminated as sock. Checkusers like @Yamla: or @KrakatoaKatie: or even @Mailer diablo: should have investigated these accounts of any connection with that of HaughtonBrit. If you look at investigation by checkuser on this case [21], checkuser feels that Khidrana Singh and JaleRosetta are likely same. So that shows that Khidrana Singh is not HaughtonBrit sock and has been wrongly tagged. This is an example of an admin tagging someone rashly without a checkuser investigation first. Goodness, even my IP was wrongly blocked once as being sock of HaughtonBrit. Why an administrator would "tentatively" tag someone a sock if he isn't sure? All these accounts should be thoroughly investigated by checkusers first and then based on their investigation admins should make their decisions of who to tag and where if found guilty. But this procedure isn't bring rightly followed. I appeal for these cases to be reopened and these accounts to be thoroughly investigated by checkusers before closing them and any accounts that have been wrongly tagged should be removed if not found to be same as that of any sock. 2601:547:B03:2F23:2D8F:8AD6:B356:3977 (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2601:547:B03:2F23:2D8F:8AD6:B356:3977,

Well, first I assume you are one of these blocked accounts and believe that you have been blocked unfairly and are innocent. Once you get into accusations of sockpuppetry, there are very few things that a regular administrator like myself can do. An account that has been blocked, correctly or incorrectly, on the basis of being a sockpuppet can only be unblocked by a checkuser. Admins who have violated this policy can have their admin privileges removed. So that is not an option no matter who you appeal to. As far as guilt or innocence, I'm not sure which of the accounts you are but if your identity as a sockpuppet was not confirmed by a checkuser, you could have been blocked by a regular administrator based on The Duck Test, meaning, that your editing behavior, from the articles you chose to edit, the edits you made and the language you used in them, are so close to the sockmaster or previous sockpuppets to be barely indistinguishable. Once an account has been blocked, it is very rare for a checkuser to pursue checking an account because their time is limited and the account has already been blocked. Why spend time confirming an editor is a sockpuppet when they are already blocked? You disagree but that is the common practice in SPI cases.

There are a couple of options I see, neither of which are going to lead to an immediate unblocking. First, read over the SPI case. See the evidence that was used in the complaint about you. If you were socking, you must be completely honest about this. We have editors in good standing who once socked so it doesn't mean that a sockpuppet block will last forever. Still, it is a big hurdle to overcome because most people don't like to admit that they violated guidelines and policies. Any way, if you are socking, stop immediately. Do not keep creating new accounts or editing logged out. If you do, this will be seen when a checkuser reviews your future appeal. Continued socking means that it is less and less likely that you will ever get unblocked. Instead, work on a different Wikimedia project for at least six months, show that you are a responsible editor and take advantage of The Standard Offer. In 2024, go back to your original account and put together a sincere and honest unblock request, acknowledging the socking and showing how you have edited constructively on another Wikimedia project.

If, however, you haven't been socking and this was a misidentification, your road can actually be more challenging. Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks thoroughly. Most editors who have been blocked are told to read this page but, unfortunately, they don't when GAB will actually tell you amost everything you need to know about posting an unblock request. You need to go to your blocked account and post a concise and sincere unblock request, explaining how the results of the SPI case were misunderstood, without casting any blame on anyone else including the admin who blocked you. Be calm, brief but comprehensive and don't lash out. Admins can make mistakes but you need to explain how the coincidences in the SPI case happened. This is admittedly difficult. Just saying, "I am innocent!" will not be persuasive. However, unlike with a checkuser investigation, if there is a reasonable explanation for how come your editing resembles that of other editors, one of our admins who reviews unblock requests might feel like you have sufficiently accounted for the similarity that was seen. If you are a friend or associate of one of the other accounts, then acknowledge this fact. Again, being honest is really the only way forward here. Admins who are checkusers or review unblock requests have heard every lie or false explanation possible and will not grant an unblock request if they believe you are not being truthful.

But if you HAVE been socking, then stop immediately and try to start over as an editor on a different Wikimedia project (there are hundreds of them) and not repeat the mistakes that lead to your current situation on the English WIkipedia. That's really all of the advice I can offer you right now. Good luck and don't sock! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well explained and advice that cannot be ignored but should be taken as a positive move forward. Yes I had socked before, 4 times. 1st account was blocked as I was helping an editor (also a college mate) living in same dorm complex, by reverting changes that we didn't disagree with, made by another editor. I got blocked along with my friend's account as checkuser considered us same person in same location. I fussed that I wasn't sock but also understood that meat-puppetry is also socking. I didn't ask for unblock request. I was not even aware. 2nd time, I grew interest and wanted to be a honest lone editor. I created account using same IP as it was unblocked after certain months. Irony is that my college mate already had created an account and was making changes and if I remember correctly, I made about 10 or 12 changes when I got blocked and tagged as sock of the same 1st account that my college mate had used. Even his account was blocked. This time difference was that we both were editing without any meatpuppetry or even communicated letting each other know of our new account names. Only after getting blocked, did we find out from each other. I didn't know again how to ask for unblock but messaged admins trying to prove that I am not a sock but there was no way for me to prove. I also learnt that the mistake I made was to have waited 6 months staying away from wikipedia and then appeal. But I was also thinking that when my college mate, who had already created an account to edit, if I would have appealed after 6 months then no one would believe as it would show that I had already violated 6 month probabation. So I would have remained blocked because of my college mate. And I was right as he was blocked using same IP. There was no way my appeal would have been heard. 3rd time I created account by using a wifi of starbucks believing that hopefully this won't connect me to my college mate's sock account but again got blocked as checkuser said both me and AGAIN my college mate's 6th or 7th new account was showing same location. It was completely frustrating. Gave one more try when visiting a friend in another town where I again created an account but I got blocked this time as I made same edit to same page as I did with last three accounts. All my four accounts were tagged with HaughtonBrit's account even though it was my college mate's account. I have not created any other account again but I have looked at HaughtonBrit's sockpuppetry investigation and that is why I felt that I should ask for admin to re-evaluate the check on some of these accounts I mentioned above as just like me even these accounts seem to have fallen collateral damage to HaughtonBrit's sockfarm. I have even asked my college mate about these accounts and he found it amusing how admins are blindly tagging any account to him based on behavioral evidence that some of these new accounts make edits to same pages that HaughtonBrit's sockfarm did. Some were lucky to escape when charged with sock of HaughtonBrit when checkuser would find no relation. Others on whom checkusers weren't ran, were rashly blocked, and some where admin actual said, POSSIBLY or TENTATIVELY sock of HaughtonBrit. It shouldn't be possibly or tentatively but full proof and this is where checkusers are needed. Some of these editors who fell victim to sock of HaughtonBrit, I have watched their edits and they look very honest and use reliable sources and when such accounts get blocked, its frustrating to see them go. Maybe they are or maybe they are not part of any sockfarm and that is why I was hoping that checkusers should run investigation before admins can randomly block based on opinion that those accounts edits same pages aa HaughtonBrit or their edits overlaped the sock.

I do not even remember any of my previous account passwords so there is no way I can ever use them again or to request unblock. It won't be accepted anyways.

But let's do take a look at these accounts as I do not believe they are HaughtonBrit. Thank you for listening. 2601:547:B03:339F:C534:7FEF:B83E:4AF0 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Humane Society

Hi. I saw that you reverted my speedy deletion request for Liberty Humane Society and would just like to get some clarification. I carefully read the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7 and thought this article had no business in an encyclopedia. Eager to hear your thoughts to the contrary. Thank you. Volcom95 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Volcom95,

You're right, I didn't leave a very helpful summary (or really any summary!) to explain why I reverted your tagging. This was over a month ago so I'm trying to guess what I was thinking at the time.

I think what I saw was a 17 year old article that was getting tagged for speedy deletion. With articles that have survived for this many years, I prefer that they be PROD'd or sent to AFD instead of speedied because they have lasted so long, been reviewed by so many editors over years and years, it's likely that there might be something of substance there or in the page history. I prefer speedy deletion of newly created articles with obvious problems or ones that are just a few years old. With speedy deletions, articles can get tagged and deleted within minutes or even seconds, not allowing interested editors to see if additional sources are available that might resolve some of the article problems. Unlike PRODs and AFDs, we don't keep records of articles that have been speedied, they are just gone for good.

Although not a lot of editors watch the list of PROD'd articles (see User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary), there are a few who review and work to improve older articles that have been tagged and that work doesn't take up the effort involved in nominating an article for an AFD deletion discussion.

So, I apologize to you for just removing the tag without providing an explanation but I think it was really that the article had been around so long and I thought it should get more attention than is given to articles that have been speedied. I'm usually pretty good with edit summaries with articles I untag so I guess I was editing quickly or my mind was elsewhere. It could very well be that this article should be deleted from the project, the untagging was not a comment on your judgment, just my preference on what sort of deletion process is used for different types of articles. I went over some of this with another editor recently at User talk:Liz#Question 3 that might be helpful. But, again, I'm sorry for not leaving you an edit summary that explained the revert. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) (I responded to this a while ago but forgot to add my signature)[reply]

Imran Noshad Khan AfD

Hi Liz, hope you're fine. Can you please reconsider your close here at this AfD as it got very few votes and couldn't make a clear and thorough consensus. Requesting you to relist the discussion. Thanks IBuNeriPK (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IBuNeriPK,

I am not inclined to revert and relist this discussion because, with two Delete votes and no Keep votes, I think that another admin will just close this again within the next 24 hours, giving you the same result. Relisting a discussion doesn't mean that it will stay open for another 7 days, any admin reviewing the daily log can close a relisted discussion at any time when they believe there is a consensus and I think another admin will see the same consensus I did and delete the article. We can't force relisted discussions to stay open for an additional week and I'm familiar enough with other closers to think this one would be quickly acted upon.

But I would be willing to restore the article to Draft or User space where you could continue to work and improve the article. With two AFD discussions both resulting in Delete, you'd have to submit the draft to Articles for Creation and not just move it to main space but that is an option that would allow you not to have to start from scratch. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If votes are counted not just on numbers but on their weightage then these were very few votes and moreover my discussion with the nominator on article's Talkpage and reply to a comment on nomination page should also have been considered carefully as I believe with additional citations BLP1E issue is resolved to some extent and also they are not just passing mentions but quoted along with a statement. Anyway I have a request here, you may do whatever you think is proper in this regard. IBuNeriPK (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IBuNeriPK,

I asked you if you wanted me to restore the article to Draft or User space and you basically say it's up to me! But I need to know what you want to do, continue to work on this article or start a new one from scratch? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New article can't be much different from this article except if I could get additional sources for it which can be added to this as well so better just restore this one. And you're not going to relist the discussion in any case though?

IBuNeriPK (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IBuNeriPK,

You keep asking but I've explained above why I won't revert my close and relist. I think within a day, the relisted AFD would just be closed again and the article deleted. But I have restored the article and you can find it at Draft:Imran Noshad Khan.

Please do not move it back to main space or it will be deleted per CSD G4. You need to submit an improved article to Articles for Creation. When it is reviewed if it is approved, then it can be moved back to main space by an AFC reviewer. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. Just noting I have protected the mainspace title to enforce AfC since the article that was just deleted was substantively the same as the one deleted last summer, indicating factors around Khan have not changed enough to impact notability. @IBuNeriPK as long as you continue to work on it in draft space, you will have access. Additional sources will not necessarily fix the underlying issues so please be mindful of WP:REFBOMBING. Is there a reason you're so focused on this article? Star Mississippi 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Star Mississippi, I should have thought of that. I'm so glad that I have other people who watch this talk page and pick up on things I've overlooked, missed or forgotten. I try my best but there is no perfect administrator, all we can do is try. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you would (and have, yesterday even with the relisted AfD) clean up after me. We're all doing a lot/too much. Star Mississippi 02:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

After 10 years on the project, I just realized that I get a little dopamine release every time I save an edit. My family has been very understanding but I think I have a problem. And I'm far from alone. I'm reminded of that whenever I see an unblock request where the editor desperately says they can't continue if they aren't able to edit the project. It's so raw that it's scary but I've seen it time and time again. Luckily, all of our work is helping contribute to something productive, unlike other vices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! And I feel that our giving back is only due given how much I've used the project to satisfy personal curiosity. Star Mississippi 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I should've rewrote article then move it.

I did major restructuring of article Mahatma Gandhi Museum, Rajkot. Please take a look. Hopefully now there is no need to undo my move. Rahilarious (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rahilarious,

Nice job! I still think that the article is about both the school and museum but including them both would make for a long and awkward page title. I reverted your page move when I saw it on the Move log because I didn't see information about the museum in the article but that's taken care of now, thanks to your editing. I think your article is safe at the present page title but thanks for checking in with me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request move

Hi Liz, Hope you are doing well. Sorry to bring this here up to you. Recently, I noticed that you had closed a AfD of Swoopna Suman (singer) as a keep. So, Please move this article title to this title as there is no any other article related to this title and targeted article title requires administrator access to move. So, I am not able to move. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Fade258,

Sorry for the delay. I'll look into this possible page move and review the AFD when I'm back on my laptop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fade258,

Done But this article has really had a lot of sockpuppet activity. I can see why the page title was create protected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, No worries about that and thanks for moving this page. I also noticed a lot of sockpuppet activities and I think that it will be tagged as G5? Am I correct? Fade258 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I come to you for guidance once again. A certain page, Manyak, has attracted some vandalism in the past due to the word being a hard insult in Arabic, roughly equivalent to cunt in American English. Someone from Lebanon inserted the name of a real person into the article as a joke (?), and this went uncaught for 3 years until I reverted it in May. June saw the same IP editor inserting the same name again, and this went uncaught for 2 months until I reverted it again just now. I believe this nuisance (and potential to cause some very real offense) will continue unless semi-protection is applied. However, I'm afraid that it probably wouldn't cut it for WP:SEMIGUIDE. Could special consideration be given to this article due to its unfortunate name? 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Try requesting in WP:RFP. Notrealname1234 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrealname1234: Yes, but I'm concerned it won't meet the criteria. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this when I'm back on my laptop. Thank you for reverting the vandalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}•

Hello, Festucalex,

I've applied semi-protection. At first, I used Google Translate which didn't give me a translation similar to the word you said but I went to the Urban Dictionary and, wow! I could see your point. As an admin, I don't work a great deal with page protection except for create protection to pages repeatedly recreated so my action could be challenged. But at least right now we won't have slander against BLPs in this article by IP editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 〜 Festucalex • talk 01:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion

Hi Liz,

Hope you're well. I have been working on this page Wikipedia:Chantal Vallée as a project. I published it today only to find that it was deleted. I was wondering if you could please direct me to why the page was deleted so I could make the necessary corrections. Thanks! Rutgabol (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Rutagabol,

Wikipedia or "project space" is for pages on policies, guidelines and noticeboards, not article content. I just moved your page to Draft space which is where articles that are being created and developed are placed. You should find a link from the old location to the draft place. I'm on my phone right now so I can't cut and paste links. You can also go into your Contributions and find it there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rutgabol,

You can find your article at Draft:Chantal Vallée. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, Liz! My article is developed so my question is can I move it to the article section of the "main space"? Do I have to make 10 edits in main space in order to move my article to main space? Your guidance will be appreciated in the matter. Rutgabol (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rutgabol,

I usually advise new editors to submit their drafts to Articles for Creation but your draft is very well developed and extensive so I think you could try moving it into main space yourself. I did a copyright violation check which is standard for me on such long articles and it just came back with job titles, little prose, so I think that's okay. The article might get some tags put on it that suggest it could be improved but that is very common to see if you spend much time looking at articles in the main space of the project. I think you're good to go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Liz. Such encouragement means a lot coming from an experienced editor like yourself. I will do the needful. Really appreciate the feedback and the guidance. Have a great weekend ahead! Rutgabol (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz. I encountered an issue after moving the article to the main space. When I perform a search using the title "Chantal Vallee," it redirects to my user page with the message "This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference." I need assistance in ensuring that the search directs users to the actual article instead of my user page. How can I resolve this? Rutgabol (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! Trust you are well. I think my message was lost in the influx of messages you usually get. I'm reaching out to you again as I am having some issues resolving this and request some guidance. Rutgabol (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz!

I trust everything is going well with you since I haven't seen you active lately. I'm reaching out to seek some guidance on resolving an issue. When users search for the article I worked on in google, they are directed to my user page instead of the actual article. On my user page, they see the message: "This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference." I've already addressed the Wikipedia errors pointed out by a user, removed primary sources, and mainly kept secondary sources. Could you please advise me on the steps to publish the updated article so that viewers can access it without being redirected to my user page?

Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you soon! Rutgabol (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rutgabol,

Sorry for the delay, I look for new messages at the bottom of this page and can miss new ones in the middle. I assume you are talking about Chantal Vallée? We have no control over Google search engine results, either what they show or how it appears on their page. It takes a while for pages on Wikipedia to be indexed by the Google search engine, hours, days, weeks even. I'm sorry but no one at Wikipedia has influence over this. I have no idea why the search engine results would be showing your User page as user pages and Draft space aren't indexed by Google. But your User page, User:Rutgabol, doesn't exist so that's probably why readers are seeing that message.

I'm not sure why you have such urgency about this though. Were you paid to create this article? If so, please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and post a disclosure on your User page. UPE (Unpaid editing) without disclosure can result in a loss of editing privileges. If, on the other hand, you are just super eager to see your work appear in search engine results, well, I'm sorry but, again, that's under Google's control, not Wikipedia's. And it doesn't matter who was the page creator or what the article subject is. Sorry not to have a magic solution for you, you'll have to be patient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I want to assure you that the project I've been diligently working on is driven by the desire to see a job well done. I genuinely appreciate you clarifying the situation, especially considering that I am relatively new to navigating through these processes. I am just not sure why it says my user page does not exist since I used that page to draft and publish the article Chantal Vallée. Furthermore, is that the reason why google search engine redirects them to my user page (which according to Wikipedia does not exist)instead of the article or is it because Google search engine takes time? Thank you for being patient with me. Rutgabol (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, English is my second language so maybe I did not phrase the question correctly. When I search for the article on Google search engine, it shows this Wikipedia:Chantal Vallée but the article does appear on Wikipedia: Chantal Vallée. Did I not construct this page properly or is this all good and just waiting on wikipedia to publish once it is reviewed? Thank you for your advice. Rutgabol (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Ok i guess it wouldn't be so bad to make this account said that he will make an alt, i guess you wanna watch out for that. Notrealname1234 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The account also said that the sockpuppeter is trolling wikipedia for 2 years. Notrealname1234 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Notrealname1234,

I'm not very good at identifying sockpuppets unless they are blatantly obvious. I looked over this editor's contributions and couldn't identify obvious habits. But thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to Deletion

Hi Liz, thinking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracies Dinnertime Theatre, but not asking for an opinion on it specifically (I know you would keep neutral on that based on closing duties). My question is this:

Given a case (and it could be any case) that is already on its second relist, where I feel that it does not meet notability for its own article, but also feel merge would be a good alternative to deletion, and given that the most likely merge target might have editors resistant to the information (that is, the merge could itself be mildly controversial), wouldn't a !vote to merge without giving editors at the target a chance to weigh in cause a fait accomplis that might be unwelcome?

In such cases, what would you suggest is better? Request an additional relist and notification of the merge target? Or would a "procedural keep pending a full merge discussion" be better? Or are there other alternatives that could be considered?

Thanks for your thoughts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sirfurboy,

Well, that's a lot of hypotheticals. I do stay neutral but I'm often in favor of an ATD mostly because it retains referenced content...circumstances can change, especially regarding BLPs regarding notability so having an existing article, even an inadequate one, lying under a redirect gives editors something to start with.

As far as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracies Dinnertime Theatre, sure, you can propose a Merge and I don't see why editors who maintain the target article would even be aware of your proposal. I don't really follow-up on the AFD closures I do so I'm not sure what happens if an AFD discussion is closed as Merge and editors who edit the target article disagree with the Merge. I assume they would reduce the amount of content added to an article to a minimum amount. I think a problem with your suggestion is that an RFC or Merge discussion on an article talk page can often take a long time to get enough opinions to have a decisive closure and if an AFD discussion has already had two relists, well, there may not be enough time to finish a Merge discussion before the AFD needs to be closed.

I'm usually in favor of transparency though so I don't think it would hurt to post a notification on the target article talk page about the possibility of a Merge via an AFD. But unless an article is on a lot of Watchlists or is a subject in the news, it can take a while to get the attention of interested editors that they would share their opinions about the suggested Merge on the article talk page. I've only been closing AFDs for a year and a half but I've never encountered a "procedural keep pending a full merge discussion" before so I'm not sure it's a realistic possibility.

I'm sorry I don't have a more definitive answer for you. Despite the fact that we have hundreds of AFDs every week, each one has different circumstances and it's difficult to generalize. But I don't want to end this discussion yet, tell me what you think about what I've said thus far and if you have any further thoughts about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts, Liz. Yes, it doesn't really resolve the issue for me. Or maybe it does. As you say, the closer doesn't usually follow up on a merge consensus at AfD, so presumably if a merge were resisted and could not be completed, either a new merge would be required, or the page would be kept because there would be no appetite to complete the merge (maybe), or it would have to go back to AfD at a later date. Or, indeed, an alternative merge could be discussed. Of course, all this will be moot if a bunch of talk page watchers see this and rush in to !vote keep ;) Thanks again for your thoughts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on user pages.

Just wanted to inform you that after you draftifyed an article created by them, user:Proverealbiharhistory has vandalised my user pages with several personal attacks as I was the user who nominated the page created by them for speedy deletion. The page has also been recreated in the mainspace. Thanks Mikeanand (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikeanand,

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep tabs on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Kojo Soboh Article

Currently, the article with name Kojo Soboh has been soft deleted and after reviewing, the reasons given are lack of notability and reliable sources to establish his notability.

I would like to have access to the article to furnish the page with the requisite sources and evidence that establishes his notability.

thank you. Zekie The Geek (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zekie The Geek,

Done I'll just say that the article still seems promotional so it might be tagged for a return trip to AFD. I'd review the deletion discussion and take the criticism of the article in mind when you work on improving the page. You might also consider temporarily moving it to User space where you can work on it and it is less likely to be tagged for a deletion review. Just something to consider. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G5

Hi again @Liz,

I thought CSD G5 was for articles that were created by blocked or banned users? Can you explain why the articles I tagged were not valid? I'm confused about it, that's all. Losipov (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only for articles that were created by users who evade blocks or some other reason? I went through AfC and looked at articles that were flagged with "Blocked", so it might clear the backlog. I'm not entirely sure though so some guidance would be useful. Thanks in advance! Losipov (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Losipov,

Only one of the pages you tagged was eligible for CSD G5. It would help if you reviewed Criteria for Speedy Deletion. CSD G5 is for block evasion it is not because an editor has multiple accounts or because they have just been blocked. It is for editors who have been blocked, in the past, and who create sockpuppets to evade that block. Most of the editors whose pages you blocked were blocked for other reasons and these pages were created before they were blocked so there was no block evasion.

If an editor is blocked, we don't go back and delete every page they ever created. CSD G5 is only if they return and are trying to evade that block on the original account. So all page creations have to occur AFTER they have been blocked with an original account, not before. CSD G5 is one of the more complicated speedy deletion criteria there is, you have to check when the original account was blocked, when the sockpuppet account was created, when the page was created, everything has to line up correctly for CSD G5 to be appropriate. But WP:CSD says it in fewer words than I have so I encourage you to read it over. I hope this explains things. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thanks for the reply. I'll definitely consider it in the future.

I did have another question for you, though. In general, how long do AfD discussions remain open for? One of my articles was nominated for deletion, but the nominator in question (Let'srun) seems to have a history of mass nominating articles that are "too soon" to have them. I'm not asking you to get involved, but given that there's a lack of discussion there, it makes me wonder when a good time to close it (and others) with the result would be.

Here's the link to the discussion just in case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_M._Adams

Thank you once again for your help! Losipov (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory Language.

On July 28th my page James Melindy was deleted. I am not here to argue or dispute that in any way as I understand and do not disagree with the decision made to delete the page. I personally disagree with deleting it but that is a matter of personal opinion, nor is it why I am writing.

A member claimed in my edit summary I had used “defamatory” language, which I disagree with as I do not recall writing it, but you were the person to delete the James Melindy article so I would imagine you at some point looked over the page creation edit summary and I would like feedback from you if any defamation had been put in the summary and I am simply being mistook and failing to recognize my own personal error. I commented on the post on my account and am awaiting a reply, but would feel it best getting insight from two members of Wikipedia involved in the deletion of James Melindy. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Lucifer in a maid outfit Lucifer in a maid outfit (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lucifer in a maid outfit,

I look at hundreds of pages a day, could you provide me with a link to the deleted article? Then I can see why it was deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but since the page was deleted this is the only link I can get (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Melindy). Lucifer in a maid outfit (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lucifer in a maid outfit. In an edit summary you wrote on July 4, 2023, you expressed your hatred for Melindy, insulted him, and expressed support for his firing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague recollection of insulting him however I do not doubt that I did. I don’t recall, however, supporting him being fired or firing him. However if you say I did, I won’t argue with you. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Lucifer in a maid outfit

P.S: Would it be possible to have the edit summary put on my talk page since I seem to have a very limited recollection of this edit summary, which is annoying me to great extent. If not, thank you anyways. Lucifer in a maid outfit (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucifer in a maid outfit if you click on the log option in that AfD you linked, (duplicated here), the edit summary when created shows up in the creation log. 2600:1012:B1CE:FC2A:C868:8F70:A420:6151 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I remember now. Mike Folks is or was an ECHL player who played for the Brampton Beast, he and Melindy had gotten into a fist fight during the pre game warmups as Melindy was returning to the dressing room. That is what I was referring too, not a removal of him from a position. Thank you, shouldn’t happen again since I don’t dislike anyone as much as James Melindy.

Sincerely, Lucifer in a maid outfit (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer in a maid outfit, I am speaking as an administrator. You are not permitted to engage in any insults or personal attacks against any other people on Wikipedia. So take this warning clearly. Any future misconduct of this type is likely to result in you being blocked from editing. So please be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Enjoy TV5

Hi Liz, Draft:Enjoy TV5 is an old page with article history needed for the attribution of TV Okey. Could you restore it to the mainspace in whichever form you feel is viable? Thanks, CMD (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CMD,

Could you do me a favor? Since you seem familiar with this page, could you revert it to whatever last good version there was? I saw the page history but it's been changed so many times, turned into different redirects, I'm not sure where it should end up. But I definitely agree that it should not be tagged for deletion. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the TV Okey redirect. I note that the old title was recreated by the same user here to also redirect to TV Okey, so not sure what is happening there. Presumably that new page would have to be deleted. (Perhaps the aim was to create a page for a new channel, but whether and which Astro (company) tv channels are independently notable is not something I have an opinion on.) CMD (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CMD, for untangling this mess. I don't entirely understand your explanation but I trust you came up with the best solution possible. If you think the page should be edit or move-protected, let me know. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, the remaining admin action is that this page needs to be deleted so that Draft:Enjoy TV5 can be moved back to TV5 (Malaysian TV channel), thus preserving the page history. CMD (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done I had one goof where I forgot to change the namespace (happens to the best of us) but it's back at TV5 (Malaysian TV channel). Cross that problem off your list. On to the next one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rev-Del?

Is this something that would need to be rev-del'd? [22]. Thanks. Closhund /talk/ 00:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Closhund,

Done Thanks for bringing it to the attention of an administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tournament systems

Hello, Jc37,

You moved a category page but the redirect category now contains all of the pages in the original category when it should be empty. All of these pages have to be moved next to the new category. At CFD, we have a bot to do these page moves when discussions about renaming categories occurs but since you handled this yourself, these pages will have to be recategorized manually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for the note.

Please correct my memory, but I "thought" that there is a bot which moves pages after a cat page move, if there is a cat redirect in place.

It's what I read here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Redirecting_categories. Has that changed? - jc37 02:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, jc37,

There is a bot, User:JJMC89 bot III, that moves the pages when the categories are renamed either through a CFD discussion or through "speedy renames" at the CFD page. But not just because you moved a category, the bot won't notice that's happened. That's not how it works. It has to be told what to do on the CFD Working page. Same goes with Category:Notation and any other categories that you moved. I recommend using CFD speedy renames in the future as the bot handles approved renames very quickly.

You might consider reverting your moves and heading over to CFD to make the rename requests. CFD is a slower process than doing the move yourself but, overall, it will take up much less of your time than having to recategorize all of those pages. I know some editors who can handle this task quickly using AWB but I never figured out how to use that tool myself.

I'll also add that even though I work with categories, I find the administrator instructions very confusing there, especially compared to the other deletion discussion areas. So, I just make requests there, I don't implement changes, I let someone else handle that who knows the system better than I. Any way, the only way I notice your changes is because I regularly review the Move Log and it's rare to see categories moved by editors or admins except by JJMC89 bot III. So, I went, "Yikes!" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a couple of things. First, you're talking about WP:CFD/W. And that's the implementation page for CfD, yes.

But any editor (not just admins) who has the "page mover" user-right can boldly move a category.

What I'm talking about is a different bot that handles redirects. I believe that User:EmausBot does, for example. (Category space is space #14.)

Anyway, my recollection from discussions is that the bot waits 24 hours or so before acting, because people tend to do and re-do moves at times, so it waits a set period of time so things can stabilize so nothing gets broken..

Anyway, if you're overly concerned about them sitting there for a day, I can manually move them, no worries. I kinda was also waiting to see how long it would take the bot to act. - jc37 03:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, jc37,

It looks like one of these categories was just renamed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Category:Systems and Category:Conceptual systems so that consensus would have priority over any renaming you wanted to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes : )

Please see: [23] - jc37 03:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deletion notice

There was a note for you at User talk:Thriley#Your draft article, Draft:Willem Lange. Jay 💬 05:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jay,

I responded on Thriley's talk page. It made sense to keep the conversation in one place. But thank you for the notification, I don't look at my pings. I can't keep up with them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, Liz. Could you kindly consider restoring these items? Thanks.

–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 20:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Owais Al Qarni,

Done except for File:Logo of Payam-e-Insaniyat.png. This file was deleted by Explicit, could you request a restoration from him? I'm not very experienced with CSD file deletion enough to know when restoration is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server

In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change

Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!

Obituary: Donald Cram, Peter McCawley, and Eagleash

Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!

Humour: Does Wikipedia present neutral perspectives?

In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia

Opinion: Are global bans the last step?

Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July

Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, AFC dodging

You just deleted Draft:A2K (America2Korea). The author of that draft appears to have attempted to dodge the multiple declined AFC submissions and recreated it just prior to deletion copying it to main space A2K (America2Korea) without achieving an AFC greenlight. It was moved from main to draft July 21 for the same issues they failed to address in three draft submissions, and this recreation looks to have the same reference lacking issues.

(I'm aware of this draft because they kept recreating a syntax error that is on my radar which I fixed twice, a few hours ago and some time last week).

As I'm not sure which of a few courses of action to take for this improper bypass, so I'll defer to you and your, (or another talk stalker admin's) more informed hands. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zinnober9,

Thank you for the background information but I'm not sure what, if anything, needs to be done right now as the draft has been deleted upon editor request. Let me know if it's recreated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it, it was.

They created it July 21 in mainspace, it was moved to drafts three hours later for lack of sources. It then failed AFC July 25, 26, and 29th for lack of sources. Then yesterday they copied the draft, and relaunched (instead of moving it) in mainspace with a fresh, blank history, and asked for the draft to be deleted, which removes the page history of the draft and AFC declines, making this recreation look like a clean article without any past issues, even though it is the same as the draft. It should not be in main space until it passes AFC, and it hasn't passed as the issues were not fully addressed. It should have been moved from draft to main space when the issues were satisfied, not recreated with a blank new history and deleting the old copy and history, dodging the issues. Why have AFC if users can just delete the draft and put a new copy back in main?? Zinnober9 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share @Zinnober9's concerns @Liz but given there's questions about notability, I opened an AfD to establish consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2K (America2Korea) should either of you wish to contribute Star Mississippi 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up, Star Mississippi and starting the AFD. Zinnober9, I can see why you are worried but editors cut and paste drafts on to main space pages every day. It's not optimum but many editors choose to bypass AFC completely or even move articles into main space after several AFC declines. Not ideal but it's pretty common. If the articles are subpar, they are soon tagged for some form of deletion. That's why we have new page patrollers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any time @Liz. My concern on this one is the awareness to request deletion the draft. They're a revived account, but I don't necessarily think they're a new user. I hope I'm wrong. Star Mississippi 02:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. While I wasn't aware that bypassing AFC after it was "draftified" was a technically permissible action, I knew draft to main without AFC was a common occurrence, as I have done an article that way myself. I had been under the impression that if it got "sent to AFC" that it had to pass AFC before reentry to mainspace.

The bypass, and the user's lack of communication and lack of adding sources in response to the AFC comments bothered me, and it was appearing as though they were pulling a fast one on us and on AFC with the bypass that I thought was not permitted. Thank you for informing me on that, and also for the reminder that new page reviewers are an additional line of defense for pages with various issues. I was forgetting that at the time of my initial comment here since I haven't deal with page creation very often due to other interests here. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Growth team newsletter #27

Welcome to the twenty-seventh newsletter from the Growth team! Help with translations

Annual plan for Growth

We shared our annual plan, for the period July 2023 - June 2024.

Our first project of the year will be Community configuration 2.0, which helps editors with extended rights transparently and easily configure important on-wiki functionality.

After we finish work on Community configuration 2.0, we will hope to fit in one of the following projects:

Article creation: This project aims to provide new editors with better guidance and guardrails in the article creation process, with the intention of lightening the load of new page reviewers.
Non-editing participation: This project aims to create low-risk ways for readers to participate in Wikipedia with the intention of funneling more readers into contributing to the Wikimedia movement.

Please let us know what you think about these projects on the related talk page, or Growth's annual plan talk page.

Suggested edits

We released a new Section-level “add an image” structured task to Growth pilot wikis (Arabic, Bengali, Czech, and Spanish). This task was part of the Structured Data Across Wikipedia project. We are monitoring the edits made, and we look for community feedback as well.

Suggested Edits are now receiving topic predictions via the new Language-Agnostic Topic Classification. This change affects non-English Wikipedia wikis. It will ensure newcomers receive a greater diversity of task recommendations. Before, as this feature was a test, English Wikipedia was used to select topics. The change is gradual as lists of topics are refreshed when they become empty. The Research team will evaluate the impact in a few months. [24]

Starting on August 1, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link": Georgian Wikipedia, Kara-Kalpak Wikipedia, Kabyle Wikipedia, Kabardian Wikipedia, Kabiyè Wikipedia, Kikuyu Wikipedia, Kazakh Wikipedia, Khmer Wikipedia, Kannada Wikipedia, Kashmiri Wikipedia, Colognian Wikipedia, Kurdish Wikipedia, Cornish Wikipedia, Cornish Wikipedia.

Mentorship

The Growth team provides dedicated features to establish a mentorship program for newcomers. Every newcomer gets a volunteer mentor who provides encouragement and answers questions. Communities can set up or join this mentorship system by visiting Special:ManageMentors. This mentorship system is configurable by the community at Special:EditGrowthConfig.

More communities have implemented mentorship. A Wikimedia Foundation data scientist will be looking at the impact of Mentorship. We will look at the impact on Spanish and English Wikipedia. [25]

The Growth team will also host a Mentoring new editors on Wikipedia session at Wikimania 2023 in Singapore. Workshop attendees will help brainstorm improvements to Growth’s mentorship features.

Positive reinforcement

We will share more complete experiment analysis for all the three parts of the Positive reinforcement project soon. At the moment, the new Impact module, Leveling up, and Personalized praise are still being A/B tested on the Growth team's pilot wikis.

In the meantime, initial leading indicators for the Personalized praise project have been published. Although this is still a relatively small sample, results seem healthy. They show that Mentors are indeed receiving notifications and clicking through to view their praise-worthy mentees.

Growth contributes to IP Editing migration

The Growth team is currently focusing on IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. It is a project that touches many different Wikimedia Foundation teams. The Growth team will focus on temporary accounts through two main points:

the user experience of a logged-out user, that switches to a temporary account,
change Growth-owned extensions and features, so that they work as expected with temporary accounts. [26]

Community Configuration 2.0

We are still in the early planning stage of the Community Configuration 2.0 project:

We are gathering internal Wikimedia Foundation teams' needs, so as community feedback. [27]
We have started to investigate design improvements. [28]
We are also reviewing similar tools that are part of other products. [29]

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

12:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Page deleted? I'm confused

I'm a newbie editor and think I must have made an error. Today I moved a page Lillian v. Holdeman from my sandbox to a regular page and I have a notice it was deleted. Can you help me figure out what I did wrong and restore the page? thanks! PlantPoet (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out what I did. Lesson learned! You can cross this off your "to do" list :) Thanks! PlantPoet (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I replied so late, PlantPoet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

72.2.42.66 talk page access

Hello; please consider revoking talk page access from 72.2.42.66 due to talk page abuse. Thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tol,

Done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page will be removed

Liz, I'm trying to see what this editor is up to, and whether they haven't removed a real article by their many page moves and deletion requests. I don't know if the history of the page is hidden under the Page will be removed history or elsewhere (I think it is at the badly named Aedes. sticticus, but this will need a) blocking the editor, and b) moving and perhaps undeleting a lot. Fram (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fram,

I've restored the page. I've looked through some of the contributions and I can't figure out what this editor is doing. Can you untangle it all? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they just wanted to rename the page, but made an incredible mess? I have tagged one of their creations as a copyvio (from another wiki), they may need some guidance if they don't want a very short wikicareer. Fram (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun and Frustration

Hi! I hope you're doing well. I was looking through the AFD log to close/relist discussions where appropriate, and I saw that you relisted this AFD twice. I was wondering if you evaluated it as a PROD per WP:NPASR. If it was previously proposed for deletion, I couldn't find that in the article history. Thanks for your time! :) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Actualcpscm,

I'll admit to being a bit confused by your comment. Relisting has nothing to do with the article having been PROD'd. The only way a previous PROD affects an article in an AFD discussion is that the discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion if an article has been PROD'd. But that didn't happen. I didn't close this discussion, I just relisted it. Sometimes discussions get relisted more than once if there is low participation or there opinion of participants is evenly divided. But I don't relist more than 3 times and that is pretty rare.

I don't mind you asking questions but I'm not sure what the question is here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really, my question is „why relist instead of soft delete when the article was eligible for soft deletion?“ Sorry for being unclear! Actualcpscm (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Actualcpscm,

I assume that you are referring to the first relist I did in that discussion. Closers have different attitudes towards closures (always working within the rules) and different closers have varying opinions about what to do if all a discussion has is a nomination statement and there have been no other participants. Some closers will close such a discussion as a Soft Deletion. But I don't like to delete an article based on one person's opinion of it. So I rely on relisting rather than closing low participation discussions. I prefer to have at least three editors weigh in on deletion discussions but I have closed discussions with only two participants when they were in agreement. Really, the more editors we hear from, the easier it is to arrive at a fair consensus. Does this help explain my approach? But you talk to a different closer and I'm sure they have their own way of deciding how to close a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and I‘ve seen it reflected in the actions of some (but not all) other closers too. Thanks! Maybe it would be good to start a discussion to update WP:NOQUORUM to be more in line with current accepted practice, i.e. to include this element of admin discretion there (?) Actualcpscm (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yazxr

Hello! I just noticed that User:Yazxr (whose article draft had been rejected several times) has gone ahead and once more put their Eastern Province uprising 2011 into the mainspace. The article remains rather poorly sourced, pov-heavy, and a fork of 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests. As you dealt with them previously, I just wanted to notify you of this. Applodion (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Applodion,

I appreciate you keeping me on top of what is happening with this editor. But I've warned them several times about their editing behavior and I'm going to take a break from monitoring them further. Oh, I'm just kind of tired right now. I try to guide editors away from getting into troublesome areas and often, they just go ahead and do what they want any way. They are likely to run into an admin next who has a heavier hand than I do. But, thanks for giving me a head's up. Maybe some solution will occur to me overnight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a hyperlink in University of Denver#See also

Please forgive me for distracting you over such a small thing.

I found a line on the University of Denver#See also page in See also section that is not a link, which I thought was very odd. I saw that that list had been removed, and that's why you removed that link (diff: [30]). But I didn't understand why you didn't remove it completely. Am I allowed to do it myself?

Again, I apologize for bothering you for such a trivial matter, but I wouldn't want to do the wrong thing because I didn't understand some rule. Deckkohl (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deckkohl: I've remove the whole (essentially empty) See also section. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again, UtherSRG! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel (edit summary)

can you revdel the edit summary on this edit? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1168296205, feels like the user is advertising a rec room account. Notrealname1234 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrealname1234:

Done - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: Thanks. Notrealname1234 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UtherSRG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech writers by period has been nominated for deletion

Category:Czech writers by period 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marcocapelle,

Thanks for the notification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Kisio

Liz, I saw the pl:Aleksandra Kisio had a ton of refs, so I started to remove the PROD tag. Then I saw you put it there, so I stopped. Is there something I should know. She seems likely to be notable although I don't speak Polish.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A. B.,

Do what you think is right. I had just reviewed the AFD on her mother, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izabela Kisio-Skorupa (2nd nomination), and thought I'd tag her daughter's article since they are both social media phenoms and most coverage is from tabloids. But if you can find reliable sources (probably Polish) about her, then feel free to add them and untag the page. Kudos for you for checking other language Wikipedias to see how these individuals are covered, I'm impressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to forget we're just one of many Wikipedias. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I hate popular culture stuff, even in translation:[31]

It meets WP:RS but all those zillion Google News hits are just trashy stuff about a celebrity. Give me nerd topics.

I'm a crank.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk:Zelle (payment service)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:Zelle (payment service) 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 August 4 § Talk:Zelle (payment service) until a consensus is reached. Bsherr (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Salt

You were probably just speedy patrolling, but in case you have any input you'd like to add. Star Mississippi 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I responded to this on your User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anga (region)

Liz, do you mind taking a look at the Anga (region) situation again? The AfD started <16 hours after the creator started the article. It's been a running battle between the article's creator and 2 more experienced editor since it was started (page history).

The article has issues but I have an uneasy feeling about the way this is unfolding.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles abound - check out that discussion. If you said something to someone, thank you.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A. B.,

Sorry for the delay in responding to you. I looked over that AFD. Tagging articles immediately after creation is an ongoing problem. When you bring it to a page patroller's attention, they start to be more aware and avoiding doing that. But I've seen articles tagged for CSD or AFD less than 5 minutes after the article was created. Unfortunately, it happens.

I really like how you played the mediator in that deletion discussion, we have so many brilliant editors but, for some reason, many of them do not want to talk directly to other editors unless it is in a dispute. Trying to see the big picture, which you did, is better overall for the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after this discussion, I made some comments about overly speedy AfDs:

Spittin' in the wind, I reckon.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Good morning. May you please take a look again as the page has been moved to the main space moments after you draftified it. Regards— Mikeanand (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Miller

Hi, I don't think should have been closed for redirect. Two sources had been provided, the second of which had not been acknowledged. These provided a basis for, and an indication that notability could be sufficiently established.101.53.218.122 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 101.53.218.122,

It helps when you want to discuss an article or discussion to provide a link to that page. I look at hundreds of articles every day and providing me with link means I don't have to spend time tracking down the article you are interested in. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link [[32]]. I was asked if I could provide a second source (first here). I did, here, a very good one for commentary relating to the subject I think too, and it had not been acknowledged.Frond Dishlock (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you noticed I replied or not, just saw I wasn't signed in when I left the initial comment, apologies for any confusion. It's usually automatically signed in, so not sure what happened there.Frond Dishlock (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to reverse this deletion/redirect, given that the links establishing notability were not addressed nor given a chance to be integrated into the page?Frond Dishlock (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Is there a reason you're not responding?Frond Dishlock (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frond Dishlock,

There is no good reason that I didn't respond. Just the bad reason that I don't notice new messages that are put in the middle on my talk page. I automatically look at the bottom of the page and can miss new messages that are placed farther up on the page.

I reviewed the discussion and I think my decision to turn this article into a Redirect is consistent with the group discussion consensus. I don't think reverting and relisting this discussion would result in a different outcome.

I see two options available to you. If you question how I understood the consensus of the discussion, you can open an appeal at Deletion review. Please be aware that this review is not a review of the article and its notability but a review my closure decision so it's not the forum for providing new evidence of notability. The second option is that I can restore this article to Draft space and you can work on improving the article and submit it to AFC for review. AFC is not typically required for all new articles but in the case of an AFD closure like this one, if you move the article back into main space without an AFC acceptance, then the article could be tagged for CSD G4 and turned into a redirect again. Let me know if you wish to pursue either of these options and we can take the next step. Sorry again for the delay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The People Who Took Credit For Uniting The Western Front

Hi Liz, Not trying to be a pest, but I don't understand a thing about this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Milner/sandbox/The_People_Who_Took_Credit_For_Uniting_the_Western_Front_During_World_War_I&action=edit&redlink=1

I submitted an article for publishing, and I'm not sure if I fouled up the 'Move' form, or if I wrote something objectionable. I appreciate your advice. By the way, you can check reference and footnote sources by signing up for a free account on Internet Archive. Once signed in, by clicking on a reference or footnote highlighted in blue, it will take you right to the book or page. Link: https://archive.org/ Lord Milner (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lord Milner,

The page you linked to was a broken redirect that I deleted. You mistakenly moved your article into Project/Wikipedia space instead of main space or Draft space. So, I moved it to Draft:The People Who Took Credit For Uniting the Western Front During World War I. Article content shouldn't be in project space. But I didn't alter anything on your draft article. If you ever lose track of a page you created, just go into your Contributions and you should be able to find it. Sometimes pages are moved because they are in an incorrect namespace. Good luck with submitting to WP:AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my draft out of projects

I haven't contributed new articles in a long time and am not familiar with the process. How do I move that draft to be published? Brentonstrine (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brentonstrine,

Sorry for the delay but I just spotted your comment on my talk page. The next step, after you have written a draft that is well-written and has adequate sources, is to submit it to Articles for Creation for review. If you go to the AFC page, you'll find the code to put on your draft to submit it.

In general, the best place to go with questions about article creation and editing on the project is the Teahouse as someone is nearly always available to address your concerns. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I must have had rocks in the head the day I created that... thanks JarrahTree 10:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JarrahTree,

No problem. Ideally, we all work together here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential tie between User:SoniaSotomayorFan and User:IAmHuitzilopochtli

Hi Liz,

I noticed that in your hundreds of edits over the past three days, you've only asked new users for potential other accounts twice due to well-reasoned arguments in Afds, those accounts being User:SoniaSotomayorFan and User:IAmHuitzilopochtli. I'd also like to point out that those accounts are also both involved in the Afd discussion for Alex Shieh, and are also the only two keep votes. Particularly suspicious since they were created after the article was moved to mainspace. I've written out my suspicions more in this sockpuppet investigation here, but do you think there may be other wiki policy that can be pursued to search for answers here? Perhaps it's just a coincidence what these accounts are doing, but each edit makes this seem less likely. Vergilreader (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vergilreader,

That's a coincidence, last week I also filed an SPI case on them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach. You've filed an SPI case, now we have to let Checkusers do what they do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It is rare for me to see a relist with actual commentary like you did [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Rajan here]. Wanted to thank you earlier but didn't want it to see like canvassing prior to the close. I wish more people would leave commentary when relisting as this really helped mold the discussion and show what is on the mind of a closer when they are reviewing. Thanks again. CNMall41 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CNMall41,

Well, I end up leaving a relisting comment about half of the time, if I think it will help move things along. Like if some editors are asking for a Redirect or Merge and other editors are insisting on Deletion, I'll ask when they would be okay with a Redirect or Merge. Some editors just see things in black or white, Keep or Delete, and don't consider ATD. But I've had mixed success with my relisting suggestions, I think a lot of editors don't read them but that's okay, my ultimate goal is not to influence the discussion but just to have a fair closure that is in like with our policies. But thank you for the compliment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "a lot of editors don't read them." Those of us in the discussions sometimes get focused on being right instead of providing the proof for our contention. Hopefully that will change but this is Wikipedia after all. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vidohovë

Hello

I saw that you recently deleted the Battle of Vidohovë and the greco Albanian war of 1949. I would like to know if you could bring it back up , since it valiuable information

Thank you Truth t (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truth t,

Can you provide a link to the article or AFD discussion? Then I can see if it is possible to fulfil your request. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,

Yea sure thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_People%27s_Army

This is the link , if you scroll down you will see every battle of the Greco-Albanian war has been deleted including The Vidohovë one . Maybe you can bring it up again?

Thank you Truth t (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truth t,

But Albanian People's Army isn't a deleted article. I think you provided a link to the wrong page. This might be difficult if you are using mobile interface. Just type the name of the page and put brackets around it (like [[name of article or AFD discussion]]) . If it is correct, it will show up as an active link. like in blue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Yes im aware its not delted but if you scroll down to the battles you will see pretty much everything of the Greco-Albanian war is deleted.

Coudl you possibly revert it back?

Thabk you Truth t (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truth t,

If you are talking about my edit to this page, I just removed a reference to an article deleted through AFD. I, or you, can undo my edit, which removed the whole article title and just unlink it.

But are you sure you're not talking about the article deleted in this AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Vidohovë? Because that article was deleted through a "Soft Deletion", and can be restored upon request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ,

Ah yes thats the article im talking about . Could it be restored ?

Thank you Truth t (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truth t,

Done As a "soft delete", this article can be restored upon request so that is what I've done. You can find it at Battle of Vidohovë. Be aware that it might be nominated for a second AFD so I'd review the AFD discussion and try to address the concerns that were brought up, what led editors to advocate deleting the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Truth t (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sencer Sarı

Hi Liz, Hope all is well with you. I’m curious about your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sencer Sarı. I’m wondering why the decision was made to close it after one week as a “soft delete” rather than relisting it.

I’m not asking that you reverse the decision, however it leaves me with some questions. I also want to share with you my own experiences as an editor who is active on AfD. I take the process very seriously, and put a lot of time and effort into my nominations, !votes, and WP:BEFORE searches. My participation is in good faith, and I am here to help build and maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia.

When I came across the Sencer Sarı article, it stood out to me as a fairly obvious promotional article (I have a pretty good nose for COI and Promo). However, I always try to give the benefit of the doubt to content creations, knowing very well the time and effort it takes to create an article. I decided to look deeper into the sourcing, and spent several hours translating each source into English. I then used that WP:BEFORE research to build the Source Assessment Table (which I had to create twice because the tool acted up and didn't save it the first time). BTW, It takes a long time to create these tables, especially one this long.

My arguments in the nomination as well as in the source analysis table were based in policy.

Is there a specific reason why you chose not to relist it to encourage more participation, but rather found it more appropriate to soft delete? Again, I'm not asking you to reverse your decision, I'm just trying to gain some insight into how you arrived at your decision. Thanks and best, Netherzone (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Netherzone,

Well, to be honest, I'm a frequent discussion relister. I like to be sure about that I'm seeing a rough consensus. Although no one has ever come to my User talk page to complain about this habit, I sometimes feel like I relist too frequently. So, if I see an opportunity to close an AFD discussion, I'll do it. I also know some of the other frequent AFD closers and I think they would have closed this discussion with the same result. I'm willing to revert myself and relist this discussion for another week but I'm pretty sure that it will be closed fairly quickly again as a Soft Delete. But let me know if that is a solution you'd be satisfied with.

I appreciate the time you put into your AFD nominations but relisting a discussion where there is already a consensus to Delete, even if it is a Soft Delete, always raises the possibility that participants will show up who will argue to Keep an article. Is there a reason why you would like to extend the discussion for a longer period of time? Because as I see it, you received the result you were seeking which was the deletion of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thank you for getting back to me so quickly. It's helpful for me to understand your logic. I'm not asking you to reopen the AfD, nor do I wish to make extra work for anyone, especially you, but I needed some clarity on why it was closed without relisting. I'm of the mind that relisting is a good thing because it allows for more community input and diversity of opinions, but I also understand your rationale for the soft delete close. Again, my inquiry was not a request for an extension, rather the objective was to better understand how admins make decisions on AfD closures. And I guess I am also wondering if I'm spending too much of my own time digging in before making a nomination. I'm fine with the outcome. It's all a learning experience! Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Masouri

Hey Liz! We actually edit conflicted on this. I was actually closing this discussion as a keep. If you take User:Siroxo's comment as a keep !vote, which it appears to be, there's three editors who feel it should be kept versus the nominator. I feel that after two relistings there's really no consensus to delete. I'm curious as to your thoughts? Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dusti,

I didn't see a consensus here but different closers view discussions differently so go ahead with what you believe is true and appropriate. I am an admittedly conservative AFD closer and I will relist some discussions that don't seem to have a consensus that other admins and NACs might see as clear as day. My only comment is that NACs should avoid closing discussions that could be considered close calls or that might be contested but that is partially to spare you from appearances at Deletion review which can be as unpleasant as a colonoscopy. Being called to Deletion review can often be avoided when, if your closure is challenged, you revert youself and relist the deletion discussion. Being stubborn about a questionable closure just causes other editors to escalate their response so it helps to be able to politely explain why you closed a discussion as you did and have a bit of humility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I learned all about Deletion Review wayyyyy back in like 2007 or 2008. I took some AFD "classes" with Keeper 76 who hammered some NAC rules in my head. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Matt Corker

Hello @Liz Hope you are well. I made considerable recent edits to this page in response to the deletion notice and specific comments from reviewing editors. The last comment from an editor (who is an editor of of many professional rugby player and sports pages) was ‘weak delete’ but happy to reconsider pending additional sources, which I then provided from highly reputable news sources. I have examined hundreds of other player and coach profiles and believe the page meets all of the same standards and in many cases is much better. Therefore I can’t understand why the deletion decision was taken? Please can you reconsider reinstating the page and allowing me to make further edits if this is required?

I also notice you cited lack of engagement but having reviewed wiki’s deletion guidance should the deletion not be on its merits rather than about headcount? I am not sure the page was violating any of the policies that editors referenced to me, as I ensured compliance through my latest changes.

If the page was a soft delete (I am not sure if it was) likewise can you reinstate on that basis.

many thanks for your consideration 85.255.232.43 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 85.255.232.43,

Can you link to the deleted article or to an AFD discussion if it was deleted through AFD? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are @Liz

Matt Corker

thanks for your review 85.255.232.43 (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Corker 85.255.232.43 (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 85.255.232.43,

This AFD was closed as a "Soft Delete" so the article can be restored upon request. I'm heading out now but I can take care of this later. If you want action sooner, you can make a request at WP:REFUND and an admin there can restore it for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Liz 2A00:23C4:498E:6001:7CD2:8FF1:68ED:10B4 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry @LizI can’t seem to work out how to make a WP:REFUND request! 148.252.133.30 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just under ther instructions there's a box with the following text in big letters: Please enter the page's title to request its undeletion There's a data entry box right there for you to enter the name of the article (in this case Matt Corker). Do that, then hit the big friendly Request undeletion button. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help me delete my draft

Hi Liz, I see you declined my delete request for my draft Draft:The Great Transition: The Personalization of Finance is Here. I really want to have it deleted since it has been rejected in AFC and I no longer wish to work on it. I no longer need it. I've tried tagging it with author request delete template but it was declined. Pls can you help me delete the draft since I no longer need. Any ideas on the right CSD tag to use? Thanks in advance AdyQu (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdyQu,

I'm away today but I'll look into this when I return tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AdyQu: The draft is not yours. Since you were not the only person to work on it, it is not eligible for the speedy deletion you desire. Have no fear, in 6 months if there are no edits to it by a person, then WP:CSD#G13 will kick in and it will get deleted. (Hi Liz!) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: I don't agree. Speedy deletion criterion G7 applies "If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author". (My emphasis.) None of the contributions by anyone other than AdyQu is at all substantial. Most of the edits by other editors have been such actions as: AfD submission/decline/comment (e.g. [33] [34]) proposing or declining speedy deletion (e.g. [35] [36] [37]) Adding maintenance tags ([38]) clean-up and rearrangement tasks such as consolidating references ([39] [40]). A very few edits have removed not added, a small but significant amount of content ([41] [42]). There have been only three edits by anyone other than AdyQu which added any significant amount of content, and none of those actually added any significant original material; two of the three merely reverted removal of content by AdyQu, all of it substantially text posted by AdyQu ( [43] reverted [44], and [45] reverted [46]) and the other one of the three essentially reverted removal by AdyQu, with some changes to references, rephrasing of one paragraph, adding a wikilink, and one or two other really trivial changes ([47], despite its edit summary, was substantially restoration of material removed at [48]). I really don't think that anyone who has actually examined the edits in detail, rather than just looking at the editing history listing and seeing a lot of usernames, could maintain that any substantial content of the page was added by anyone other than its author. I would have no hesitation in accepting AdyQu's request for deletion, but since Liz has been consulted, and UtherSRG has volunteered an opinion, I won't act unilaterally without giving them (or anyone else) a chance to explain if they are aware of a good reason that I haven't noticed why the draft should not be deleted. JBW (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your emphasis is fine. The work done in late Feb early March looked particularly substantial to me on first look, but I suppose that could be viewed as restoration and tweaking. Very well. *poof* It's gone. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

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

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about a userpage that is a draft article

It appears that I came across a userpage that is being used for article development. This is not something we want editors to do, I think, per WP:FAKEARTICLE ... but I'm not sure what the correct response is. I would request a history merge, but it looks like they have used the userpage several times to develop different articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CFDs

Hi Liz, I was not requesting deletion of categories based on the categories being empty (such as Category:Ethnography of Canada). These were requested deletions based on the fact that consensus determined these categories be deleted at CfD. Wouldn't admins have to clear the content from the categories as well as perform the deletion of the categories following the non-admin closure of these discussions? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

FYI, I think this AfD and the one for the book's author (Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay are about to turn ugly. Already getting aspersions cast. I'm going out of town and intermittently offline. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French law

Thanks, I was trying to figure out how to prod that. Go ahead and delete it; I found Law of France right after that Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for all the good work you do with CSDs! — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 14:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Prodraxis. Much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makosi Consulting

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makosi Consulting. Please could you restore the deleted article to draftspace as Draft:Makosi Consulting and to do a history-merge. That way MollelwaFahaSaBasotho could continue to develop the article in draftspace. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toddy1,

If I were to restore the article deleted in an AFD discussion to Draft space (which I'm okay with), what would I be merging into it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Makosi Consulting, which is an earlier version of the article at Makosi Consulting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toddy1,

Done Well, I tried to do as you requested but not much got merged. I had to merge the older draft into the newer draft which is Draft:Makosi Consulting 2. I suppose that Draft:Makosi Consulting can be redirected the newer draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would work on it.

Appriciate your Intervention Toddy1 MollelwaFahaSaBasotho (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hello Liz. I see that you are online and making edits, or at least you were doing so 10 minutes ago. Could you please respond on our discussion? It feels like you've left me on "read". Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul Vaurie,

Thanks for letting me know. I don't check my pings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User you have warned for out of policy draftification has continued out of policy draftification

I've filed my first ever SPI here, but given your existing warning here and their further draftification here (combined with their history of disruptive blanking and redirecting, which I touched on at the SPI), I'm wondering if a regular block might help prevent further damage while the SPI is being sorted. Thanks, Folly Mox (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Folly Mox,

First, that was a very complete SPI report so kudos on that. Second, while I do see that they drafted another article, there are reasons not to block them. This is primarily because the time of Checkusers is limited, there are way too many SPI cases for the number of active Checkusers that we have. If a suspected sock is already blocked, it is highly likely that the SPI case will be closed without further investigation because the editor has already been blocked, whether or not they were a sock is not relevant at that point. Since this might be a case where there are other socks, I think it is worth waiting for CUers to get to your case and do an investigation rather than having it closed prematurely. That's just my take from years of being on the project. Unless there is substantial damage being done, it can sometimes be preferable to not hit the block button too early. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha; thanks for the quick response. That makes a lot of sense and thank you for the insight. Folly Mox (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of redirect based on WP:A3

Re: Your deletion of Cartney. Why would a redirect be eligible for deletion on the basis of WP:A3 (no content)? Redirects aren't supposed to have content.

Anyway, I now realize I must have redirected it to McCartney (itself a redirect) instead of McCartney (surname), where there is a bolded and cited mention of that name. Sorry to have taken your time. Please let me know if there is still a problem with it. — AjaxSmack 01:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AjaxSmack,

You are absolutely right, I should have looked at the page more thoroughly before deleting it. I have restored the page so, if you wish, you can revert it back to its original state. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and clean up help

Hello Liz, I need some help of grammar correction and cleanup for this article, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Zakaria_bin_Muhammad_Amin

Thanks Asphonixm (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asphonixm,

Unfortunately, my time on Wikipedia is limited and I am very busy so I don't have time to help you with your article. If you have questions about editing, I recommend bringing them to the Teahouse and if you need help with copy editing, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of H₂weh₁yú

Hi Liz, in your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú you close as merge and do indicate some doubt in that when you suggest we might see this at deletion review. I don't wish to take anything there, ever! But in this case I am unclear as to how you came up with merge as the outcome. To be clear, there were 8 delete !votes containing specific policy arguments that required careful review of sourcing, and one keep and one redirect. Literally no-one suggested merge. Are you able to vacate that close or change it? To me it was a clear delete. A close as redirect would have been wrong (as I argued) but had you closed it as redirect I would have just taken it to RfD. However, a close as merge leaves the article in limbo as there is not even a good merge target. The OR was deleted and now it is all dicdef. The only place it could be merged is wiktionary. Thanks for your consideration, whatever you decide. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sirfurboy🏄,

I didn't come up with that Merge target on my own, I saw it mentioned in the discussion among participants. It seemed like a reasonable ATD. Is there a reason why you find this an unacceptable outcome? After any Merge takes place, the article page will be a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. The word *H₂weh₁yú, as demonstrated in the sources, is a reconstructed proto-indo-european word for the wind but we have scant evidence that the speakers of the language even had a wind god, let alone one called "wind". The only PIE god that has been reconstructed with any confidence is "sky father" (Dyḗus ph₂tḗr) as the god is found in all indo-european branches. The evidence discussed here shows that (a) none of the sources claim a god by this name (b) some of the sources suggest the wind was seen as animate force and not divinity. It was noted that the merge target you propose already had all the information that is in the sources so there was nothing to merge. The redirect that will be left will be in error because if, in the unlikely event, someone searches on *H₂weh₁yú they will now land on a page telling them about the indo-european wind god. But that redirect is itself WP:OR. The word *H₂weh₁yú is just a reconstructed word for wind. The redirect should not imply that there was a god by that name. That is the speculation of the page creator. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Sirfurboy🏄, you present a compelling argument. I'll revert my close. This is such a content-dense discussion though that I'm not sure if many of our closers can adequately assess this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Liz. Yes, it is definitely a thorny one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Sirfurboy: I was the one who suggested a merge and gave my reasons for it, of which I am still convinced. There has been a PIE wind god reconstructed as attested in literature. I don't have an overview to judge the "with any confidence". The reconstructed word for wind appears in Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities, so it seems a logical place for a redirect to me. Daranios (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daranios, I knew that any closure I'd make would be contested. I expect to see it at Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. In the above I failed to recognise that you did suggest keep or merge. But again, you were the only person to suggest either. There was still, I think, a very clear delete consensus and only one person agreed with a redirect. Another agreed on the redirect, but struck that based on the argument above. I am sure Liz doesn't want us to relitigate the issue here. The close is vacated, and you are welcome to add more comments on the AfD, where everyone involved can discuss it. Thanks again to Liz for re-opening it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the discussion (better here than in the midst of an active AFD) but I am stepping away from this one so will let some fresh eyes take a look at assessing the arguments in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-greek border war

Hello Liz

I saw that the Albanian-Greek war on this page has veen removed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_People%27s_Army

Can i request for it to come back ? Thank you Truth t (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truth t,

I don't understand the question, the page that you linked to, Albanian People's Army, is right there. I'm headed to bed, I'll see your response in the morning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Yes but if yoy scroll down you see the greco albanian war has been deleted and the battles too. Can i request for this oage to come back ? Alright , Good night

Thqnk you Truth t (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truth t,

You did not make this easy. There are dozens and dozens of links in this article. But I think you are talking about Albanian-Greek Border War (1949). In the future, please provide a direct link to the page you are talking about, don't make me hunt for it on another article. This might be easier for you to do if you edit from a laptop or desktop computer rather than your phone.

This article was deleted through an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian–Greek Border War, where there was a near unanimous consensus to Delete so it will not be easy to restore the article. You can ask the closer, User:Seraphimblade, if they will restore it to Draft space for you to work on but it is within their right to decline your request especialy since nearly everyone who participated in the AFD wanted to see the article deleted.

If you believe that there was a problem with the closure then you can appeal the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review but your editing abilities seem limited and that is forum that requires you to present a very persuasive argument on why the AFD decision should be overturned. You can try but I don't think you will have success there. But those are the two options I see for you to pursue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Thank you Truth t (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Son Lux (Alternate Forms) article

Hi, you informed me that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alternate_Forms should be moved, and one of the instructions was to ask for help to move it. I asked, but noticed you deleted it. Could you guide me to the best way to post it up again to avoid these errors? It was properly cited and categorized. Thank you. Anarkafrica (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anarkafrica,

It looks like you have already moved Alternate Forms so I'm not sure what additional help I can supply. I hate to inform you but I belive this article will be tagged for deletion since it has not been improved since it was moved to Draft space. Moving an article to Draft space is a way to give a page creator more time to improve an article that would otherwise be deleted in main space but articles are only draftified once. Since you moved it back to main space, it will now be subject to the scrutiny of our page patrollers who could very well decide to tag it for speedy deletion since it is very poorly sourced.

If you have questions on article creation or Wikipedia's deletion policies, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G7 (maybe)?

Hi again @Liz, would you mind rethinking the declined tag on Draft:Mark Rober's Revengineers? Me and @Tails Wx were going to carry on writing the page after @Illusion Flame requested U1 deletion. Per this discussion, it was me who effectively "created" the article by asking for it to be refunded, as Illusion Flame wanted nothing to do with it anymore. After a discussion off-wiki, we decided that we did not want to continue with this project. Effectively, all three editors who worked on the draft in some way have now requested deletion. I'm sure that if it's nescessary, my collaborators can confirm this version of events. I don't really see the point in waiting out a six month timer for it to be deleted, so could this be rethought? It's unlikely that the content is going anywhere, so this would be beneficial to me and Tails Wx. Thanks again, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with the G7 deletion. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schminnte,

There was an edit conflict so I had to rewrite my original response which I wrote before Illusion Flame commented. Could you tag it for G7 deletion? It still might be declined since Tails Wx contributed so much to the draft page but another admin patrolling CSD categories might not adhere so strictly to the criteria as I do. I'm not sure why there is an urgency to have this draft deleted but the other solution is to nominate it for deletion at MFD and have both of the main contributors state that they want the draft to be deleted.

While the draft might have been your idea, you didn't make substantial contributions to the editing of the article and that's why I think you have no standing to request that it be deleted on G7 grounds. I regret to tell you that I've been taken to Deletion Review a few times for bending the rules and I have no desire to return to that noticeboard so I abide by the criteria very strictly. But if you get Illusion Flame's cooperation, maybe another admin will be more flexible than I am. But if it was me, I'd just leave the page alone and let it be deleted on February 12th. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tag it again, with a link to this discussion as a rationale. If declined again, I guess it could just be left: no deadline, right? Thanks for explaining your reasoning here, it helps to see why it won't be deleted even if the red tape is slightly annoying. But, if we all just ignore it, it can't do any harm. Thanks again, I assume we'll bump into each other again soon :) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, sorry for the late reply, I’m fine with the G7 Tag. Tails Wx (they/them) 01:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Okay, since you all are requesting deletion, I feel like I've got my bases covered. Sorry to make you jump through hoops. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you so much for deleting the error I made (Wikipedia:List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s)). When I was trying to transfer my sandbox to List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s), I did not see the "article" bit and choose "wikipedia" instead, and when I realised my mistake I moved it to List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s) but was unsure of how to ask someone to delete it (as it kept coming up on google etc). Thank you so so much. And I am really sorry for making the mistake. This was not the first article that I made completely from scratch from my sandbox (I have made many redirects, categories and other pages, but none from my sandbox) and I am very sorry. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DaniloDaysOfOurLives,

Don't worry about it, I come across this mistake (and editors moving articles into User space), on a daily basis. But what I do want to advise you is if this happens again, please tag the error page for speedy deletion. It's really unusual that an editor even came across this page to tag it when the move happened a few days ago. If you are not familiar with the CSD process, then discover Twinkle and ask for help at the Teahouse. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiation for Deletion of Article

Hello, you deleted an article I started (marked with "under construction"): Spinx (fuel and convenience store)

The reason says "implausible title"--can you please substantiate this? Nitro911 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nitro911,

Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article so I can see why it was deleted? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I'll reference it in two more ways as the original message seems to have not worked: Spinx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinx_(fuel_and_convenience_store))

Thanks! Nitro911 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra info: your deletion showed as the only activity when I looked this morning; however, someone else made an adjustment from Spinx (fuel and convenience store) to Spinx (store) -- which is essentially the clarification I was after. I think all is good now! Thanks again. Nitro911 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nitro911,

Spinx (fuel and convenience store)) wasn't an article just a bad redirect that was deleted because it had two parenthesis ("))"). The article was moved to Spinx (store) by another editor. If you ever think that an article you have worked on is missing or moved, just check your Contributions and that will show the correct location if the page has been moved. I hope this helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Take care. Nitro911 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Molotov Jive page

Hi @Liz. You deleted the wikipage of the Swedish indie band Molotov Jive in October albeit the page still seem to exist in other languages. This band existed. It now feel like they kinda don't. Please consider reinstating. 213.89.181.31 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 213.89.181.31,

The fact is that I delete a lot of pages daily for many different reasons. Can you provide me with a link to the deleted page you are concerned about? Then I can see the reason why it was deleted. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ema Peter draft

Hi Liz, quick question we attempted to do a wiki page for me and I hired a writer but it was rejected 2 times as there were not many articles that talk about me they were interviews. Now I have a lot of articles about me and was wondering can we try the process again if the first one was deleted? Thank you!! Ema Ema Peter (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ema_Peter Ema Peter (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ema Peter,

Done As an expired draft article, it could be restored upon request which I have done. But I am given pause at your desire to have a page on yourself and the fact that you hired someone to write the article. 99.999% of editors on Wikipedia are volunteers and we see both article subjects and paid editors as having an inherent conflict-of-interest which makes it hard to write about a subject with a neutral point of view. At the least, please make sure if you hire another editor, that they follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Failure to disclose that one is doing paid editing can get an editor blocked so they have to declare their status on their User page.

If you have questions about conflict-of-interests, paid editing disclosures or editing on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse which exists to help new editors navigate through Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Draft: Prof Ganesh Ramakrishnan

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Prof_Ganesh_Ramakrishnan&action=edit&redlink=1

Hello, Liz

This is regarding the above-mentioned article deleted by you. The contents of the said article were authentic and accurate. The purpose of this page was to inform and raise awareness around Indian academicians engaged in Artificial Intelligence. This move was to raise awareness and motivate people towards the learning and practice of Artificial Intelligence. I apologise if I have missed any formatting rules or guidelines while creating this page, being a novice editor. I seek your help and guidance with the creation of this page. Kindly guide me how I can contact you and explain my position regarding this edit. Your help would open the possibility of inspiration for millions. Thank You!

SomethingNew0508bychance (talk) 3:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomethingNew0508bychance (talk • contribs)

Hello, SomethingLikeNothingBefore,

I'm sorry but you have this wrong. I deleted Draft:Prof Ganesh Ramakrishnan which was a broken redirect. A broken redirect is a page that only contains a link to a deleted article. There was no article on this page. The page you are probably interested in is Draft:Ganesh Ramakrishnan which was deleted by a different administrator. Please look at the deletion note which is a pink section at the top of the page. You can post your appeal to his Talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz

Thank you for the speedy reply. Could you guide me what could be my approach in order to pursue the updation of this page. SomethingNew0508bychance (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SomethingLikeNothingBefore,

Well, it won't be easy. As you can see in the deletion tag, this draft was deleted because it was seen as promotional and it had problems with copyright violations. Copyright violations are not restored because there are legal implications. It would be best to start from scratch and write a new draft that doesn't have these problems. But if you want to pursue this, you really need to contact the administrator who deleted the page who was User:Jimfbleak. He might be willing to email you the deleted content of the article but, honestly, he will also probably advise you to start over.

If you have other questions about article creation, copyright guidelines or Wikipedia's deletion policies, please take them to the Teahouse. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz

Thank you for the swift reply.

I am totally fine with creating this page from scratch however I am not sure what kind of references would be enough. The ones I had attached were from reputed institutions websites and the sites of research institutions. What other kind of references would be needed in order to make this possible.

Again really indebted due to your prompt responses. SomethingNew0508bychance (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political economy of oil in Angola

I was literally trying to copy out the work on that page to try a rewrite as you closed it. Is there a way I can get to the original source to copy to my sandbox without resurrecting the article? Please & Thank You, Last1in (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or could you drop the source in the sandbox page I created? Last1in (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Last1in,

It was a Soft Delete closure so this won't be a problem but I'm in the middle of other activities right now. I will get to this later today, if that's alright. If you want more immediate action, you can make a request at WP:REFUND, the admins there are pretty speedy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no hurry. I was stoopid enough to start the research and not grab a copy first. Any time is fine. Cheers (and THANK YOU!), Last1in (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOT A NAG: Were you able to resurrect this? I not, no worries. I just want to know whether to keep looking for sources, and I need the text to do that. I have no time limit on needing this, and if it's gone, it's no great loss. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ben Leeds Carson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ben Leeds Carson. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadibautista (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wolf (comedian)

Can I ask for a rev/del [49] please. Can I ask for a check on all the other edits from today as there seems to be a few that might need rev/del. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knitsey,

Done Yes, I found a few others that needed to be taken care of. Thanks for alerting an administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking them all. Knitsey (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Action needed

Hello, Please make an action about this User. He is in a Move-war always. I don't usually participate in Eng Wiki (I'm an Editor (autopatrolled) (verify) in the Arabic Wiki and an administrator (verify) on the Arabic Wikisource.) I just told you about this cuz he keep doing the same thing in Wikidata ! أبو آسر (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, أبو آسر,

I posted a warningon this editor's User talk page yesterday about the move-warring. We'll see if they pay attention to it. I can not block an editor here on the English Wikipedia based on their behavior on a different project but I appreciate the information you are passing along. I'll keep an eye out in case there is future disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects

In the media: An accusation of bias from Brazil, a lawsuit from Portugal, plagiarism from Florida

In focus: 2023 Good Article Nomination drive is underway: get your barnstars here!

Special report: Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still from 2005?

Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them

Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing

Opinion: Copyright trolls, or the last beautiful free souls on this planet?

Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether

Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed

Humour: Arbitration Committee to accept case against Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire

Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malti Chahar

Request to reopening of the Wikipedia article for Malti Chahar. The current article was flagged due to violations, but I've found valid references showcasing her significance in the film industry. As a fellow Wikipedia contributor, I'd like permission to rectify and enhance the article with accurate information and reliable sources. Your support in this matter would be appreciated.

Malti Chahar Incognitopublisher (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Incognitopublisher,

As a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malti Chahar (3rd nomination), an article was deleted and that page title in main space has been "salted", meaning that any future creation of articles is prevented. I can not revert my decision which was based on the consensus of participating editors in the discussion. You must start a new article in Draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation for review and, hopefully, approval. Articles on this subject have been repeatedly deleted and you must overcome the community's opinion that an article on this person is unsuitable for the project. That is a high hurdle to cross. I'd review the three AFD discussions to see why editors were advocating that these articles be deleted.

If you have questions about article creation or deletions due to Articles for deletion discussions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz,

Thank you for notifying me about the deletion of the article on Malti Chahar and the reasons behind it. I appreciate your guidance on how to proceed. I'll take your advice and work on creating a new article in the Draft space for submission and review. I'll also carefully review the previous AFD discussions to better understand the concerns raised by editors. Your input is valuable, and I'm committed to addressing the community's concerns.

Best regards,

@Incognitopublisher Incognitopublisher (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why y delete my edits

Whay do you add my edits to delete immediately Cgmlilwrld (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cgmlilwrld,

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for articles on notable people, things and events. Do you have any national awards? Any gold records? A longlasting career full of achievements? Please stop trying to get an article about yourself put into main space or you will find your account blocked for self-promotion. I left you notices about this on your User talk page but apparently, you are ignoring their advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they ignored your comments. Some editors don't listen. You warned them. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are active right now, can you please help with a block of an active vandal?

See Special:Contributions/Detyrz3877. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another admin just took care of it--sorry to bother you! Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting

Hi @Liz I have started SPI against 5 users Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EramZuko - Wikipedia now they are continuously attacking this page.Operation Swift Retort (short film) I am trying to revert it but they are making fake accounts and doing disruptive editing. Please take action as they are doing AFD without knowledge as their contents are being deleted on my request for GSD10 and GSD7. NatRepo (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Internet in Nigeria

It appears to me that the principal author of this draft is still blocked as a sockmaster, unless you are aware of an account that isn't obvious. In any event, the draft is now in the queue for review and is not about to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert,

Well, in their block summary, it states that Pricelessjosy was blocked as a sockpuppet of Semmy1960 and that editor is not currently blocked. They were only blocked for a week for having multiple accounts. I posted a note on Semmy1960's user talk page alerting them to the draft article created by Pricelessjosy. But I'm glad the draft will be given a second review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. By the way, there is a DRV where you relisted the AFD twice, and both times asked for an analysis of the sources, but now the appellant is claiming that the article was deleted in a hurry without a review of the sources. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, Robert McClenon. I would think that I'd have received a notification about a new deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't notified because you weren't the closer, but a non-closer by relisting it twice. Maybe non-closers should also be notified, but the procedures only say that the closer should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood. But I do relist discussions a lot hence my misunderstanding. I generally don't like to visit Deletion review but maybe I'll check this one out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lakin

Can you please restore this to draftspace?

It's madness this was deleted when Justin Qiang was kept, but AfD is like that sometimes... SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SportingFlyer,

Done If I only carried out closures where I agreed 100% with the outcome, I'd be less active working in AFD land. It's harder for me to delete older articles where I know it is unlikely that they will ever be recreated with the appropriate level of sourcing so thank you for deciding to spend some time working on improving this one. But on Wikipedia, consensus (which is actually whomever shows up) and content that is consistent with policy determine deletion discussion outcomes. Did you notice that this article was edited by a User:Barry.Lakin? Interesting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that! I also am not criticising any closes - you're doing a great job especially because AfD closers seem to be in short supply, just frustrated at how two outcomes can be so different. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SportingFlyer, I tend to be a conservative closer. If I have a bias, it's that I appreciate when editors offer alternatives to deletion like turning articles into Redirects to appropriate target articles so that content is preserved in case circumstances change and sources, especially foreign-language sources, are discovered. When I have been BOLD, I have often been taken to Deletion review which is like being brought behind the schoolhouse to be severely paddled. So, that leads one to either not care about the scolding or to relist discussions so the outcome is clear to everyone.

What I think the solution is is to get more knowledgeable editors to participate in AFD discussions but these discussions can become adversarial and some editors burn out after trying to save articles that are then deleted. If we could double the number of editors who thoughtfully paricipate in all sorts of deletion discussion, I'm confident we'd have better outcomes. And there are even fewer editors who regularly participate at CFD and TFD. Also, right now, we are short on admin closers as everyone seems to be off for the month of August, having more fun than we are! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the conservatism most of the time! It's just occasionally difficult to argue that an article really should not be on the site, especially if sourcing exists or it fails WP:NOT, or people mis-interpret the sourcing. I still think a good keep !vote is hardest because it can take more work. And sometimes you have to be bold, because deletion review can indeed endorse a bold outcome. I would also like to see stats if AfD participation is down or not, northern hemisphere summer aside...

Thank you for restoring the draft, I think it's close, but I'm not entirely sure how I'll find sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foued Kahlaoui

Hello Liz. As with most sportsperon AfDs, I know this was a difficult one to close, and I appreciate you doing so. That said, I'm struggling to see how there wasn't a consensus to delete with 4 editors discussing the sources and determining they weren't sufficient, and just one editor discussed the sources and determined they were sufficient. It's clear that neither of the other two keep votes made much (perhaps any) effort to review the sources, let alone take the time to discuss them. Could you help me understand you're thinking here? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jogurney,

Well, I didn't see it in such a lopsided fashion which is why I closed it as No consensus. Also, when an editor like GiantSnowman, who advocates "Delete" in most of these athelete-related discussions, states that he thinks the sources are sufficient, that carries a lot of weight for me. While he didn't go through the sources in the AFD discussion, I know that he checks them out. But I did see it as No consensus so I'll revert my closure. I don't think I can close it as Delete but maybe the next admin closer will see the situation as you do.

I'll just say that I'm feeling more pressure to close AFD discussions in some way given the absense of many of our regular admin closers this month. There are usually about half a dozen admins who close AFDs but it feels like people are just off on summer vacations or some other off-line adventures. I don't want AFD discussions lingering around too long. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. I understand your thinking now (I don't want to comment on other editors, so I'll just say I wouldn't reach the same conclusion), and that's all I wanted, but again thank you for reversing. All the best. Jogurney (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another RfC

I opened an RFC a while back (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting/Archive_12#RfC_on_podcast_episode_lists) and we discussed opening another one here on your talkpage. There was limited participation in the last one, it's been a while, and the deletion of podcast episode lists is still controversial. For instance, there were two episode lists recently deleted via prod and then restored and they are likely going to go to AfD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_17#List_of_99%_Invisible_episodes. I would like to open another RfC on the subject, but I want to make sure there is more participation than last time. Could I put notifications out letting people know that the RFC is happening and where would the most appropriate locations be? WikiProjects seem to be fairly inactive and I'm not entirely sure which projects this would be relevant to other than WP:POD. Maybe WP:TV and WP:RADIO? Can I drop a message at WP:HD or WP:TEA? Are there other places I could notify? I could ping everyone who has ever been involved in AfDs for podcast episode lists, but that list of users is getting pretty long. What are your thoughts on this? TipsyElephant (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TipsyElephant,

I hope you are well. I would suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC which has some of the suggestions you mentioned. You might consider the Village Pump as well. My first thought was WikiProjects' talk pages but most of the ones that are not defunct are inactive or semi-active. I think it's smart to include other topic areas that also have articles like an "episode list" because the issues are the same whether or not it is anime, a sitcom or a podcast. You can alert everyone who has participated in a podcast episode AFD as long as you include all participants and not just those whose stance you agree with. But you are an experienced editor and I assume you wouldn't make that mistake. But it seems like you've already considered all of the suggestion I could offer. To be honest, I haven't participated in many RFCs, much less started ones myself, so I'm not the best person to come to for advice. I do know that many RFCs experience low participation unless it's a subject like a news event that gets a lot of attention. I suppose you could also post notices on the talk page of podcast articles that do have episode lists but I'm not sure how much traffic those pages receive. Sorry that I don't have more original ideas to help you out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete: Kenneth P. Green

I just noticed that my Wikipedia entry has been deleted as of June, 22, 2023. Here's the link I found:

23:46, 18 June 2023 Liz talk contribs deleted page Kenneth P. Green (Expired PROD, concern was: Notability unclear) Tag: Twinkle

I'd like the page to be undeleted. Reasons: I am still a reasonably visible public commentator on EHS policy, and reach a significant audience with weekly columns in Canadian newspapers, and via social networking as well.

I also recently published a book that is directly relevant to my previous work on climate policy which was the focus of my previous page. I'd like to see that added to the page if it's undeleted. That book is here: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Plague_of_Models_How_Computer_Modeling_Corrupt?id=RMu8EAAAQBAJ&gl=US 24.121.19.234 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 24.121.19.234,

Done I have restored Kenneth P. Green as it was an expired Proposed deletion and can be restored upon request. This was an unusual PRODding as it was done by a Canadian IP editor and typically IP editors do not pursue the deletion or articles. They also left a comment on the article talk page that, if you are Green, you might want to respond to. Just be aware that while an article can not be PROD'd more than once, this article could be tagged for an AFD deletion discussion in the future. If you are Green, please do not edit it, as that would be a conflict-of-interest, but leave editing suggestions on the article talk page.

If you have questions about COIs or Wikipedia's deletion policies, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf States Utilities

Hello,

I had added some additional references to Gulf States Utilities a few minutes before you deleted it. Could you please undelete the article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eastmain,

I don't think an additional reference would have changed the outcome of the AFD so I don't want to revert my decision and relist the discussion again. Since it was a Soft Delete, if you would like to work on the article, seriously, you can ask for it to be restored at WP:REFUND. I'd prefer if you went this route if you want to work on this article, if you don't mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Steve Culbertson

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Steve_Culbertson&diff=1171098726&oldid=1171046924 Thanks for noticing that I inadvertently removed the AFD notice from Steve Culbertson. That wasn't my intention. I was adding references and somehow ended up editing an old version of the article which didn't include the AfD notice. I have transferred the new references to the version that you restored. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eastmain,

I knew it was a mistake. But I didn't know how to just replace the AFD tag without reverting your entire edit. Sorry about that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Readers can go to the manufacturer's website for this type of information."

Not contesting a close that didn't go my way, just pointing out that that statement is never completely accurate, and probably usually inaccurate. :-) The lists of trivial product specifications collected by enthusiasts--of whatever--will often, and probably usually, exceed that maintained on all but the most fastidious manufacturers' websites. The irony is, when lists of specs on self-published websites are more comprehensive than the manufacturers' websites--which are, as a rule, run by marketing and not engineering--the SPS websites are generally going to be more comprehensive and correct than manufacturers'. Manufacturers don't make money by maintaining lists of models they no longer support or service. Your assumption is perfectly reasonable and plausible, even if it doesn't happen to be correct, hence me taking a minute to point out the fastidiousness of nerds--to include many Wikipedia editors--often exceeds that of corporate employees. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jclemens,

You could be right, I didn't confirm my guess that the manufacturer would have a catalog page listed with all of their products under a particular product line. And if they did, it wouldn't list products that are no longer for sale. But I think you understood the point I was getting at. I'll say that most often when I've been brought to Deletion review, it wasn't because of a closure but because of an inaccurate closure statement. So, I'll need to be more careful with my words.

By the way, I think these kinds of pages are very useful and should be somewhere online. But policy and the consensus says that they don't belone on Wikipedia and so that's why I closed the discussion as I did. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to be sure, on both counts. Just wanted to encourage you to challenge an assumption, not critique the close. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my speedy deletion?

@Liz: Hi, I noticed you removed my SD nomination at File:Senior Discount (promo picture).jpg and you said in your edit summary "Removing CSD tag, this isn't an article". But G11 is a general criteria, it applies to promotional material in general, not only articles. Please clarify, since I believe G11 can be used to nominate files for SD. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 09:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on while I catch my breath climbing all the way down here to the bottom of Liz's messages (can I archive some of these for you @Liz?). @Matr1x-101:, I would suppose that that is, technically, an error, but I would dispute the G11 tag itself. While the name does have "promo" in it, it's their own work and that user has exclusively only worked on that band page. We have similar files for bands here on Wikipedia. Just a thought. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 10:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shieh

Hi Liz. I noticed that you closed the AfD for Alex Shieh with a delete. As someone who participated in that discussion, I was surprised you reached this conclusion and I was wondering if you were willing to reconsider.

You rightly say "but through it all, I see only agreement on one reliable source with the other references' independence and SIGCOV being questioned." To me, this indicates that there is consensus that one source meets the GNG, and that there is a lack of consensus on several other sources that could meet the GNG (supported by myself, Indefensible, and Belichickoverbrady, and opposed by Vergilreader and Jfkadmirer). To me, since one source is valid by consensus, and 3 potentially valid sources lack consensus either way, is unclear how there could possibly be consensus to delete, as opposed to a more intermediate outcome like no consensus, reflecting the overall lack of consensus in the discussion.

Not trying to make things personal since you're clearly dedicated to making Wikipedia better. Just unsure about this one judgement call right here. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biharpro7252

Hi, Liz. Since pings don't always work, can I just point you to User talk:Biharpro7252, where I have blocked the user for 48 hours and also asked you a question? And since I'm here, I'll ask you another; do you know if the user has more disruption baggage than what concerns the article Anga (region)? Because that's all I'm aware of. Might they need a longer, or indefinite, block, in your opinion? Bishonen | tålk 19:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Bishonen,

Thanks for letting me know about the ping. I don't regularly check pings which is a habit I should probably change. Regarding Biharpro7252, I'm only aware of the refusal to work with other editors on the Anga (region) article and their activity on the AFD discussion about it. I'm not a big fan of indefinite blocks unless there is persistent vandalism, BLP or copyright violations and I would hope that a short block might help demonstrate to the editor that they need to be less belligerent. But then I'm the AFD closer that thought draftifying the article was a good idea! But sometimes that approach has worked in the past. I'm a big believer in ROPE because I think it can be almost impossible to come back after an indefinite block and I think, in some cases, it can be the final nail that just causes the editor to sock rather than try to improve their behavior. But sometimes, an indefinite block is the best solution for problematic editors. I will say that I think this editor's primary focus is on this article subject but I'd have to look over their contributions to see if they are causing problems on other articles. And, of course, I'll support whatever decision you think is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I didn't mean I'd consider an indef unless there was wideranging disruption. Let's hope my short block has a good effect, then. Bishonen | tålk 19:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Restore or move to draft Diāna Suvitra

Hi! Please restore or move to draft Diāna Suvitra Latvia national women's team player. I will update asap this page with citations and sources. Renārs Krīgers (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Renārs Krīgers,

Done I restored the article. You might move the page to Draft or User space to prevent a quick return to AFD but I'll leave that to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold merge and redirect after "no consensus" on AfD-s?

Hello Liz, I have a specific AfD in mind which you recently closed as "no consensus": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic cultures. Since it's not closed as "keep", I suppose it isn't against any guidelines to boldly proceed to merge and redirect to Outline of Slavic history and culture#Culture? Thank you in advance, and have a nice day. –Vipz (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vipz,

Well, since the AFD JUST closed, I'd post the suggestion first on the article talk page rather than plunging in. You might see how much support there is first. You don't want your changes to be quickly reverted. But I think you might substantial agreement with your proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Especially hungry work, summer mopping. Not sure if this comes with a $5 shake, though :) SN54129 18:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Serial Number 54129,

Thanks, it's almost lunchtime here in Northwest U.S. I do feel like I've done an awful lot of work on the project and I hope that is just because people were busy over the summer and it doesn't signal a decreased presence of our regular admins. Hoping for a September return! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I hadn't see this... cos now I want a shake. XD - UtherSRG (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lewis (politician) in Category:Wyoming police officers

Hi - Do we really want a one-article category? I thought there was a "policy" or something discouraging that. Gjs238 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gjs238,

Well, small categories are discourage when there is no possibility for expanding them in the future and we might eventually have more articles on figures who were police officers in Wyoming. But I was being a stickler when I changed your edit, I'll go ahead and revert myself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank-you for all your work at AfD, in regularly clearing the speedy deletions categories, protecting pages, and whatever other arcane things you administrators do! Thanks again, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edward-Woodrow,

Thank you for this. I've been putting in extra hours this summer. Hopefully, that will change come the fall and editors and admins who might have taken a break when the weather was nice will return to help out with the regular clean-up tasks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Guevara draft move

Hello, you removed the db-move template I put on the Gregory Guevara redirect (so that Draft:Gregory Guevara could be moved into the mainspace). The reasoning in the edit summary was that since the article failed AfC, it cannot be moved into the mainspace. I do not understand this, because I thought that WP:AfC was entirely optional. To my knowledge, it isn't a prerequisite for a page to exist and AfC decisions aren't binding for autoconfirmed users, who are allowed to make pages without the AfC process. Could you please help me understand this better? Thanks.

P.S. For the record, I did not remove the AfC notice from the draft page with any intention to deceive, I just removed it because I thought it would be unnecessary as I thought the page would soon be moved. That's why I also removed the promising draft tag and the draft categories. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Di (they-them),

Technically, you are correct, AFC is optional. And I did think you removed the AFC tags as a way of hiding the fact that it had been declined. But I have seen a lot of these articles about people known primarily for their internet presence and I think this article will be quickly tagged for some sort of deletion if you move it into main space. I encourage you to try again with an AFC review, after considering the comments that the last reviewer made.

But it can be moved to main space, it's just after it's been deleted (which is what I think is what will happen), it's hard to get it back. But if you choose to pursue this, I won't interfere, I just advise against it. But it's your choice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for responding, I appreciate it. I obviously don't want the page to get deleted, so I will leave it as a draft for now. Thanks for your advice. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (2nd nomination)

Hi Liz,

Hope all is well. I'm in disagreement with your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (2nd nomination): it doesn't mention your stance with respect to the nature of Debrett's peerage, which was one of the two subjects of dispute during the AfD (the other being that keep voters think it is SIGCOV; delete voters think it is not). Involved users at WP:RSN have indicated that Debrett's peerage is a tertiary source, and the GNG should be satisfied only with secondary sources. Therefore, I find the keep case rather weak, given that only one source seems to count towards the GNG. Thoughts on this? I'm thinking of opening a request for deletion review at WP:DRV otherwise. Thanks! Pilaz (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help - The Queer Trans Project- Agw8899

My page was deleted, deletion was carried out without proper discussion or consensus among the editors. Please assist.

AGW8899 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gregory Guevara

Hi, Liz. Since I created the redirect Gregory Guevara, I got notified today when it was re-patrolled. I see that Di (they-them) is trying to move Gregory Guevara there from mainspace, and that you declined because it was declined at AfC. I'm not sure that mainspacing it is a great idea, but, given that Di is an autoconfirmed editor, and given that AfC is a voluntary process for autoconfirmed users (barring a few technicalities that don't apply here), procedurally isn't the correct thing to action the request? In other words, they have the right to their day at AfD, if that's what it comes to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, Liz and I already discussed this earlier at User talk:Liz#Gregory Guevara draft move. I have decided to leave it as a draft for now because I don't want it to get deleted. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba settlements

There's an effort underway to clean up "phantom" towns/settlements in Manitoba which are actually just remote railroad flag stops. Thanks for your role in handling the associated PRODs

Since there will likely be more of these coming down the pipe, I wanted to ask if you could make sure you're not leaving behind mentions of nonexistent settlements when delinking. For example Weir River (Manitoba); Division No. 23, Manitoba; and Weir River all mention a "settlement" of Weir River, Manitoba which does not exist in any way, shape or form. I would appreciate your help here since these are difficult to track down in the future if they're not addressed right away. A few extra seconds on your part will help ensure the accuracy of these articles and save the effort of future editors who would essentially need to do a BEFORE search to figure out if these are real places. –dlthewave ☎ 01:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dlthewave,

I was instructed as a new admin to unlink all mentions of a deleted article in main space, using Twinkle and this includes PRODs. The XFDCloser usually unlinks the deleted article and sometimes removes the entire mention of the deleted article. But there are sometimes quite a few active links that need to be unlinked.

Are you asking that I track down all of these unlinked mentions and remove them? I typically delete a couple hundred pages a day although most of them are in Draft space and do not have any main space links. It would be easier to just not unlink these main space articles for PRODs and leave them as red links. I'm also not the only admin who deals with PRODs, you should probably also pass along this request to Explicit and GBfan. There are one or two others, like ComplexRational and Extraordinary Writ, who occasionally delete PRODs as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, please review Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. I don't know how you were trained but "list entries should be removed altogether if notability concerns were raised." These aren't just non-notable, they're nonexistent, and leaving them in place is unacceptable. You even left an unlinked entry in a See Also section - Are you just going through all of these with an automated delinking tool without really reviewing them? I don't see these errors from other admins (I check and yes, I do reach out when it does happen). Maybe this should be a sign to slow down a bit and make sure you're carrying out these deletions fully and properly. I just want to make sure we're keeping our articles clean and accurate and I trust you have that same goal. –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed "the XFDCloser usually unlinks the deleted article and sometimes removes the entire mention of the deleted article." Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't that tool simply provide a list of links and you decide whether each item should be removed or delinked? –dlthewave ☎ 12:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help

i Need Permissions Autoconfirmed Users For Creating Page Wrong Article fix Error

Autoconfirmed Users Reviewer

Unity360 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unity360,

I do not understand why you are not autoconfirmed yet as you qualify for this status. Are you using a proxy or have an IP exemption? Any way, you should request this status at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Editors there know the requirements and regularly review requests so they are the experts here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire. 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. Pilaz (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pilaz,

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to make a visit to the discussion page tonight or tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In need of assistance

I have started reviewing New Pages, and ivecome across multiple pages which are cited with sources that are not written in English and it makes it hard to tell if the subjec pass WP:NOTABILITY or not, what did i do in this kind of situation?shelovesneo (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, shelovesneo,

Foreign language references can be challenging. I think most patrolling editors just use Google Translate which is a crude translation tool but can give you a general idea of the quality of the coverage. If you use the Chrome browser, you can add a Translate extension so there is a litte blue box you can click on to give you a translation. You might also start noticing which editors are knowledgeable about other languages (there are categories that can show you this) and if there is a particular reference you are struggling with, you can ask them for help. Unfortunately, like many Americans, I'm basically monolingual despite spending years of my life in college studying foreign languages. I use to have a reading knowledge of French and German but I'm pretty rusty.

You might also consider bringing these problems to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers because other patrollers might have better solutions than I can offer. It never hurts to ask another editor who is more experienced than you are for their opinion. Most times, they are very helpful. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about moving an article

I noticed that you left a message on my talk page about copy and pasting an article and renaming the title. I was wondering if I could just delete the draft rather than having to go through the process of moving the article across as the article Australian music industry, which I have created and have worked on substantially, is already in the mainspace. Racer235 (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Racer235,

The message is really to convey to editors that we would prefer you to move an article in Draft space back to main space rather than cutting and pasting content in a new main space page. But I didn't really check out the draft to see how little content was on it and how much of the main space article was brand new. There is really no valid reason to delete the Draft space version but I did turn it into a redirect to point to the main space article. But thanks for coming to me to ask about the message, most of the time, they seem to be ignored.

But in the future, if an editor moves an article you started to Draft space, either work on the Draft space version or move it back to main space. It just gets complicated when we have more than one page history on the same subject. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topalian AfD?

Any reason this wasn't closed as delete or at least redirect? I had this open and was planning to !vote after reviewing the sources, but then I saw 2 delete !votes and a redirect !vote that was also "fine with deletion" and figured my input wouldn't add much or affect the outcome, so I moved on to other things. If I'd realized this was still lacking consensus I would've participated and likely !voted delete (I got through most of the sources and agree with others they're not sufficient). Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JoelleJay,

I know it seems like I'm all over many AFDs but although I relisted this AFD discussion, it was User:Star Mississippi who closed it. You'll have to go talk to her if you have questions about the closure.

Although I'll just take this opportunity to thank you for examining the sources in these AFDs, there are some editors who participate in AFDs where I question if they even read the article being discussed. It's nice to see editors taking the process seriously. I realize that doing so conscientiously takes time and effort and it's apppreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Liz. @JoelleJay I relisted but then forgot to ping you. I'd much rather consensus established than kicking the can down the road for a potential additional AfD. Star Mississippi 12:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks both of you, and sorry for the mistaken ping, Liz! JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, JoelleJay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we all find each other/necessary messages. Thanks for your input to the AfD (and all other discussions where you participate) Star Mississippi 01:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your close at Nimr Baqir al-Nimr Street

Hi Liz, Re. your closure at WP:Articles for deletion/Nimr Baqir al-Nimr Street, I'm not sure you took enough time to actually evaluate the !votes. The only "keep" vote had obviously misunderstood the sources (the editor confused two Iranian cities), while two other editors, me included, argued that the article should go. Hope you can also see a consensus for merge/redirect. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with her no consensus close. If you're interested in a redirect or a merge, you can discuss that on the articles talk page. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, but merge-and-redirect discussions are normally held at AfD. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this closure, Kashmiri. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri, I still don't see a consensus in this discussion. As Dusti states, you can still go ahead with a Merge or Redirect discussion on the article talk page. Given the low participation in this discussion, I don't think you would face much opposition to a proposal to take further action. And there are plenty of times, daily, that editors merge or redirect on their own, outside of an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allergic to edit summaries

Hi, there's an editor making literally hundreds of edits at the page 'Kyle Larson' without edit summaries. They've been asked on their talkpage twice to start using summaries. I suspect they never saw the requests (100% mobile editing). Any thoughts on what to do to reach the editor? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bri,

I'm not sure what to do here, they are really focused on this article and the edits state that they are mobile edit. They don't have email enabled. If they are unaware of their talk page, the only way I know to get their attention is a block or a partial block but I don't think their edits are disruptive and that is called for. If the quality of the editing changes though, I would consider taking that action. I'm sorry that I don't have a better solution but I have a fair number of talk page stalker and maybe one of them will chime in here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AfDs

Hi Liz, I'm a little concerned with the way you've relisted some AfDs recently.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) your second relist reads in a way like you are taking ownership of the discussion, even though you've already noted consensus is clear after two weeks.
You relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cad Crowd a third time even though it's one of the most weird and probably badly socked AfDs I've ever been a part of to see if there would be any more consensus to draftify the article, even though only one person has mentioned draftifying, and the creator is clearly a SPA. You've noted there's not a single keep !vote from any account that's not new, and even a delete vote and the nomination are from new accounts. It's incredibly unlikely there will be any additional consensus to draftify - if you thought there should have been, I would have appreciated if you had voted instead of relisting. Closing and relisting are theoretically neutral processes, and the way the relist is worded could potentially sway the discussion to an outcome which had little support.
You relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European route E404 a third time asking for discussion of redirects versus keeps, and for input from older participants. There needs to be an editorial decision made with this page, but not a single !voter has explicitly voted redirect over keep at this point.

I'm not sure this is an exhaustive list, I know we've discussed the fact there are fewer people both closing and participating in AfDs, and I'm genuinely appreciative of the work you're putting in on this, but can you please consider either closing these discussions instead of relisting for a second or third time when there's a genuine consensus, or participating in the AfD if there's a genuine issue with the discussion instead of flagging problems in the relist notes? SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SportingFlyer,

Oh, criticism is hard to hear but I appreciate you coming directly to me with these examples. I can't revert a relisting but I'll review my relisting remarks and see if I should strike any of my comments for being inappropriate. I try to be as neutral as possible but I do have a bias towards ATD that I clearly need to keep more in check. Sometimes, there are opinions to Delete where I can see that it hasn't occcurrd to anyone that a Redirect is a possible option. This happens with albums (redirecting to the artist's page) or sports figures (redirecting to a team page) and other types of articles. I also see literally hundreds of AFD discussions over a week and if I repeatedly see a certain type of discussion that always seems to be closed with an "X" decision, I might bring that fact up in a relisting comment. I will state that I will take no further action on these three discussions and let another admin or NAC make a closure decision.

Generally, I tend to relist discussions in certain situations, if a) they haven't had much (or any) participation, b) there are conflicting opinions on what should happen with an article and no clear consensus or c) I sometimes relist discussions that have a consensus but it seems to be going against policy, as I understand it. For that last category, I sometimes see a consensus to Keep an article that is unsourced and no sources have been brought up in the discussion so I find it difficult to close a discussion as Keep for an article where it seems like the deletion rationale is more valid for the closing decision than the comments of the participants.

We currently have a shortage of admins coming to AFD land to close discussions and I've been taking on more closures than is typical for me. I feel a certain amount of pressure to close discussions in a timely way and if I don't see an obvious closure or one that is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, I'll relist the discussion, hoping that more participation will lead to a stronger consensus. Perhaps I should just let these discussions linger on the daily log page and another admin can take a stab at them. In fact, in light of your critique, I'll just leave more unclosed discussions on the daily log page and do fewer relistings and let another admin take care of them.

I'm sure that this response doesn't take care of or address all of your concerns. I'm not a perfect admin (no one is) and I'm sure I have made some mistakes. But I'll try to change my behavior to make their occurrence less likely to happen and I think part of that behavior is closing fewer discussions and letting other admins step in and handle more of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I really appreciate your thoughtful response and again I'm quite appreciative of the work you're doing as a whole. I think your closes are thoughtful and considered and I have absolutely no issues with those, and I know your relists are considered as well, and I honestly appreciate your ATD bias.

I found where you outlined the situations where you relist discussions really helpful as I think it guides me to a very specific ask, especially because I don't want to discourage you at all: could you be careful in making sure category c) doesn't apply when relisting for a second or third time? I think that applies to all of the examples, I don't think any of these comments would have been an issue after a first relist, and I think a) and b) aren't problems for relisting in the slightest. It's just long running AfDs can be exhausting, especially when consensus is breaking towards keep or when the participation is... well, frankly, bizarre... SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SportingFlyer,

Generally, I've found that consensus is in line with policy because those editors who regularly participate in AFD discussions are usually well aware of Wikipedia policy and guidelines even though they often disagree about the quality of sources and whether existing sources are sufficient. So (c) doesn't happen a lot. But in the case of Private Eye, I really was unsure because there is a clear consensus to Keep this article because the article subject is considered significant and important but the problems with the sourcing haven't been addressed (brought up by Arms & Hearts). I was hoping that a relisting would galvanize editors to track down better sources. But the closer's job isn't to impose my wishes on to the participants but to neutrally assess the consensus. It's just unclear to me what to do when consensus goes against my understanding of Wikipedia policies. However these discussions are closed, they often find their way to Deletion review which is my least favorite place on this entire project. But sometimes a review of an AFD closure can clear up murky cases that help one make better decisions in the future so I try to remember that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I thought it was clear on its face that the sourcing presented in the AfD was more than enough for notability, although they needed to be added to the article. Votes explicitly mentioning SIGCOV take time and those sources were already present in the AfD.

In the event where an AfD appears to be going against Wikipedia policies, I'd highly recommend voting or commenting instead - it's very frustrating to make an argument that you feel is correct and policy compliant in an AfD where people aren't making any sort of counter-argument, even though as a closer you'd have to close based on the majority in that case. Even a late comment noting how the discussion is defective would be very helpful to whoever closes the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Did you strike your own sensible comments here? If you think they are less relevant, maybe use small font rather than strike them? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piotrus,

Read the discussion above this one for context. I think I have interacted with these three AFDs enough to do any more altering of my actions or comments. I'm just handing off the decisions to another admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm. I think your handling of that one discussion I mentioned was good. While one side might have had numerical supriority in keeps, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. It was good that you relisted it, and I find your rationale to be very helpful. Closers (or relisters) need to look at the arguments, not just count bolded votes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Noesis Capital Advisors to Draftspace

Hello @Liz, i wanted to continue improving and adding content and work in draftspace of article Noesis Capital Advisors. It was recently deleted and would like to request you to undeleted it. Thank you. DSN18 (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DSN18,

Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article? Then I can see why it was deleted and what steps can be taken. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz , link to article deleted is Noesis Capital Advisors. Would like to research and improve the article more. DSN18 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DSN18,

Done You can find it at Draft:Noesis Capital Advisors. Just know that if you move it directly to main space without going through AFC, there is a high chance it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 because the AFD decision was to Delete this article. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Thank you for giving me fair chance to improve the article. DSN18 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Deleted Article on my Prestigious High School: Victory College Ikare

Hello @Liz, I hope this message find you well. I tried to write and public an article about my prestigious high school but unseccessful. I later found out that you deleted the article which was very painful to me. Let me start by saying that the high school named Victory College Ikare, Nigeria, is a famous high school that was founded by the missionary in 1947. The school has produced a number of high profile individuals within and outside Nigeria namely former governor, military leaders, and technocrats, amongst others. It is important for such a school to be archived on wikepedia. I have verifiable sources to information provided in the article. Kindly undelete and allow me to publish the article. Thank you! Hesjay (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hesjay,

Can you provide me a link to the deleted article? Then I can see why it was deleted and know whether or not it can be restored. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz,

It has been restored. However, you can explain more why it was deleted ab initio. I really need to work on the article and get it published for my prestious alma mater of more than seven decades in existence to be on global stage on Wikepedia. Below is the link as requested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Victory_College_Ikare Hesjay (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hesjay,

Regarding Draft:Victory College Ikare, draft articles and some User pages are deleted if, after 6 months, no one is working on the draft. It's called CSD (Criteria of Speedy Deletion) G13. It happens because otherwise we'd have hundreds of thousands of abandoned drafts that new editors start and never return to work on. The good thing about CSD G13 deletion is that if an editor, like you, returns and wants to work on the article, it is restored upon request. That ability is not true with most other forms on deletion on the project. So, keep working on improving this draft, at least every few months, and you don't have to worry about the draft being deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard discussion

Hi Liz, I opened a discussion at WP:AN#Deletion/unlinking norms concerning our discussion about Manitoba settlements above. As I mentioned at AN, I'm not looking for sanctions or anything, I just want to hear from other admins about what the expectation is. I hope you join the discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dlthewave,

Thanks for telling me, especially because I'm mentioned. As I stated in my comment, if good practice changes to say "leave red links", I will stop removing them. What I didn't say was if policy is changed to insist, "check every single link from a deleted article to see if the mention should be removed", I'm likely to do less article deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 26 August 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. Princess Persnickety (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tool to See Recently Removed Articles from Categories

I thought I copied it to my Sandbox so sorry to make you repeat yourself, but what's the tool you use to see articles that were recenlty removed from a category? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, * Pppery *. I wish this tool had existed years ago. It has really helped me out when categories are suddenly emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted draft

Hello Liz, you just deleted one of my draft-articles, and since I don't remember it, I would like to know if there is any way to see deleted content without going through undeletion request - I would like to check in what state was that draft, so that I can decide if it's worthy of undeletion request? Thanks in advance. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99,

Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article? I need to see why it was deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Liz, especially since it could be unworthy of any trouble. It was standard six months edit-overdue deletion, here on draft Bosnia in the Middle Ages. If it's too much of a trouble don't bother yourself too much - I just wanted to take a peak into draft state prior to your deletion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99,

Done you can find it at Draft:Bosnia in the Middle Ages. No apologies necessary, it's what we are here for and restoring drafts that might be worked on or be useful is one of the better tasks admins have to do. But if you intend to you use this template, you'll need to split it up into smaller versions of this big one. Also, you can avoid all of this 6 months' expiration pressure by moving it to your User space so you might consider that move. Have a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz, I really appreciate it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have assume good faith but please look at this tag

Thanks to you, Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani's article got another chance to be completed in the Draft:Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani . A user who is a global administrator has added a tag to this article.with assume good faith I talked to him and reminded that english Wikipedia administrators are aware of the background of the article. Please check. I also post my and his messages here.User talk:Johannnes89 I am very concerned that this tag will cause prejudice. I have a reason in this regard, since this tag was placed on August 23, colleagues and respected editors do not answer my questions for guidance. Thank you again. —Patricia (Talk) 14:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patricia Mannerheim,

It looks like you asked for Draft:Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani to be deleted. I can restore it if you want to continue to work on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear lady liz

You are one of the most noble and accessible Wikipedia administrators who guide new users. I thought that since you did not answer my message, you meant to delete the article. So I requested removal. in the other hand, I trust your experience. If you believe that revitalizing the draft gives more chances to save Draft:Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani's article, then I agree with revitalization.Of course, just reviving the article without that tag. Best.—Patricia (Talk) 11:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd let you know

A while ago, I abandoned Draft:Kai Shappley, and you then deleted it. I've restored it (and the associated talk page) to continue working on it :) lemme know if that's not kosher with you, and/or if you want me to continue dropping lines when I do so. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, theleekycauldron,

Thanks for letting me know but we undelete CSD G13s every day. That's what goes on at WP:REFUND. And you restored it yourself! Admins handling expiring drafts just work with a bot-created list of articles reaching their 6 month mark each day so I have no opinion about your draft. But I wish you good luck with it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deniss Meļņiks

Hi! Please restore Deniss Meļņiks page and move to the draft. I will add sources so the page is in accordance with the rules. Renārs Krīgers (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out Draft:Deniss Meļņiks? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Philodoppides

Hi, Liz! Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philodoppides and for your hard work at AfD in general. What should be done about the open discussion that was at Talk:Philodoppides? It was about user conduct of the hoax creator and a possible sock. Should it be copied over to a relevant noticeboard and continued, so those who started it (and someone who mentioned banning the creator at the AfD) can see if there is consensus that further action is needed to prevent disruption to the project? If I need to clarify anything, please feel free to ping me and ask. Thank you again! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rotideypoc41352,

I'll check it out. We have a template we can use to say talk page discussions. I'll look into it. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rotideypoc41352,

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Falia2

Hi Liz, I appreciate your block but this is a promo/UPE account so should be blocked indefinitely. See my AIV filing. Their Username also represents the company. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

I'll consider your request but another admin might get to it before I do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once an account is blocked it is removed from AIV so unlikely another admin will have the opportunity to take a look and another admin changing your block might be considered warring. At least for the next couple days it will be quiet (well, from that account anyway lol) and hopefully they get the hint that what they want to happen is not going to happen. If they come back (or a sock), start the same behaviour and you notice, I suggest an indef. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

I appreciate your vigilance but my lack of urgency is influenced by the fact that their focus is on these two draft articles and continually moving them around to different titles. So, while they might have a COI, they are not being that disruptive. My goal with blocks like this is to get them to read their talk page and, hopefully, respond to messages there. But if they just return from their block and continue on in the same way, a longer block is coming.

I know that I have a lighter touch than some admins who freely hand out indefinite blocks, but it's just the way I operate, especially if it's not involving vandalism or serious issues like BLP or copyright-violating content. Thanks again for all of the work you do to protect the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me, violating the Terms of Use is a serious violation and it was not just their moves that has caused disruption but I also get your lighter touch. Why block indef when a short block might do the trick. We shall see. Fingers crossed! Also know I appreciate all the things you around here. S0091 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate AfD re-opening

Hello, after you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliffjumper (2nd nomination) just two days ago, a new nomination from the same user was reopened at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliffjumper (3rd nomination) already. Is there a cool-down period between nominations? 76.176.125.245 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 76.176.125.245,

Thanks for letting me know. I've done a procedural close of that third AFD. There is no set time to wait before nominating an article again but the last AFD just closed so this is too soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Murrow Turning Over in His Grave

I appreciate you pointing out how WP:COI works on this page. I will admit that I was too harsh when I shouldn't have been, and I have struck out my comments as such. Thank you for pointing me to this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JeffSpaceman,

Well, that is particularly flexible and reflective of you! It's appreciated. AFD discussions can become particularly tense and fraught so it's important to not cast aspersions even if the truth is that we have little respect for the opinion of another editor. Conflict does happen, especially among editors who find themselves on opposite sides time and time again, but I try to lower the pressure and temperature of the debate. It's especially hard though when an editor has devoted their time to creating an article that others think should be removed from the project so I might have extra sympathy to content creators even though I spend a lot of my time deleting pages on the project. I think your comments were mistaken rather than malicious so consider this a lesson learned. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider switching to the new MoveToDraft script

Hi, please consider switching to the new Move To Draft script. It is fork of the script that you are using, but has some bug fixes, important warnings, and some feature enhancements. Happy editing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MPGuy2824,

I'll look at it but I'm kind of attached to doing things the way they have always worked for me. I haven't had problems with the Evad draft tool. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former G5-deleted articles now created by IP

Hello, would you see if the following two aticles perhaps need to be deleted, considering their deletion logs? You had previously deleted the first one.

Thanks —Alalch E. 12:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Removed the Jackson Kyton Katrib article which was a vandalist article, keep going Liz, you're a wonderful human and you deserve all the best! AstrowszechwiatWKG (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion issue and codes

An odd one I could use your input on. What is the appropriate deletion code or procedure for a new draft version (Draft:Two-spirit) of an existing, long-term, stable article (Two-spirit)? Agf-ing that the new user who created this just didn't understand how this works, I suggested to the user that if they want to practice editing it can be userfied or moved to their sandbox,[50] but they are not responding. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E. sorted it. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online

News and notes: You like RecentChanges?

In the media: Taking it sleazy

Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia

Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties

Humour: The Dehumourification Plan

Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello,

@Liz:

i see user @Drmies: protected Raditya Adi page. and I've seen previous discussions. for this I apologize as previous users have created repeating pages. can you unprotect the page because i want to create an article this or if you won't let me create an article in main space at least let me create one in draft space. As time goes by I will continue to improve this article. here is the reference. https://m.rctiplus.com/news/detail/gaya-hidup/3728290/yuk-mengenal-raditya-adi--penyanyi-lagu---34-orang-miskin--34-

https://www.serangtimur.co.id/2023/08/umur-raditya-adi-kehidupan-awal-awal.html

https://jurnalpost.com/pro%EF%AC%81l-rapper-raditya-adi/40098/

https://terkenal.co.id/read/news/18321/raditya-adi-rilis-single-barunya-aku-mencintaimu/

https://www.biem.co/read/2023/03/14/95070/nasib-orang-susah/

https://www.netralnews.com/raditya-adi-memutuskan-untuk-membuat-lagu-baru-yang-berjudul-dajjal/dG50UTJrNFlBemtkUlNRMFFqaytqUT09

https://www.askara.co/read/2023/04/09/35549/raditya-adi-menghadirkan-lagu-hip-hop-baru-orang-miskin

Thank You. Nyonyalita (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nyonyalita,

Before I consider your request, please tell me what your previous accounts' usernames were. Your first edits are to come to my page asking for a lowering of page protection which only an experienced editor would even know about. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained again, I initially wanted to create an article in the Draft room but the page was protected, I also saw the previous discussion in the deletion evaluation. So I submit a request to you. Thanks, I'm new to Wikipedia, please advise. Nyonyalita (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyonyalita I agree with Liz. Please disclose your other accounts. I have left a formal request on your own talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On not SNOW Closing

This is a statement that I agree with you in not SNOW closing a deletion discussion, Trevelyan Street, where no one but the originator wants to Keep, and a large number of editors want to Delete. The originator is being persistent, and the other editors are getting tired of the discussion. What they may not realize is that an AFD with one stubborn Keeper that is closed as Delete often is taken to DRV. If the AFD were Snow closed after two or three days of discussion, they would ask both to overturn the Delete and to Relist the AFD because the AFD did not run for seven days. In such a case, a snow close would just kick the bludgeoning upstairs. Thank you for saying to continue the AFD discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon,

That's part of my rationale. We also have a clear policy on Speedy Keep but less explicit policy about early deletions. But, yes, a premature can lead to an appearance at Deletion review which, as you might guess, is one of my least favorite forums on the project. So, just run things by the book. I don't see why running for a full 7 days should bother anyone except maybe the nominator because they sometimes track the progress of an AFD discussion. They might want to bring things to a close sooner but I don't see why a regular participant should be impatient. It's only one week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Dufek (3rd nomination)

Hi. Hope you're doing well. Hate to bug you, but you closed the above discussion, and it's been recreated again. The article creator continues to remove the CSD tag. Thought you might want to take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I have del'd the article, SALTed, and gave the user their final warning. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renjilal Damodaran as a case study

Hello Liz,

I hope this time I won't sound bitey, it’s more a general issue I’d wish to tackle here. When closing the above-mentioned AfD you stated . If there was more than one editor advocating Keep, I'd close this as No consensus but this discussion has been relisted three times with limited participation and I have to close it as Delete I respectefully disagree with that. If you read the guideline, that director is notable as having created 2 notable films and simply because two persons assert he is not, once again, is taking their assertions at face value. It’s the same with sources. Just because someone claims ”not RS’ does not mean it is not. What can be done if not bludgeoning other people’s !votes with ’Not true” so that the users who close the Afd can do it fairly? I am not implying at all it’s a personal issue or a pattern I see in your closings, quite the opposite, I’ve seen various admins and users proceed to this kind of Afd Closings that I found unfair in their outcomes. Rather I’m asking you what can be done to prevent this from happening without commenting on other users’s statements when i feel they are not correct. Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mushy Yank,

I have a busy day but I'll review this some time today. I seem to get in trouble not for my closures but for statements I make in my relistings and closures. But I think it's good to leave some kind of summary statement when discussions are not unanimous so I'll have to be more careful in the words I choose. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If I decide to make some amendments to it, I'll let you know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patsy (Monty Python) (3rd nomination)

While there's certainly a preponderance of delete !votes, none of them explicitly reject redirection and at least two of them appear to list that as an unbolded option or consideration. Would you consider revising to a redirect to Spamalot#Characters with history maintained undeneath? Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jclemens,

I only see Piotrus even mention a Redirect in his remarks, so I'm not sure which two editors you are referring to. There was a solid consensus to Delete.

You can create a redirect on your own, this often happens after an article has been deleted. If you want the content of the deleted article to use for, say, a Merge into Spamalot, I can restore this for you in Draft or User space and then, after the Merge, the draft can stay as a redirect to preserve the page history. But I think it would be violating the consensus of the participants to revert my closure and restore the article in main space as it existed into a Redirect as this was a minority opinion. And I say this as a closer who is usually prompting editors to consider alternatives to deletion. I would if I could but that's not how I saw the discussion ending. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting All notable reception can be covered by Spamlot's article in the nom and All encyclopedic information about him should be given in the film and musical articles to the extent appropriate by Ssilvers as favoring merge, AGF'ing that neither want material WP:CWW without attribution. Not one of the contributors said "delete and don't merge anything anywhere."

I think you're selling yourself short in the ability to enforce a merge or redirect, which is as you know an WP:ATD, and WP:DGFA makes it clear that outright deletion is a last resort. You clearly get this better than most admins do, but I'd encourage you to close based on policy rather than bolded !votes, because delete-without-redirecting-when-there-is-an-obvious-target-and-no-problem-but-notability is not a policy based !vote. Thus, every single vote in the discussion either a) favored or allowed for a merge as an alternative to deletion, or b) can be assigned zero weight as non-policy based. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spam question

@Liz There has recently been some obvious spam/vandalism activity on Samuel Afful. Telegram and an unofficial fan page are being added by new SPA accounts. What would be the best way to stop this? A type of cabinet (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A type of cabinet,

Well, the article is already protected so that only editors that are confirmed can edit it. If I raised the protection higher, then you would not be able to edit it either. I thought there might be sockpuppetry going on but it's much more likely that there are different editors, trying to include the same content. Right now, the spamming is manageable so just revert unacceptable content when you come across it. If it gets a lot worse, you can report the article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Just know that raised protection level would prevent you from editing the article as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, snap! That makes sense. I see you gave them the standard welcome letter. Is there a good list of the standard templates that you can point me towards for future reference? Thanks again, especially for your promptness! A type of cabinet (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I gave them the "Welcome, vandal" template. Making these posts is easy if you start to use Twinkle, which is an editing tool that helps you welcome editors, post warning talk page messages, tag articles, nominate articles for AFD or PROD deletion, it even maintains a log page for you. It remembers templates so you don't have to search for them and has a wide range of different welcome templates that can be used. I recommend you look into it and try it out. Once it's installed, you'll see a "TW" tab at the top of the page. At least, that's what it looks like on a laptop, if you use your phone, I'm not sure how that works. But give it a shot! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sadness, that is... I'm stuck on phone at the moment. About 4 months ago I had an avalanche of critical hardware failures and ended up with a large $18k paperweight of a server/PC. I'm currently in the long and arduous process of convincing my wife to let me build a new one... A type of cabinet (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an expensive system you set up! I think you could find an adequate replace for a few hundred dollars. If you are in the U.S., Labor Day usually has a lot of sales on portable electronics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to get something sooner or later. I just currently lurk on all the various noticeboards with a generally net-negative input, but mostly positive impact. A type of cabinet (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, im at my 3rd revert and will be stepping away from this. A type of cabinet (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melki Sedek Huang

Hi, Liz, esteemed colleague! I'm afraid I've declined your WP:A7 at that page, as there is some vestigial claim of significance there and I don't think it quite qualifies as G11. I agree it shouldn't be part of the encyclopaedia, leaving it to you to choose how best to bring that about. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers,

Well, I thought it might be borderline. I'll admit to being skeptical of bios where an individual's notability primarily rests on being a student leader. I'll consider whether to send it to AFD. Thanks for letting me know your opinion on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizzy

Hi Liz, and thanks for all the good work you do at AFD. I mean that sincerely, I appreciate the care you exhibit and your willingness to close more difficult odiscussions.

I was surprised to see you close the discussion after your involvement here and here. I recognise that the numbers are clearly on the same side as your comments on my talk page, but I think myself and one other provided a robust and careful policy-based argument against deletion.

I hope you will support this request to re-open and let someone else uninvolved close it, please? CT55555(talk) 23:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CT55555,

I don't think my comment in the AFD itself showed INVOLVE but I completely forgot about that talk page comment! I should not have closed this AFD. I'll revert myself. I appreciate you calling this to my attention rather than heading towards Deletion review. My bad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took very seriously an earlier comment you made about how taking an admin to deletion review feels like ANI, so I'm keen to not make anyone's life more stressful than it should be.

You're comment on my talk page kinda hurt my feelings back then, so sadly it remains in my memory. Thanks for the agreeable reply and wishing you all the best. CT55555(talk) 00:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CT55555,

I certainly didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I think at the time, I thought that you are a gifted editor and this article subject didn't deserve your talent and attention. But I apologize if saying this sounded like a slight, I think highly of you and would never intentionally want to hurt your feelings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment. And for everything in this thread. CT55555(talk) 13:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close AFD

Hi, this article Jazz (Transformers) AFD has been relisted for 8 days now, so I think it's time to close it now. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidgoodheart,

I am just reading over this discussion now. I'm uncertain about it right now. I don't know whether I'll close it or let another admin close it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

I've left you three pings but to no avail as yet. Could you please head over to that talk page and respond? Schwede 66 23:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schwede66,

I don't check "pings" so I was unaware of this. I'll check out the AFD now. Thanks for leaving a talk page notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done As I'm sure you know, I reverted my closure and relisted this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Morning Edition (BBC radio programme)

Hi Liz,

I see that you have deleted my draft of this article, in accordance with established Wikipedia guidelines, and I have no issue with you doing this. However I would like to please ask for your help. Unfortunately I kept coming up against what i though was extremely tight interpretation of Wikipedia policies and no matter what I did, it was never allowed to appear on Wikipedia. The main references were from BBC-provided programme schedules which is allied to, both slightly independent of, the BBC website, taken from a listings magazine which, at the time, was owned by the BBC. Other references were from recordings of the programme. These sources were seen as unacceptable and the article was draftified. Therefore, if you can give me any help with getting this article onto Wikipedia, it would be much appreciated. The article is about a shortish-lived 1990s radio programme on a station which was broadcast across all of the UK.

To my huge frustration I forgot to add the article to my Sandbox so I have requested that it be returned to draftspace so that I can copy and paste it into my sandbox.

Thank you in advance for any help you are able to provide. Rillington (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rillington,

While I was getting around to responding to you, I see that another admin has restored Draft:Morning Edition (BBC radio programme) which is what we do with G13 draft articles which are just deleted for being abandoned. So, you can continue to work on it.

Unfortunately, I'm not expert on content creation so I'm not going to be much help in getting this article in shape. It looks like you have more experience than I do in this part of the project. If there is a relevant WikiProject, you can go to the talk page and see if an editor would be willing to collaborate with you. And if you need a fresh set of eyes, you could put an appeal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help. I wish we had some central portal for editors to see help but you might look at similar articles and see if there are any editors who focus on this subject that you might appeal to. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again and thank you for a most helpful reply. The main issue I have with these, and similar articles is that they are about programmes on a radio station which existed for less than four years in the pre-internet era. Whilst there is no issue with notability as they were broadcast on a national radio station, the issue is finding the references. I have followed your advice and mentioned this on the UK Radio WikiProject talk page and hopefully I will get some help from there.

Deletion of user draft "YΔ- and ΔY-transformations"

I saw you deleted (moved to drafts) my article YΔ- and ΔY-transformations. The reason you give is "Userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user". But I am very much an existent user. I am new so there might be something I don't understand. I would appreciate if we could revert this step. MWinter4 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MWinter4 (talk page watcher) I have left message on your draft for the way forward. This could not remain as an article. Draft space allows you to add the references necessary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand your reply. What do you mean "This could not remain as an article" and then what is it right now if not an article? I also saw your comment. This draft is nowhere near ready and I am fully aware of it. It would have gotten references in due time. Is there any reason to not revert the move? Note that it was a user draft before that. MWinter4 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MWinter4 Apologies. I misread the logs. It was in user space previously. Now it is a draft. There is no real benefit either space has above the other. As a draft you have the same opportunities to work on it as you did in your user space. If you feel it to be important I am sure it can be returned to your user space.

I do see the problem. You had used a ":" not a "/" in the file name, thus it was misfiled as if it were a user with a long and complex name. What would you wish to happen? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and sorry for that mistake! I would prefer to have it as a subpage of User:MWinter4. MWinter4 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MWinter4

Done with pleasure. More on your own talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MWinter4,

Thank you for replying, Timtrent. As stated, it was problem with the formatting in the page title. I moved it to Draft space so nothing was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a couple of moments to figure it out. 👀😇 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Nomination of 2023 CW affiliation realignment

Hello... I don't know if you got any of my replies yet!?!? I would tag you but that offends people... Sorry to disturb you by the way... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CPLANAS1985,

I don't notice "pings" so the best way to get my attention is to post on my talk page like you just did. I'll check out your replies today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect... Much easier said than done... I asked them what to do if a merge the material into the network's own article only to see it removed on a revert!?!? I've had too many edits reverted unjustly despite providing facts and sources... But out of everyone involved with the discussion, you seem to be the only person paying attention... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 23:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also they get mad when I tag them... Again, not trying to be mean or rude but I don't know if they're receiving the replies or not... But they're not listening... They're not listening to anything... I just thought you should know that... You have to admit, I make a very valid point... Why try to help and volunteer and add new articles if someone's going to be quick to judgment and try to have it taken down almost as quickly as it went up!?!? Something is definitely wrong there... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 00:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a volunteer editor like you are. I've tried to give you the best advice that occurred to me on your User talk page. I can't control the behavior of other editors and just have a few tools at my disposal to address editor misconduct and it doesn't sound like that is happening here. I'll pay another visit to the AFD and make sure that is true. It might be time to allow the AFD to proceed and not respond any longer if you made your best argument there. If you find yourself repeating yourself, it's time to stop talking. Please reread what I wrote to you, that's all I can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 01:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigrannies

The author of this article is running riot over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigrannies, indulging predominantly in personal attacks rather than making any kind of constructive contribution. I don't think engaging with them there will serve any useful purpose - however, they have picked up on your comment that the nomination was "silly" and I'd be quite interested to know why you thought it so. I obviously didn't think it was when I made it, but as I have long respected your opinion at AfD I'd be happy to put right and/or given the opportunity to discuss. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dorsetonian,

I'm sorry that my comment has led to any disruption of this AFD discussion. I thought the nomination was silly because I think this is a unique group of Wikipedia editors that is notable regardless of whether or not there are reliable sources verifying this. I thought it was an interesting article which, as you know, is not a valid rationale for Keeping it. It's a page that might be moved to Project space. But because I support the presence of articles like this, putting names and identities to groups of hard-working editors, I will not be closing this discussion myself as I have a bias. But I'll put in an appearance at this AFD and see if I can tamp down any inproper language or comments that are going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your response, both here and at the AfD. Yes, I too think the group is important to Wikipedia and Wikipedians but, of course, that is precisely the point I was trying to make in the introduction in the nomination - we should evaluate the notability in the same way we'd dispassionately evaluate it for any other subject - and in general there are lots of notable products and publications but few articles about individual manufacturing sites or editorial offices. One concern of my own with making the nomination is that those other products and publications can still put what they like on their own websites if they want to - but where else is Wikipedia to go? Of course, Project space as you mentioned is the answer to that question and may indeed be the best outcome here - however, I'll let the AfD play out.

Just to address the "silliness" of the nomination, if I may: it was made after the article came up on Recent Changes patrol and purely because I thought the group did not meet the usual notability threshold. There is obviously some indication of notability meaning it is not clear-cut and the AfD will decide that. Just for the avoidance of doubt, what I did not do is bring an article to AfD that I believe obviously should not have come to AfD - that would indeed have been silly and a waste of everyone's time; nor did I bring it to AfD to make any kind of point. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dorsetonian,

Well, my choice of "silly" might have been a mistake but that's because I thought it was obviously notable. I usually do a pretty good job of staying neutral in my comments in AFDs but I might have slipped here. I surely didn't mean for it reflect on your competence as a nominator though. It was just a gut reaction at the time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to recover Andrei Baciu draft, it one of the persons with activity in activity in cancer prevention

You deleted both draft and test page. Please help me and don't do it, is important to be on this page. Danavirgiliu (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danavirgiliu,

I see that the good folks at WP:REFUND already answered your request for help and restored Draft:Andrei Baciu for you. Are you also User:Ionicadrgs? Just wondering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your welcome text!

You have put much information how to edit Wikipedia and the five pillars ... I am more of visual learner so ,would you please suggest me any videos that are live online if you know, for me to better understand Wikipedia's guidelines!? Worldviewfrom (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Worldviewfrom,

Oh, my, I don't know of any videos about editing Wikipedia although I'm sure that our parent organization WMF has probably created them. But that is an excellent question to ask at the Teahouse which is our forum for new editors to come to with their questions. I'm sure someone there can help you. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input at a Recently Deleted Article.

Hi there Liz, if you have a minute, could you take a look at Gabe Amo along with the conversation on the talk page? The article was recently redirected as a result of a AfD and then almost immediately recreated on account of the circumstances surrounding the subject changing. Not sure what the correct/best/appropriate approach is in this situation. Thanks! - Skipple ☎ 04:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete my W.W. McCarty sandbox

I have new material and documentation that I recently found that I was planning to add this week. I believe that this additional information would make this proposed entry meet Wikipedia standards. — Carl n8vz (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, n8vz,

Can you give me a link to the deleted page? Then I can see why it was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello Liz,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.).

We wanted to invite you to join the study because you are heavily active in the User Talk namespace and also participate in discussions as an admin; as such, your experience is highly relevant to our research and we would greatly value your participation.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP. Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R2-related proposal at Village Pumps

Hi Liz. I believe you probably delete more R2's than anyone, so I wonder if you have any thoughts on whether new-page reviewers should have suppressredirect in order to avoid leaving cross-namespace redirects when draftifying (either bundled in new-page reviewer or through requesting page-mover specifically for draftifying). See Primefac's proposal WP:VPR#Give NPR additional rights? SilverLocust 💬 17:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SilverLocust,

Actually, I think Fastily deletes a lot of CSD R2s as well. It might be helpful for editors to have this ability with cross-namespace redirects but actually I think many page movers don't leave redirects when they should which leaves admins with a lot of broken redirects to clean up. So, I don't know if this proposal is a great idea. But I'll look it over, thanks for telling me about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Maier

This was/is at afd. I was protecting to stop the creator form move warring. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deepfriedokra,

I have restored this page. When I saw it, it was a broken redirect, which I see all day long, and I didn't think to look at its history. Editors are draftifying articles throughout the day. I saw I made a mistake and have restored it. I guess we were working on the page at the same time. Sorry to get my wires crossed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. The editor that was warned by us both to stop moving pages moved it cause it's at AfD. Totally for blocking now per WP:CIR -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:K.O (rapper) and Category:Elaine

Greetings Liz, I was wondering why the two categories I recently created were nominated for SD and I somehow did not find the reason why, I was hoping to get a reason so that I can learn from my mistakes as I thought the categories were to be like Category:AKA (rapper), what is preventing those from being like that instead be nominated for SD? shelovesneo (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, shelovesneo,

I just tag categories that become empty. But I have a script that states which editor has added or removed pages from a category. It looks like User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars emptied both categories. I advise you to ask them why they decided to do this. Any way, an empty category sits for 7 days before it is deleted just in case it was inadvertently emptied so there is time to straighten out any misunderstandings. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

marked for deletion

hi Liz, I am new to wikipedia.I would want to address any concerns that were raised that is making it marked as to be deleted.The page provides valuable information to readers and has got many references . Jjmgwiki (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: redirect CSDs

Hi, for Salaga Senior High School(SASS) you said [51] that WP:R3 doesn't apply to page move URLs but I had thought that redirect would probably be eligible under the "unless the moved page was also recently created" criteria since the article was only at that title from 00:44, 6 June 2023‎ to 04:35, 6 June 2023‎. Sounds that sound right, or is it because the redirect itself is reaching the end of that period, probably? Thanks! (Either way no worries just curious for any potential future nominations.) Skynxnex (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skynxnex,

Well, that's my understanding of CSD R3 which I've gained, in part, from deleting redirects like this and having editors/admins come to my talk page and say that they weren't eligible for this criteria! I didn't think it was controversial to delete redirects that clearly seem like errors and mistakes but I've faced editors who frequent RFD discussions tell me that I made a mistake. So, I've become more cautious.

Redirects seem, at face value, to be very uncomplicated but those editors who discuss them are really the experts which is why I pointed you to nominate this one at RFD. It will either be a slam-dunk easy deletion or those editors will say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Keeping it. Sorry to ask you to jump through one more hoop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable :). Thanks for the added insight. Skynxnex (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Indah Megahwati

I think Surat antcomp copied and pasted it from user:Ir. Indah Megahwati, MP I think they are the same person. I think the latter wanted to rename and did not know how. It's all very confusing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask...

Were you moshing to Angry Samoans back in the day...? ;)

Thanks for everything you do. Caro7200 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caro7200,

Well, I'm originally from California and I'm old enough to have been working in college radio in the 1980s so while I wasn't a big fan of the group, I'm familiar with them. Seems like another lifetime ago though. I hadn't thought about them in decades until stumbling into that AFD and reading over the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of draft

Hi @Liz, thank you so much for taking the time to reach out regarding my first article - Massimo Vidoni AKA The Truffleman. I'd really appreciate your insight into the re-written article Draft:Massimo Vidoni (AKA The Truffleman)

Best,

Nanwikieditor01 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nanwikieditor01,

I don't think that I've ever been thanked by an article creator for tagging their article for deletion. This version is much less promotional but still a little much. Overly long articles tend to get more scrutiny because it looks like the author is trying to cram in every detail about them which is not encyclopedic writing which is more of a summary and highlights than a comprehensive overview. Remember, AFC reviewers want to see what other, reliable sources have said about a subject, not what the subject has said about themselves. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been online

Hello, I have read that when there is an issue I should seek a recently active admin. Ive been offline for several days, but before, I removed a link to a pedophilia advocacy groups website, which got someone to start cussing me out. Can you check [52] and help me understand if this is acceptable? Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]