Can I ask how you came to conclusion of closing [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Antònia Mínguez]] as keep? After you relisted it, the only comment was a vote to redirect, citing BLP1E. None of the keep votes - one which had no reason at all, natch - addressed the fact that the BLP subject does not receive meaningful coverage as a notable individual. Worse, the main keep advocate tried to defend this by adding personal information. I don’t know how you came to a conclusion to keep when there were no convincing arguments, either source or policy wise, and after you asked for more input and that input was to redirect. I implore you to revisit. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Can I ask how you came to conclusion of closing [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Antònia Mínguez]] as keep? After you relisted it, the only comment was a vote to redirect, citing BLP1E. None of the keep votes - one which had no reason at all, natch - addressed the fact that the BLP subject does not receive meaningful coverage as a notable individual. Worse, the main keep advocate tried to defend this by adding personal information. I don’t know how you came to a conclusion to keep when there were no convincing arguments, either source or policy wise, and after you asked for more input and that input was to redirect. I implore you to revisit. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 12:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Liz}} I am giving you an opportunity to amend or at least try explain your close conclusion before taking it to [[WP:DELREV]] or opening another discussion. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 22:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Liz}} I am giving you an opportunity to amend or at least try explain your close conclusion before taking it to [[WP:DELREV]] or opening another discussion. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 22:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hello, [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]],
::I saw more support for Keep than Delete or Redirect. I respect the opinions of all of the editors arguing to Keep, especially Cielquiparle who typically works to improve sourcing on articles whose AFDs she participates in. I specifically said that editors could discuss the possibility of changing the article to a Redirect on the article talk page and I think that would be a better use of your time than spending a week debating the closure at DRV. Would you have preferred a No consensus closure? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
== Retrieval of deleted material [[Kenneth Uwadi]] ==
== Retrieval of deleted material [[Kenneth Uwadi]] ==
Revision as of 22:45, 1 September 2024
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.
This page was last edited or modified by Liz (talk).
Note: When emailing me, please also post a {{You've got mail}} template to this page. I check my Wikipedia email account infrequently.
Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013 Well said!LizRead!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)
I am an employee at E.ON Next, the gas and electricity company based in the U.K. We are looking to create our own Wikipedia page, as we currently don't have one to direct our customers too. The most we have is a subsection on E.ON UK's page, as they are our parent business. I can see that in March 2022, you created a draft article for E.ON Next, but it appears to have been abandoned. May I ask what stage you were at with this content? Would it be better for you to delete the article so we can create a new one from scratch? Please let me know what you would best advise. Many thanks, Maria. Maria Savage (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, could you restore Jason Perlow to draft? The article was recently deleted but I think there is enough sourcing out there to demonstrate GNG is met. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD which resulted in deletion of this article just closed today. I'd advise you to approach Explicit and request his help. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Is that okay? LizRead!Talk!01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. This newly created article is a copyvio cut and paste from a blog site. Twinkle won’t let me tag it for G12 as the source site is on the spam blacklist and it blocks the link, so it may need an admin’s attention. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. You recently closed the AFD discussion for John Dunlop (chess player) one day after it was relisted to generate a more thorough discussion. I would suggest that 24 hours is not long enough to generate a more thorough discussion, and would ask that you reconsider the closure. I have located contemporary sources that would allow an expansion of the article, e.g. this item from the New Zealand Herald of 6 January 1921. Paora (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to your suggestion if you can state that you will participate in this AFD if it is reopened. As it was, if it wasn't me, another admin would have closed it similarly at the state it was at. LizRead!Talk!00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you left a npov template on Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department without any explanation, even though one is recommended per the templates page. Could you provide examples or reasons as to what made you decide to append this template to said page? I personally didn't think the page is biased but I may be blind to what you see. Thanks! Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Liz. Could you help take a look on this issue? Correct me if I'm wrong, but said IP address appears to be showing chronic and persistent behaviour, from repeatedly making edits with no ES to avoiding any sort of discussion on their talk page. Appreciate your help on this. Thanks. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nawwaf Hannan - Deleted Page "Ariful Hannan" due to unamibgious content
Hi Liz,
You deleted an article I recently wrote on this individual, and I was wondering if it is possible to rewrite the article with a more neutral tone and less specificity, mainting neutrality and consicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawwaf.hannan (talk • contribs) 03:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about Draft:Ariful Hannan. We generally don't restore content that is judged to be promotional. But if you go into your Preferences to your account and enable email access, I'd be willing to email a copy of the content. Then you could use content, off-Wikipedia, and try to write a new draft that isn't so promotional. I recommend you work on it in your User space, like a User sandbox. Then you can submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Let me know when you have email enabled and I'll send it to you. If you are being compensated for your work, please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow the guidelines presented in the policy page. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Library message
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
I hope this message finds you well. I recently learned that the Wikipedia page detailing my acting career (Adam Jamal Craig) was deleted under the belief that my contributions are insignificant. This decision also led to the removal of my name from my college's list of notable alumni and omitted references to my involvement in culturally significant works, including television series such as 'The Office' and 'NCIS: LA', among others.
As an actor and business owner actively working and living in Los Angeles, I respectfully request a reconsideration of these changes. The landscape of art and media is evolving, and my contributions, albeit not always captured through traditional formats, are part of this continuous change.
Please, I ask for your support in undoing the deletions, allowing my career's ongoing story and contributions to be recognized and shared. Thank you for considering my request, and I look forward to any possibility of dialogue on this matter.
I am new to communicating in this wiki-based format so please forgive me if I have responded in some improper way. Edit -> Not sure how the "Books & Bytes" section appeared above. Again, sorry. I'm new at this.
Warm regards,
Adam Jamal Craig
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.
You are fortunate. Wikipedia has 3 forms of deletion, Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion and AFD Deletion Discussions. Restoring an article can range from being simple to being close-to-impossible. The article you are concerned about was a Proposed Deletion (or PROD) and that can be restored upon request, which I have done. However, the article still might be nominated for a deletion discussion or AFD because the article right now is very weak and has poor sourcing. You or your representation should not edit the article as you have a conflict-of-interest. But it really needs some valid references to establish your notability. This is typically done through independent, secondary sources from mainsteam newspapers, journals, books, websites, etc. that provide significant coverage of you and your career. Do you have a website where you list media coverage? That would make the process easier.
Two more things. If you have questions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you are encouraged to bring them to the Teahouse. There experienced editors can address your questions and concerns about the project's complicated processes. And, second, you are commended for not being angry about this article deletion or taking it personally. It can be very difficult to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it (see WP:NACTOR) and every day, hundreds of articles and drafts are deleted. Again, you shouldn't edit the article but you are welcome to share any sources on the article talk page and, hopefully, an editor can added them into the article. What we don't want to see is blatant advertising or promotion which can result in another deletion that is much less likely to be restored. Let me know if you have any questions or you can take them to the Teahouse. LizRead!Talk!02:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz! Hope you've had a good day. Would you reconsider this since the creator has now been CU blocked? If not, totally understand and happy to take it to MfD. Thanks either way cc @DoubleGrazingStarMississippi01:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'm kind of a stickler for verifying CSD G5 as many overeager editors will tag articles for deletion when they simply file an SPI case. I just want to see a) that the page creator is a confirmed sockpuppet and b) that the block-evading editor is identified. In some cases, Checkusers do not identify the block evading account and I turn those requests down. I know other admins aren't so strict about G5s but when I first became an admin, I was less rigorous about the CSD criteria and got rightly chastized for that. I don't know about you but I always remember the times when my admin decisions are critiqued by senior admins when I first got the mop. LizRead!Talk!02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It all makes sense. Thankfully there is progress being made with the SPI backlog which will make all of our lives easier.
I totally understand your decision, and hope it didn't come across as not. Just wanted to save us seven days of MfD if the info was now resolved to your satisfaction but didn't want to re-tag over your decline. Unfortunately I think we'll be seeing more of this draft.. Have a good evening and you're totally welcome re: link above. No treasure hunts needed. StarMississippi02:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, DoubleGrazing, I wasn't referring to you, not at all. It's a comment coming from 10 years editing on the project, not about any editor specifically. Sorry for any misunderstanding. LizRead!Talk!06:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I hope you don't mind my contacting you; I'm doing so simply becaause you came up top on the 'recently active admins' list. There's an article Pumi dog that is blanked out because of an alleged copyvio, which concerns a single sentence where the wording followed that of the American Kennel Club breed standard. Unfortunately the reporting editor has placed the flag at the top of the article, rather than in the relevant section, thus removing the entire article from view. I've followed procedure and posted an amended version of the article, which deals with the matter, at Talk:Pumi dog/Temp, and I hope it's just a question of an admin copying this back to the main page and removing the flag? But this has been pending now for five days, and with the world's biggest dog show starting tomorrow, this is a period when dog breed pages always get more views. Could you or one of your colleagues kindly drop by here and take a look, please? Thanks in anticipation.... MapReader (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay in responding to your query. It looks like an involved discussion has been occurring at Talk:Pumi dog#Regarding removal of content.. To be honest, the only times I deal with issues of copyright violations is when there is a blatant copyright violation in an article that has been tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G12. I recommend you go to MER-C, an admin who regularly handles copyright issues. They have already commented on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 March 2. MER-C has experience on this subject that I do not possess and I think they would be a better judge of what is possible. Since this has been brought to an investigation page, I can't just revert the actions of the other editor as an inquiry is currently in process. There is also an issue of content attribution and I'm not sure it's appropriate to just use your new version over the existing, problematic version. MER-C would be a better judge on this proposal.
I'm really not blowing you off, I'm sending you to someone who could possible offer you the help you are requesting. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!03:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Liz, I have noticed you do consistently wonderful work on categories, but you have just rolled back my edit at VB-4 and I wonder if there may be some mistake.
If you review Chapter 1 at the linked page - https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/dictionary-of-american-naval-aviation-squadrons-volume-1.html, you will find that at the height of the Pacific War in World War II, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers were operating a number of Bombing Squadrons, the most famous being the ones that fought at Midway and Coral Sea. All of these squadrons were redesignated several times over, and many now have articles within Category:Strike fighter squadrons of the United States Navy under their later VFA designations. But to link them properly when they fought the Japanese, a new category will be necessary - this category which I have created. I believe it will easily surpass 20 entries. Buckshot06(talk)08:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my edit, just revert it. I just saw a category that only contained a redirect and redirect categories are rather optional. But if I acted incorrectly, just undo what I did. I'm not a subject matter expert here. LizRead!Talk!08:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify deletion reason
Talk:Xianfeng Gu Article Talk Read Edit Add topic View history Tools From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Why is Xianfeng Gu the only missing page for Morningside Gold Medalist? What are the criteria for creating Xianfeng Gu (born Nov 2, 1970) page in Wikipedia? Chinese Wikipedia page for Xianfeng Gu presently contains contents that deviate from the original contributor's intention but "somehow was inserted" by a group of seemingly more than 10 (a "Japanese" wiki bot, somehow, too) zh-wiki users (that are changing and on average use more than 4 simplified zh accounts with Japanese "real" person names, with targeted interest in HK, TW, Dalian, graphics, computational chemistry/topology) including a user ID Shizhao publicly demonstrating (DBLP/Google Scholar) academic tie to Microsoft (Xianfeng Gu's student Wei Zeng) possessing publications in CVPR (Xianfeng Gu a many-time program committee member, general chair, reviewer for CVPR). Competitive (Chinese Olympiad) chemistry base is in Jilin University (guided by Yanbo Sun with serious connection to Dalian University of Technology where Xianfeng Gu works heavily with a high-rank Secretary Na Lei Professor connected to Yanbo Sun as of 2023 which has been and is of course open information to chemical Olympiad competitors) Already in wikidata. Harvard CS PhD 2003 (Gortler & Yau) Harvard CS Master 1996-1997 (Mumford) graduate fellowship Tsinghua TCS 1994 (1989-) undergraduate fellowship 216.165.211.223 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, MarkH21, I think there is a question in here somewhere amongst the gibberish and conspiracy theories. But it's hard to discern what they want. LizRead!Talk!02:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Badun page deletion
Hello Liz
This is in regard to the page deletion for the danish music group Badun, which I would like to dispute.
Badun is most certainly a very notable danish music group. They have existed for 20+ years and released 10+ albums, which are available in both physical and digital format:
They have been well covered and reviewed in the media and played several hundred concerts around the world, and they have collaborated with and inspired many artists.
A quick search on google for 'Badun' yields a first page almost exclusively with results about the band, which should validate its existence and wide notoriety:
Sorry for the delay in responding to your query. Badun was deleted through a Proposed deletion so it can be restored upon request. I can either do this or you can make a request at WP:REFUND and the admins there will handle it. Please know that the article can still be nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion but this would give you time to improve the article and participate in a discussion and put forward your argument. Just let me know what you would like to do. LizRead!Talk!02:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you didn't see my replies, since I didn't mention you like I do now. So I would still like you to restore the Badun article if you would? Then I will add reliable sources to it. :)
There was a problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Women's Bangladesh Premier League wasn't set up appropriately as a bundled nomination, the other article was just thrown into the deletion nomination. So, XFDcloser didn't delete it when the discussion was closed. But an editor later tagged Women's Bangladesh Premier League for speedy deletion and since the editors participating in the AFD were in favor of deleting both articles, I went ahead with that deletion.
I wasn't 100% comfortable to handling it this way but it's fairly common that AFD nominators don't set up bundled nominations appropriately (more the rule than the exception) and the consensus did seem to favor deletion. There is already a draft at Draft:Women's Bangladesh Premier League that was created before the AFD closed so perhaps an improved version will eventually be approved. I hope this addresses your concern. LizRead!Talk!02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted it, but it was not clear from your close that you considered it was a valid bundled nomination so I decided to post a note here. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damage done by User:Fhektii
Hello Liz, hopefully you are doing good. Although, usually questions are asked on the Teahouse, however, since you are familiar with the case, I thought I should ask you. Hopefully you won't mind.
This was my first time, as you might have noticed, so initially I was just going around. I saw the edit history of the User:Fhektii, I saw the deletion discussions, for crafting my own comment. In the process what I discovered was that there were few very old accounts that were commenting for deletion, however, to the best of my knowledge, it seemed that they were ignoring WP:GNG and WP:GNP. I don't want to assume anything bad about any one, maybe I have missed something or misunderstood, if you could find the time and look into it. I will be truly grateful. Thank you. (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Liz, thanks for closing the AfD, but why "Merge", rather than "Redirect"? There is no content not included in Lowick, Cumbria other than the coordinates and an image. PamD06:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, ignore that: I now see it didn't previously have a mention, so its existence needed to be merged! PamD06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you found your answer. In the discussion comments, at least one editor proposed a Merge and while editors can recover content when an artice is transformed into a Redirect, it's easier if you close a discussion as Merge. Plus, after any usable content is removed, the page then does become a Redirect which is the result you seem to have wanted. I think I'm a very neutral closer but I do favor an ATD if one is proposed, if only to repurpose content from weak and unwanted articles to other articles where it might provide some value. LizRead!Talk!02:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)
Hi Liz,
Thankyou for closing the AfD on this and reverting the article per AfD.
However, I believe the AfD called for more than a simple content reversion within the page. The article was renamed by User:Tedgrant1917 ([[1]]), and the article requires moving back to the title Socialist Appeal (Britain), since the article is about Socialist Appeal. Unfortunately because it is still at the title Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024), editors have continued attempting to rewrite the article about RCP, which is non-notable (and doesn't even exist at this point). I am unable to complete this move as Socialist Appeal (Britain) has multiple revisions and therefore a normal editor cannot complete the move.
I may have caused confusion here by stating "Keep, Sort of" in that I was advocating to keep the edit history, more than the title. The content needed reverting, but so did the title.
In either case, it's clearly inappropriate for the article about Socialist Appeal to be under the title RCP, and people will continue to try and replace the logo and change the article contents if it's under that title. TedGrant has caused a right cluster-fudge by usurping/rebranding the original article instead of just creating a new one (which would have failed NPP).
While I could do what you ask, I hesitate to take on more action than came out of the consensus for this AFD. When a closer goes beyond the community consensus, it's called a supervote and the closer can be taken to AN/ANI when they do this which I'd like to avoid.
I'd recommend you taking this request to Wikipedia:Requested moves and asking the editors/admins there to consider your request. They are experts at evaluating move proposals and dealing with existing page histories and I'd trust them to know what they are doing. The page moves I do are rather simple affairs and this is more complicated. I'd also be interested in hearing their assessment of your plan.
I don't mean to discourage you, this might not be a big deal, I just think that the editors who patrol RM would be better to assess this than I am. LizRead!Talk!02:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the considered response. However, I'm a little confused because the consensus clearly went further than just "revert the content". All bar one of the "Keep" votes was actually "Keep as per Hemmers" or "Keep and restore as per Hemmers". So the restoration of the page title as described in my proposal does seem to be the consensus of the AfD. What's been done so far - reverting the content - is somewhat "half a job". I can take it to RM if you prefer, but from my understanding of the discussion, the following was the accepted consensus:
Keep Sort of. But revert to 17 December 2023, when it was actually a moderately well-sourced article about a long-standing publication/movement (the Socialist Appeal) (done). Then merge the latest edit of Socialist Appeal (Britain) back on top of it and delete that article (not done). Then move the entire stack (with edit history) back to Socialist Appeal (Britain) where it belongs (not done). I'm at an absolute loss as to what the blazing nonsense has gone on with this article. They've moved a long-standing article, blanked it and rebranded it, and then someone's copied the old content into a new article using the old name!?! A quick hunt back through the History shows it is notable - they've just removed all the references to the former name, instead of creating a new article for the new name/body (which likely wouldn't pass NPP). Failing all that, Delete, it's just a shame to lose the edit history for Socialist Appeal (Britain), which is currently underneath this article. Hemmers (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I want to request a review on article on Artist Volvexzshawa the reason for it's deletion was because it lacked enough reference and required more time to be updated with reliable sources of reverence and with my research I do believe the artist is a Notable person and a pioneer in the Kenyan Hiphop Music cited sources across Nigeria National Newspapers and Kenya National Newspapers and Television notability Teresia Akinyi Achilo (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is for if you think I didn't close the discussion appropriately, so it's about my closure, not about the value of this article. The only way I know to overcome a "Delete" AFD decision is to write a new draft, addressing the problems coming up in the AFD, and submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. If you move a new version directly into main space, it will likely be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 which is what happened the last time it was deleted.
Hello, I just noticed and was quite surprised that the article mentioned in the title got deleted. I used that page multiple times in the past as reference, and I was not the only one. I personally do not agree with the deletion, and I'd like to elaborate why that is.
The most often mentioned reason in the discussion is WP:NOTCATALOG. I have looked into said ruleset. It is not a simple listing because it explains what the different numbers in the model number mean, and shows a comparison between model years of different series of models. They are not loosely associated, what is listed is exactly defined in the title. The points 3. through 6. are pretty obviously not involved with this.
It's also not a "brochure-style advertisement", listing of (industry standard) specifications is not an advertisement and the text sections are written as neutral as possible.
"Largely unreferenced, and most of the references provided are primary sources from Dell's support site." I don't see how it would have to be done differently for a page that contains lists of technical products. It's like that for other list pages for technical devices as well. Also, there's pretty much no better source for the specifications of a product than its manufacturer, because if they lied, they'd be liable.
As for the notability of said products, Dell has consistently been the largest manufacturer of monitors for the past decade. Coming back to the example of Samsung, it would be like claiming a list of Samsung Galaxy devices is not notable despite them being the largest manufacturer of smartphones for years. And that's also why there are lists for the Galaxy Z, S, A, M, F, XCover, Note, J and Y series.
I'm not in favor of keeping pages just for the sake of it. This page has been legitimately useful for people, including me and those mentioned, and I don't think it's only the three of us using this page for a reference, especially because it goes back so far, which is information hard to come by nowadays. Punkt64 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to address in further detail is the argument of lack of sources. There are many reviews of individual models (often but not only of the higher end Ultrasharp series) on the internet and youtube. Those could be added in a section for reception for example, here are some
Their monitor series also includes some products that are rather unique in the market, for example some models with 8K resolution, reviewed many times including popular YouTube channel Marques Brownlee.
And to clarify, someone in the deletion discussion mentioned that the article does not show why this is just another monitor manufacturer. That's why I referenced and said that Dell has been the single biggest manufacturer of monitors for the past decade. That link and statement could also be included in the article to show the relevance. Punkt64 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no opinion about this article. I closed the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell monitors and the opinion was unanimous for Deletion. Please read over the arguments in the AFD to see why the participating editors believed the article should be deleted. If you do not think I read the consensus correctly, then you may appeal the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Ordinarily, I normally make an offer to restore the article to Draft space so that it can be improved but the very nature of this article, which was basically a product catalog, is unlikely to be changed by editing. Additionally, the article was full of templates about Dell products and those templates have since been deleted.
If you want an article on this subject, I think your best route is to start over by writing a draft article in your User space, like your Sandbox, or in Draft space. That, and deletion review, are the two options I see as the consensus was clear and I can not revert the closure based on any arguments you make here. I'm sorry but my role is to interpret the consensus in a discussion, not advocate for articles. LizRead!Talk!20:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you say the article in its current form will not be accepted by editing then what use is a Deletion review? I don't know the exact procedures of english wikipedia, I'm usually editing in german wikipedia.
As I do not have the energy or time right now to write a completely new article, a relatively large one at that, I'd like to recreate it in my space for personal use. The missing template is a problem. Is there any way to get this into the user space and then use it? It is not saved in the wayback machine. I know of no way to get it back without rewriting it myself. Punkt64 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, you said you could restore it to draft space. Is it possible for you to restore it to my user draft space, together with the template? That would be very nice and useful. As I said not necessarily for publishing at the moment but for personal use. I have tried it myself but that was from a wayback save from 6th May of 2023, so probably not the most current version. And it also lacked the template which makes half of the article unreadable. Punkt64 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Punkt64, I'd be willing to restore it to your User space so you could view it. I'm not sure about restoring all of the templates. Just know that if you move it back into main space, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 as an article previously deleted in an AFD deletion discussion. The only way I know to overcome an AFD Delete decision is to write a draft and submit it to AFC. I understand that the English Wikipedia does have a truckload of policies and guidelines that are especially confusing to new or infrequent editors. I'll look into that restoration later tonight. LizRead!Talk!02:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 in draft space
Hi Liz, you've a couple of times (most recently just now, at Draft:Ricky Guillart) declined my G4 request on the basis that G4 doesn't apply in the draft space. Could you please point me to where it says that, so I can understand the rules better? Looking at WP:G4, my reading is that this is true only when the content has been draftified, whereas eg. the Ricky Guillart draft was created in draft space from the outset. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you are a new admin, there are two ways to learn what decisions you should make as an admin. One is reviewing policy and guidelines. The second is seeing how more experienced admins act and adopting their practices. My action about CSD G4s in Draft space might fall under the latter group. Unless the draft is identical to the deleted article or is vandalism, drafts are typically untagged if they are labeled CSD G4s. The reason why is that there should be a way for an edtor to write on an article subject that has been deleted through AFD and write an improved and better article. If all drafts were subject to CSD G4s, we'd never be able to accept well-written articles on subjects that had once been deleted through AFD.
If this point isn't stated in CSD policy, I'm sure it's been a subject of discussion (probably multiple times) on the CSD talk page and I'll search for that later tonight. If I can't find it, then I think it is worth starting a new discussion on CSD Talk to make that clear. The only aspect that I'm sure of is that I'm not the only admin to handle CSD G4s in Draft space in this way. So, if I'm incorrect, it's not just my behavior that needs to change but the other administrators who patrol CSD categories. LizRead!Talk!00:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries, Liz. I just thought maybe I'd overlooked something obvious, but it seems more of a grey area? In any case, I'm not here to argue with admins' decisions, whether I think they're right or wrong; you guys take enough flak as it is, for doing a difficult job (that I wouldn't do, even if offered!), and I for one don't need to be making it any more difficult. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undo deletion of Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar)
Mrs Liz, please undo the deletion of Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar). It is a party that is going to contest in the national elections as part of a major national alliance in a few months. The party has seats in the national parliament and seats in multiple state assemblies. There is no reason to delete it.
While my closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) was tentative, the consensus I saw was that the article content was inaccurate and if an article exists on this subject, it should be rewritten. Please review the comments made in the AFD. So, I closed the discussion as Delete. I don't think another relisting would increase the participation and because some editors actually thought the information in the article was false, I'm unwilling to restore this article to Draft space.
I see two options for you. If you disagree with my assessment of the consensus of the discussion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please know that this discussion will not be an opportunity for you to argue that the article subject is notable, the discussion will focus on my actions and the closure of the discussion and whether that was correct. The other option is to start a new draft in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. This is necessary when an article has been deleted through an AFD because another article on this subject put into main space can be speedy deleted, CSD G4. I think that is the most productive route to take but it's up to you. LizRead!Talk!00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can just restore it so that editors can correct it if it has false information like it is normally done. Why are you unwilling to restore it? Articles aren't deleted for being incorrect, they are corrected. I don't care for the merits of your actions or all the bureaucracy. I've seen it takes far too long. There is an upcoming election and an major party has gotten its article deleted. MrMkG (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussion
Hi! The note you dropped on my talk has gotten some engagement. Flagging that, but also User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Related_issue. Nothing wrong with your relists, you followed procedure. I did not on the close, but I always like to drop a note when I mention people. It's the same discussion we' ve had a lot. It's ineligible for soft deletion, but if no one wants to retain it, why do we bother. Happy Friday! StarMississippi18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to piggyback on this in re my AfD for The Garagiste Festivals, since it's another example of the same issue. Considering the total lack of engagement with this AfD, would there be any issue with a BOLD merge of notable, non-promotional into another article, or do I need to wait until the AfD closes? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, Star Mississippi, I usually don't join talk page discussions until the end of the day when I have more free time but I'll check out the discussion on your User talk page. I appreciate you letting me know about it as I don't check my pings.
Just Another Cringy Username, please do not Merge content until the AFD is closed but if you want to go that route, please make sure you mention that in your AFD nomination statement so it's clear you are not seeking deletion. But we typically advise that while it's fine to improve articles while they are being discussed at an AFD, large content removals, Merges, Redirects or page moves can be disruptive.
As a closer, if there is low participation, I typically like to let AFDs run at least two weeks although other closers will close them sooner so I'm not sure what will happen with this one. I've actually seen 3 or 4 editors jump into a discussion after 3 relistings so it's hard to predict what will happen. There are some subjects that draw a lot of participants, like contentious topics, subjects in the news and, for some reason, articles about places/towns, but most AFDs are suffering from a shortage of editors interested in participating. I'd estimate that we have half the number of participating editors in most AFDs than there were a year ago. It's an area of the project that many editors burn out on and I can understand why. An editor can spend an hour or more searching for reliable sources and then the AFD is closed as Delete. I'm sure it is very frustrating. But I can't think of an area where an individual editor can have more influence over the content of the project than participating thoughtfully in AFDs. Whether or not articles are Kept or Delete can often come down to one or two editors which, honestly, I don't think is optimal for the health of the project. LizRead!Talk!00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I hadn't seen it, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Fifteen years ago, I spent as much time on Twitter as I do now on Wikipedia so I'm aware of the account but I just am not on the platform any more so I don't see their posts. I think they are on Instagram as well.
It's very flattering but also a bit unsettling as I think most editors work without thinking that anyone is paying attention to what they are doing...unless they make a colossal mistake. And there are many editors/admins who work just as much if not more than I do. I think about editors/admins who create Featured Articles, dig into unearthing sockfarms, handle disputes on Contentious Topics and manage the AE noticeboard and, most of all, those editors who take on the thankless task of investigating copyright concerns. They are heroes to me. The work I do does fall under the rubric of "maintenance" as unglamorous as that sounds, that's what the mop is for. I guess I find it satisfying cleaning out the unwanted pages and welcoming new editors. I just think it is so important what that "first contact" is with newbies, it can drive them away, muttering under their breath about what a bureaucratic hellhole Wikipedia is, or encourage them to spend more time here and try to pick up all of the rules and policies. I think we forget that with experienced editors moving on and retiring, we have a constant need for competent new editors and you never know which ones will turn into those editors who write articles on some subject that is missing from the project.
These two articles might mention the Talent economy phrase in the body of the article because it is part of a title of a book but this term is not part these articles' page titles or a main subject which is what disambiguation pages are for. They just happen to mention a book that has Talent economy in the book title. For further guidance, please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Specific instances and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include or you can inquire about disambiguation pages at the Teahouse. But in my eyes, this was an appropriate speedy deletion tagging.
If you disagree with the tagging and deletion of this page, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and see if the editors there agree with you. Personally, if was me, I would create Talent economy as a Redirect page and use one of these articles as the target page, including a hatnote to reference the other article rather than create a disambiguation page. But you are free to take what action you feel is appropriate. LizRead!Talk!23:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page was a redirect to Alpine, Mendocino County, California which was deleted by PROD. The only edit to this page was one creating this redirect. This page creator created a lot of articles about small towns that have since been deleted along with many redirects to them. I hope this addresses your question. LizRead!Talk!22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the content bothers you so. I just blanked the page, not all User pages with gibberish need to be deleted. I hope this addresses your concern. LizRead!Talk!22:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the work you do. I find your contributions to one of the largest free online encyclopedia amazing. Thank you for all that you do. Maxb133 (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a discussion closer, I assess the consensus of the discussion. If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Wise you can see the arguments editors put forward for why this article should be deleted. After you have read it over, return here and tell me if you now understand. Would you like to create a new article on this subject?
If you have questions about AFDs and Wikipedia's deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. LizRead!Talk!03:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been around here long enough to know that I can't just revert a AFD consensus decision, especially when no editors were arguing to Keep this article. But since it is a Redirect, the content is still all there. You could move the page to Draft space, creating a Redirect in its place, where you could work on improving the article. Sound good? LizRead!Talk!03:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current status of using G5 to speedy delete articles in ECP topics (in this case, the Arab-Israeli conflict) created by users not yet EC? Should these pages be marked for deletion, and if yes, what is the correct way to do so? I didn't want to imply that the creator was a sockpuppet, I'm sorry. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, it shouldn't get a CSD G5 tag, tag it instead with {{db-gs}}. I'm not sure if this is programmed into Twinkle yet. LizRead!Talk!03:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby, to be honest, very few editors, even page patrollers, know about this speedy deletion code. I only know of two editors who have correctly tagged articles that fit the criteria. Now you are one of them! LizRead!Talk!03:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respected Mam can you please 🙏 help me inprove Draft:Yash Shah (contortionist) and make it fit for article space. Mam I had tried my best as much as I can able. But mam now I don't able understand how to improve it further.. So I request you please help me.. Tablasingh (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't work on article or draft creation. Second, could you provide me with a link to the article you are talking about? Then I can look at it. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz: Can you delete this: "Template:People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group". Another another renamed that template wrongly and I put a G8 on it. I'm not sure if the G8 is applicable. I moved the the template name to something else accidently. Thanks. scope_creepTalk08:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this page was deleted two months ago for "Appears to failWP:SPORTCRIT, cannot find any significant coverage and none shown in article." If I can fix the problem and provide significant coverage about his player could I create this article again? (said 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.). Thank You ! Danjobilly1 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This was a Proposed deletion so it can be restored upon request. I can restore it to main space, where it might be tagged for AFD deletion (it's a possibility) or to your User space or Draft space if you would prefer a chance to look it over. Let me know what you would like. LizRead!Talk!17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you already recreated this article. But I restored the previous edits which you can check out in case you wanted to know what the original content on the page was. Sorry for the delay. LizRead!Talk!19:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello Liz. just accepted this out of AfC, but I'm unable to move it without the disambiguator. i noticed you were the editor who protected it -- there appears to be a draft at Draft:Justin Jin, but it is about a different subject, and not currently in the mainspace. could you move these? thank you. She wasafairy06:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I handled this backwards as I only saw your message now. I lifted page protection, then saw that Justin Jin (entrepreneur) is being discussed at an AFD so it shouldn't be moved unless it is Kept. I should have checked first as the page title appears to me in a pink font, signaling that it has been tagged for deletion or deletion discussion. Sorry for the tardy response. LizRead!Talk!19:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah no worries, maybe it would be appropriate to keep it at the entrepreneur disambiguation if the other draft is brought into main space. anyways, thank you. She wasafairy06:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just sent you an 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.
Hello. Could I get your advice on the propriety of adding a new page a little late (see the section note to closing admin). Could the AfD be relisted? Local Variable (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask you to clarify your rationale on this close. It looks entirely like no consensus to me. I see no good reason why greater weight should be given to those who believe deputy ministers do not meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, when the position is, as you yourself say, unclear. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore Elvira Vikhareva's page
Hello, my name is Evgeny Galitskiy, I am writing to you on behalf of my close friend and a Russian oppositional politician Elvira Vikhareva whose page was removed and put in drafts.
This was done after a message from a user Anatoliy Rosdashin (Анатолий Росдашин) whom neither Elvira, nor I don't know. In the piece of code that Rosdashin submitted, he added to Evira's name a derogatory word "bobroedka" (literally translates from Russian as "beaver eater" and is often used when referred to a different person, a Russian propaganda journalist Margarita Simonyan).
Also, Rosdashin mentioned that Elvira is a "too small and insignificant politician according to WP:POLITICS". This is not true, because Elvira is a well-known oppositional political figure and political journalist based in Moscow, Russia. She ran for a member of the Moscow Municipal Board in 2021, runs her popular YouTube channel where she interviews important russian politicians, journalists and political scientists.
In 2022 Elvira was unjustly deemed a Foreign Agent by the Russian government. Besides that, she has been many times persecuted by the Russian authorities for her political views, physically attacked by people affiliated with the Russian government and poisoned with a neural agent.
All of this shows that Elvira Vikhareva is an important person in russian political life and her Wikipedia page deserves to be restored.
Elvira asked me to write this message to you, because she fears that her account will be deleted from Wikipedia if she does it herself.
Thank you for all your work as an admin. I often notice you checking the history of articles and sending friendly notes to users. I share this habit and always pay attention to article history, so it’s great to see others who respect it as well. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFD advice
Hi, I can see you are very busy so I hesitated to say something. I saw you involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Lozupone, and I am unsure how to deal with an editor who I believe is not paying attention to policy and I know another admin here [2] also told them to pay more attention when reverting changes, and you advised the user on their talk page too about closing AFDs, so I wanted to get input. I have been trying to improve the article at AFD, and the user removed some sources, some were not great sources, but also put a lot of citation needed in the first paragraph even though the second paragraph and further provide sources that show these things to be the case.
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section it is common to not need citations in the lead section. I saw that for clarity many pages had stuff in the first section that was backed by citations in the later body, I tried to do that but maybe I did not know the correct procedure. This user also removed some titles from citations for no reason I see, and changed some text to be say something other than what the citation says. Because I created the article even though I was not the only editor, I have been told I can not be that involved so I want another opinion especially an admin who is involved with this AFD. I do not want to edit war over this but the user left a weird message about neutral point of view on my talk page and honestly I am getting frustrated at this whole thing and do not want to act out. Thank you very much if you can offer advice. I would understand if you can not or if I did something off, but I would like to improve the article more maybe but this makes it more difficult. I will see your reply if you reply here. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that the page on development consultancy firm Dalberg has been deleted a few weeks ago, because I'm working on an article that linked to it (Advance market commitment). I did some google searches, and found a few sources that seem relevant: Business Daily (2010) - devex.com (2011) - Consultancy.uk (2015) - leral.net (2017) - Kenyans.co.ke (2019) - The Star (2023) - The Ken (2023) - Forbes India (2023) - African Shapers (2023). Do you think these sources could together plausibly satisfy notability criteria? If so, what is the correct procedure to start a discussion about this, or start rewriting the article in a more neutral way?
Early Spring in a tiny urban garden, can you spot the elf?
Hi Liz, thanks for answering my question on that other page re: one vs. three. That's life changing! I've been spending much too much time going through every single source at NPP, AfC and in BEFOREs. Doing reviews can sometimes get exhausting, esp. with such a big backlog or when an article or draft is massively refbombed. I was even translating sources before evaluating them. Good to know only ONE is needed. Thanks again for making volunteering a little bit lighter. Happy Spring, Netherzone (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it legit moves that somebody mass removal the articles from the cat and then blank the cat page, and then you speedy it? I mean the action by user:Boubloub. Probably i have no time to investigate who is mass removing the article from cat. Matthew hk (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. When deleting expired drafts though I kind of let Twinkle do its thing and post notices unless I'm aware that an editor has been indefinitely blocked. But thanks for the reminder. LizRead!Talk!20:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991)
It seems to me the correct course of action is instead to clean up the original article. This middle ground, where a large chunk of a timeline is simply missing, is quite glaring. Would this be possible, and what might it entail? Jemidiah (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I was tagging this as G11 as "userpage being used only for promotion or publicity, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted" as in the userspace of User:Charliesouz. We also already have an article at Charlie Souza which also appears to have been an autobiography. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the question you were asking (I'm not sure if you were even asking a question) but I don't think it is time well spent to survey old User pages, looking for pages to tag for deletion. This editor left the platform years ago, readers don't see User pages and it isn't important to delete these types of pages. Unless you have a lot of free time, I don't think it is the best use of your time. In fact, I don't know how you even stumbled upon this old page! It's much more important to safeguard content in the main space of the project and remove promotional content from that namespace. Just my opinion. LizRead!Talk!23:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I don't know many prolific afd closers as you're the only one that came to mind. I would like to ask for your assistance/input in this afd I created of a Roman fella. I asked around and the only answer I got was he's notable cause he existed 2000 years ago but doesn't pass GNG. I'm asking this cause I've never seen an afd of a person like this and would like to know the way forward. Many thanks in advance. Serrwinner (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus and it looks like the consensus right now is that this article should be Kept. I'm not sure what help you are looking for. If I were you, I read the responses of participating editors and see why they believe the article shouldn't be Deleted. If it's any consolation, I think of the articles I've nominated for AFD discussions over the past 10 years, I'd guess that about half have been deleted and half have been kept. Other editors often find sources that were not in the article before and our goal is to have better articles, so that is a win-win. LizRead!Talk!01:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of my friend, Amy Varle who wrote ending homelessness strategy
It's hard for me to know how to respond as you haven't provided a link to the page you are talking about and when I looked at your Contributions, there were not Deleted contributions. So, you must have edited with a different IP address or a registered account. You would really benefit from creating a registered account. Once you provide me with a link to the deleted page, then I can investigate and respond to your comment properly. LizRead!Talk!01:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Talk Page
I have a slight apology to offer for accidentally creating a talk page with a longer name than its article page, which was therefore an orphaned talk page. I was trying to create a subpage of a talk page, containing a draft RFC, and I left the slash character out, so it was an orphaned page rather than a legal subpage. There is no way that a reasonable admin could have guessed what I was trying to do (and following the rules is a reasonable course of action). So I think I am doing it correctly this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I look at hundreds of pages every day so I'm not sure what page you are referring to. I regularly delete orphaned talk pages though. If it was a User space page, that is different but without knowing the page, it's hard for me to know what happened. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes sense to have a "Lists of..." category when there is only one list. Single page categories aren't very useful but it looks like monthly articles were created starting in the 1990s and so these latter categories are indeed "ListS". If you want to revert me, that's fine, I'll just bring it to CFD. I just didn't think anyone would object. LizRead!Talk!
Hi Liz (or any other admin happening by), can you check if this draft is essentially the same as William Allegrezza which was very recently deleted via this AfD. Normally I would not ask this about a draft but given it was just deleted and the creator also reverted your close (I reverted them), I don't want time wasted reviewing it if it is the same. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't look "identical". The old article had been edited from 2005-2023 so it's unlikely that they would be identical unless the editor copied the content from a Wikipedia clone. This version has a lot more sources but I didn't evaluate them to see if they were sufficient. As for me, and other admins, CSD G4 doesn't apply to Dyou raft space. Editors should be permitted to write improved versions of deleted articles and often they are encouraged to. There is some disagreement about G4s and the policy doesn't specify what namespace this criteria covers. But that's my interpretation. I'd encourage you to review but it's not a good sign that they reverted an AFD closure. Thanks for letting me know. LizRead!Talk!23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. My reference to G4 was short hand. I was primarily concerned about it being pretty much a duplicate thus a time waste to review it. Had it been a duplicate, I would have declined it as such rather than requesting it be deleted as I agree with your stance. We shouldn't cut off folks from submitting drafts to overcome an AfD, outside of pure disruption, policy violations or similar. S0091 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I am the author of one of the petitions on the Egov.Press website. It turns out that the Wikipedia article was deleted back in February. I ask you to consider the sources that provide evidence of the significance of the project. In my opinion, this is the same site as Avaaz, Change.org, which do not require proof of significance in a particular country.
Did you read my closure statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egov.Press? I stand by it. There might be an article on this subject to be written but the one we were looking at wasn't it. This decision won't be reverted but you can start a new draft article and submit it to WP:AFC for review. I think that would be the best route to take. You can appeal my closure by filing an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and presenting your argument there but I think working on a new draft version would be a better use of your time. LizRead!Talk!23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The tool I use to look at categories says that these categories weren't emptied, article by article, but this emptying can happen if an editor changes a template that automatically fills categories. We have a week to figure that out. LizRead!Talk!23:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting to find that these were created as part of a set some time ago and have never been filled because those who might write such articles are instead discouraged by having every small step they make deleted by some nit-picking exercise. But either way, we ought to (and used to) move forwards, not forever waste time trying to find excuses to go backwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake made to a new template. I asked an editor who is an expert in templates to track down the problem, it's been fixed and the categories are repopulated. That's why CSD C1s are given 7 days before deletion, just in case it's a glitch that's caused them to empty. LizRead!Talk!18:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged you because you were part of the related discussion on my Talk. No action/response needed and nothing of yours being questioned, just a courtesy heads up in case you wanted to weigh in. StarMississippi02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always appreciate notification on my user talk page as I don't track my pings. I'm not sure why this draft was singled out for an MFD discussion but the regulars there usually prefer to let drafts be handled by CSD G13 unless there is objectionable content. I have to go read your talk page archive as it's not clear to me what my involvement is. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk!02:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any time, and I disclosed it at the MfD lest anyone just see it here and think I was canvassing you.
From my re-read, we were split on whether SALT was necessary or helped because we were all playing whack-a-sock on the various titles. This one wasn't going to die a G13 death since I think it's linked off wiki somewhere hence random periodic edits. Have a good evening! StarMississippi02:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always surprised when some editor can actually track down the actual Tweet or Reddit forum post where users are being canvassed. I guess they frequent those places. LizRead!Talk!03:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppidum of Moulay" refund request
"Oppidum of Moulay" could you please email me what was deleted? I fell down another rabbit-hole, you know the drill. I have hopes of coming back to this however. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it would be Draft: Oppidum of Moulay or possibly [[Draft: Oppidum de Moulay}}. It would a translation of Oppidum de Moulay [fr] but I doubt I had linked it yet.
Can you please elaborate on why you thought there was a consensus to keep? We typically delete articles on political candidates, and the discussion needs a more detailed close. SportingFlyerT·C23:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the consensus as the majority of editors wanting to Keep this article, especially post-election. If you read the second half of the discussion, almost all editors are saying that POL is met. I'm not sure how much more commentary is called for. I'd be willing to revert my closure and close as No consensus but I don't see a consensus to Delete or Redirect. I advised editors seeking to Redirect to have a talk page discussion. LizRead!Talk!00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. Most of us quoting NPOL were explaining to keep !voters why their logic was incorrect. Redirecting after the AfD will be very difficult as well. SportingFlyerT·C09:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About one of the U5/G11 tags
Hello - I noticed in your edit summary at a user page you described one of the tags as an overreaction. This is what the page looked like at the time of nomination. Didn't realize they'd edited out the article after responding to them at my talk page. That's my bad for not removing it in a timely manner.
Though I do have a few questions coming from this - do admins reviewing the CSD category not look into the page history when reviewing, and is the onus on the nominator to remove the tag once it no longer meets the criteria? I know I've had a handful of issues with my CSD tags before, and I'd like to knock those issues out before I keep going and reviewing new user pages. Thanks! Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at the page history when I removed the tag and offered that edit summary. Once I did, I could see why you tagged the page. Sorry for any misunderstanding. LizRead!Talk!18:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpolitan identity
Hi, thanks for protecting the Liverpolitan identity page. I have taken on board your comment. Would it be possible for to move it to Liverpolitan as the system is having problems auto finding sources for – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR.
The original title (Liverpolitan identity) of the page also caused friction amongst one of the users and was changed to Liverpolitan to please them and to diffuse the discussion. Many thanks.
Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You moved this to draftspace because the author submitted it for AfC review, but AfC is optional. Is there a requirement student editors specifically must use it? Mach6121:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I didn't know that the article creator was a student editor. I noticed it on the Move log because the page title was 1819BallonRiot. So, at first, I was just going to move the article to a proper page title. Then, I noticed that the AFC tags were still on the page. When I looked at the page history, the editor had submitted their User space draft to AFC and then, moments later, moved it to main space. My guess is that after they submitted it to AFC, they saw that they were in a line with 4,000 other drafts for review and were impatient. In case this was a mistake, I moved the page to Draft space where it was still tagged for submission. I guess that's the long story. The short story is no, unless there is a real or suspected COI or the article had previously been deleted through an AFD decision, there is no obligation for an editor to use AFC. And, if they had objected to my article page move, I would not have moved it back to Draft space. It was just the fact that they submitted the article for review and then immediately moved it before it could be reviewed that prompted me to move it to Draft space.
But, if you are the AFC reviewer, there were no special circumstances that you need to be aware of and I don't plan on following up on this draft article. LizRead!Talk!21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
harassment account
Hi, I think you could notify me about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tehonk_Yav%C5%9Fa%C4%9F%C4%B1
as it's a direct personal attack to me (it means something like "cunt Tehonk"), it looks like he messaged you because he saw your messages on my talk page and thought you would block me by thinking it's my account. I have a guess about who he is but only a guess (I think he started to harass me after I opened an AfD for an article they created), should I open a SPI about it with only a guess? Tehonk (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User: SHOLAASIRU/Sandbox
Hello Liz,
I noticed that my article on Payaza Africa Limited was removed. As this is my first attempt at writing here, I'm finding it challenging to grasp the policies and identify where I went wrong. I also received a notification suggesting I contact you before making any revisions to the article. I appreciate your guidance in advance. @LizSholaasiru (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it seems that notability is not an issue, the article still has literally zero independent references. Isn't that a reason for deletion? How can the page be allowed to remain as it is? Note that the article is also largely the work of a blatant COI editor who has since been banned. [3]
This seems like a good idea, draftifying and "marking its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors." How can that be done? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single editor in the discussion except for the nominator argued that this article should be Kept. I can't impose my own opinion on the discussion or it would be considered a "supervote", it would be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review and overturned. Of course, if you don't agree with my closure, you can take this closure to DRV yourself and try to have it overturned. But I won't revert myself when opinion was almost unanimous. I'm sorry but these are consensus decisions. LizRead!Talk!18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly, is that the best next step for me to take this to deletion review? I don't fault your close but rather disagree with the consensus. Like I said, I don't understand how the page can be allowed to remain with zero reliable sources... IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Deletion Review: John Paczkowski
Hi Liz
I wanted to ask you to reconsider the deletion of this bio:
Paczkowski continues to be very well known and respected important journalist. His reporters have won pretty much every award in the business (Livingston, Polk, Pulitzer, Mirror, SABEW). And he's completely resurrected Forbes tech reporting, which has led the industry on TikTok reporting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/11/28/tiktoks-china-problem/?sh=550c549c1ee4
He’s an editor now, so he doe’s less reporting, but you can see him promotion his folks’ work on twitter. https://twitter.com/JohnPaczkowski
I would have recommended that you start creating a new draft on this article subject, avoiding the problems that caused the other version to be deleted, rather than contesting the closure of the AFD I closed but it's your choice on what action you want to take. LizRead!Talk!19:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. There is supposed to be a link in the Deletion review request to the AFD where the deletion was proposed but I appreciate you helping out the other editor. LizRead!Talk!19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz. Despite creating close to 200 pages and being an AfC reviewer myself, I sent this to AfC because I was on the fence about notability at first. After submitting, there was another in-depth reference that came out and I added but instead of moving I left it there anyway. It was declined by a reviewer (and not casting aspersions) who has very little experience in article creation or AfC. I brought the subject up with them on my talk page. They initially left a response that didn't make sense to me and have failed to respond in about two weeks on my request for clarification. I would prefer to move the draft so that the history is attached as opposed to copy and paste. Of course, it is always subject to AfD if anyone feels otherwise but I think the edit history is important. If you can remove the redirect I would appreciate it. And to be fair, the reviewer declined another submission I had which I am completely fine with as I am still on the fence about that one. CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. I was a little surprised that you went through AFC, being an experienced editor, but I spend my time on the project reviewing dozens (hundreds?) of deletion requests and I kind of moved on to the next CSD-tagged page after making a decision on this one. I've reverted my CSD decline and moved the draft now. I hope this settles the problem. LizRead!Talk!21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Liz. When I first started editing I created a few pages in mainspace that I later (once I was more experienced and understood guidelines better) had deleted. Now if I have something that I think others may object to or I am on the fence about I definitely send to AfC for a second look. As ALWAYS, thanks for the help. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kimiyo
Hello Liz, I hope you are doing great! :) I had started working on a page for an article called "Kimiyo" and I believe you deleted it a few days ago? There is more information now to add to it. Is it possible to recover the draft for me to edit it more thoroughly, with articles/sources, pictures, etc?
Can you provide me with a link to the deleted page? Then I can see why it was deleted and whether or not restoration is possible. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, hope you're well. Were you able to retrace the page for "Kimiyo" that had been deleted? Thank you in advance for your follow up! Joan Million (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi. I'm not Liz but I can answer your question. Draft:Kimiyo was deleted as a test page. There is no content to recover as the draft consisted solely of the AFC header, and a reference section with no references. You are free to just start creating a draft at the same title. I hope this answers your question. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the follow up Whpq. That's great. I'll start a new one asap. Can I submit it to you once my draft is completed, to get an approval?
Hello Whpq, hope you're well. Would you mind helping me out? I wanted to submit an article for review and it was published right away but I would need assistance to make it wiki-friendly, as there are a few issues that seem to need sorting out.
I've been working on a sandbox article about Restream and have updated it with some reliable sources. It's looking a lot better now. Could you take a look and give any advice on what steps I should take to get it restored? I'd really appreciate your help! SudoKudos (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you have added quite a few references to this article! I would remove any that are not reliable sources. It's better to have a few really good sources that discuss a subject in significant coverage than to have a lot of sources that are either unreliable (blogs, social media, etc.) or are just "passing mentions" that don't discuss the subject.
For an article that has been deleted through an AFD discussion, you should submit it for review to Articles for Creation. There is a bit of code that you put on the top of the page. It doesn't need to be moved to Draft space, you can submit it from your Sandbox. What the AFC reviewers will look for is that it doesn't have the same problems with the earlier version that caused it to be deleted. Even though this can take some time, there is a danger in moving a draft article immediately into main space as it will be reviewed by our New Page Patrollers who have high standards and they could tag it for deletion. Sandboxes and Draft space are a relatively "safe space" where you can work on improving an article without that pressure as long as the draft doesn't contain unacceptable content like advertising or copyright violations.
The reason why I suggest that you reduce the number of references to the best ones is that the AFC reviewer is not likely to check all of the ones you have included and if they just check 4 or 5 and they are bad, they might just outright decline the draft. It's not that they want to decline your draft, they just look at a lot of draft every day and if they randomly check a few references and they are bad ones, they might just make a judgement on that.
But it's important to remember that as long as the draft is "declined" and not "rejected", you can continue to work on the draft, ask the AFC reviewer questions about the review or go to the AFC Help Desk for more guidance. I hope this helps. Good luck with your work. LizRead!Talk!21:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
Thank you so much for your time and guidance!
I've implemented your suggestions to improve the draft. I've removed unnecessary sources and moved a couple of manuals to the external links. Additionally, I've added the {{subst:submit}} template and am hoping for the best :)
In the meantime, I noticed that "Requests for undeletion" advises contacting the administrator who deleted the article. Since you were the one who deleted it, could I kindly ask you to review the updated version? If you find it improved, I would appreciate any further advice you might have.
At the time I re-created the page, the page Fly Dhaka Airlines was listed as being established in 2024. And no, it was not me or a sock-puppet that added the category to the page. It seems that somebody (else) has now removed the category from Fly Dhaka Airlines leaving it empty again. My inclination is to keep the 2024 establishment page category - regardless of what happend to Fly Dhaka Airlines, on the basis that 1 or more airlines that begin to run as a business in 2024 will likely gets their own wikipedia page(s) some time in the next 9 months - see the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airlines_by_year_of_establishment with entries every year for the last 100+ years to see what I mean. There are already 3 entries in the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airlines_disestablished_in_2024. Your thoughts ? Pmbma (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are an experienced editor so you know you can look at the page history and see who removed/altered categories on that article. I use a script that shows what articles are added or removed from a category and there was another article that was removed when the article was moved to Draft space as draft articles are not supposed to have content categories on them as long as they are in Draft space. As for categories, we don't retain empty categories in the event that they might be needed in the future. There are a few exceptions like disambiguation categories, category redirects, WikiProject assessment categories and categories that are being discussed at WP:CFD but we delete empty categories in general.
We have database reports that list empty categories just for the purpose of tagging and perhaps deleting them if they remain empty for 7 days. Categories that are deleted simply for being empty, CSD C1s, can be recreated whenever they are needed. But, no, we don't leave up categories that are empty in the chance that they will be used in 3 or 4 months or a couple of years. If you want to restore a category that has been deleted for being empty that you believe will now be in use, you can either recreate it or contact the deleting administrator (or, really, any administrator) or put in a request at WP:REFUND, no problem. LizRead!Talk!21:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interreligious studies
Hi. I'm creating a page for the academic discipline, Interreligious studies.
Are you talking about a page that was deleted? If so, could you provide a link to the deleted page? Just put [[Article title]] between two brackets. Then I can look at the page and see why it was deleted. That would help me provide a response to your question. In general though, I don't create articles and only pages like User talk pages or pages when I move articles so it doesn't sound like something I would have done. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!21:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, hi. I got this message while trying to create the page. It sounds like there's some mistake, if you never to actually create the page:
:A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
Liz, hmm. Maybe I mistakenly created the page, an empty page(?) and it was deleted. If so, thank you for that assistance. It's been in my sandbox and I'm about to create it. ProfGray (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jay, I replied earlier today. I don't like to restore CSD deletions but, then, I'm not asked to do this very often. I can count the instances on one hand. LizRead!Talk!07:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unilateral speedy deletes (some categories) are a red flag for me. Also, I see G11's would need to be fundamentally rewritten as a clause that if a single editor (or a group of them) is willing to put in the time and effort to "fundamentally" rewrite a page (in draftspace), then it should be allowed. If the editor misunderstood "fundamentally", and made only cosmetic changes, it has to go back to CSD. Jay 💬07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to look into this tonight but it's weird because the editor created both articles. I don't know why the created a duplicate. The new page title should probably be a redirect, not an article. You could choose to just revert their edits or tag the new one CSD A10 as a duplicate article. Those are my thought right now but I'm heading to bed soon. LizRead!Talk!07:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I noticed that in this edit [4] you both relist the discussion and offer a novel suggestion for reaching consensus. In the future please do one or the other, you can't both participate and evaluate. You should now consider yourself involved in the discussion and ineligible to close it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, your Wikipedia editors block someone for contributing edits to suspected sockpuppet articles and participating in AFD discussions but they let an editor who behaves like this [5], calling other people idiot which is prohibited by rules and utter the racist sentence "Die, irrelevant Indonesian people articles" in here [6]. He even put speedy deletion tags on several articles without understanding terms like here [7], here [8], here [9], [10], and here [11], here [12], and there is no indication that he did WP:BEFORE before installing the tag. He even nominated several articles for WP:GNG reason even though they have been cited from various books and news, and as i mentioned earlier there is no indication that he did WP:BEFORE before doing this, like in [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Im sure that he doesn't even understand the content of the article which he nominated for deletion. Whatever it takes on this so called encyclopedia, i just wanted you to investigating this. I will leave btw and you are free to do whatever you want with my work, thank you and have a good day. 114.10.22.149 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I was wondering what the best approach would be to delete articles by a blocked user for whom other articles were deleted through U5. I assumed U5 was the best approach here, but out of an abundance of cation. I am asking you, what approach you would recommend? I currently reopened an MfD on one of the articles as a sort of "test case", but I feel MfDing all the articles would just clog things up. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Hello Liz - I just went to expand the article on the British TV presenter/newspaper columnist Jackie Adedeji and see that you've deleted it.
Please let me know what's up with that - and having caught the attention of an editor/administrator as experienced as yourself, I'd appreciate your help in bringing the page up to your level of satisfaction. The subject of it certainly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Spcranger (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Are you able (and willing!) to shift the page to a User Draft article under my name, or send me a link to the article's history page so I can rewrite the page? I haven't been able to find the old article's contents anywhere - it's like it never existed...but I admit I can't figure out the logs/search/deleted page stuff to save my soul.
Not asking to reinstate as of now - I've been compiling sources for Ceres for a couple years as I come across it but I don't have immediate time to direct attention to it fully. But over some weeks I can get around to it.
Thanks if you can, tears if you can't. Always impressed by your efforts here and hope you're doing well!
Please can you tell why delete wikipedia Argnesa Rexhepi i have good material for review again please look for this again. Thanks so muxh Liz. 46.99.12.163 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would help me respond if you provided a link to the deleted page so I could see why it was deleted. I'm not sure, for example, whether it was in main space or Draft space. Once I see the reason for deletion, I'll know what is possible. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done With PRODs, CSD G13s and CSD C1s, all you have to do is make a request, either to the deleting administrator (or really, any administrator) or make a request at WP:REFUND. These are uncontroversial restoration cases. But I do have to tell you that this article had about 90 mentions on other articles that have been de-linked. I don't have the time to revert all of that de-linking but I will make sure that any mentions on templates are reverted. If you feel strongly about it, you can look through my contributions. If I find the time, I'll take care of it but I generally have a busy to-do list here. LizRead!Talk!02:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no links on templates which is odd because most football teams are mentioned on at least one template for the league or season. So these must have been mentions on articles for other Croation football teams or for Zagreb. LizRead!Talk!02:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Liz, I am writing you about this deletion discussion. In the discussion you made a request for a more deep source review and I answered demonstrating that all the TV movies enlisted in the entry about the subjects are just spam as she was not part of the cast of those movies. Nevertheless, you never answered or said your opinion about it, was the source review not enough or what? Thank you, --Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello Liz,
New Page Review queue January to March 2024
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
I appreciate the support but I expected it to go to DRV and it has. This is one time where I don't think I need to defend myself. I don't mind this closure getting some extra scrutiny as I can see no closure option that wouldn't have been challenged. LizRead!Talk!19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, in the deletion review some people suggested doing an RfC in the style of an AfD, where links to the RfC are left on every stand-alone list. One editor said this method has been used before. It sounds like a good idea, but I hadn't heard of it before. Would you know if this type of discussion is permitted? If it is, I'm unsure how it would be included in the different DELSORT categories. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question
@Liz:, Would you be able to draftify Jacek Deniz Troshupa so I can use its sources to add to BalkanianActuality's draft? If not, would you be willing to send the sources I used in the article to me so I can use them to add to BalkanianActuality's draft? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move
I didn't move the page correctly and was trying to fix that. The name has changed. I attempted to put a request to move the page in and that didn't work too well. Emphasis01 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my message was abrupt but I wanted you to stop blanking the page. If the name of the school has changed, then start a move discussion on the article talk page. If you present your argument, along with a link that backs up your claim, then the article could very well be moved to the title you want it to be at. You have to realize that most of the time when new editors do what you did, they are vandals, causing mischief, especially to school articles, so that is why we respond so strongly. If the school has changed its name, that can be handled very easily as soon as we can see that that claim is true. Good luck! LizRead!Talk!05:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding you. I could simply move the page if we remove the redirects. The name did change, the school district changed a number of school names. The two people who are "sounding off" know nothing of these topics. Emphasis01 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emphasis01: Please stop. First you did a copy and paste move of Juneau-Douglas High School, and inserted a redirect to Juneau-Douglas: Yadaa. at Kalé High School into the text of the original article After I undid the faulty redirects and had admins delete the cut and paste copy you moved the article again, properly this time, but again without commenting on the existing talk page discussion questioning whether the new name was actually in common use. User:Jclemens undid your page move and commented in the talk page thread. You then blanked the redirects from the school's new name (Juneau-Douglas: Yadaa. at Kalé High School) and requested an uncontroversial page move. Clearly it was not uncontroversial since the move had already been undone, and clearly you knew that it had been undone because you deleted the resulting redirect.
Your characterization of Jclemens and me as 'The two people who are "sounding off" ' is offensive, Don't make comments like that. We both know that the school has been renamed, but the article title goes by WP:COMMONNAME, not by the official name. Discuss the page move on the article's talk page, present any evidence for which name is in common usage, and we'll reach consensus on whether the name should be change, and if so, what the new title should be. Meters (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it appears that even if the page should be moved, you had the wrong name. The school and the school board use the name "Juneau-Douglas High School: Yadaa.at Kalé", not "Juneau-Douglas: Yadaa.at Kalé High School" Meters (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear "Liz", negative nuances in the article have been corrected and encyclopedic indicators have been added. I also share the person's OpenSanctions ID with you for reliability. Please share your opinion with us so that the article can be improved and approved. Thanks in advance.
It looks like you just added two sources and I don't think that is not enough change to influence the next AFC reviewer. And that is who you really should be talking to as I don't review draft articles. Have you tried bringing your questions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk? There you will get a response from editors who review a lot of draft articles and they would offer you better feedback than I can. The Teahouse is also a helpful place to go for help. LizRead!Talk!04:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. For this editor, I don't think they are interested in being extended confirmed because they aren't drawn to contentious subject areas. They really focused on category work which is a really unusual place for a new editor to start. But some newer editors are captivating by creating redirects and categories because they can create lots of pages that don't have to meet the demands that are expected for main space article work. What I am more worried about is that we have some sockmasters, whose usernames I can't remember, who also focused on categories. Like Brudelman, they eventually get topic bans and then they sock to get around the topic ban. So, I worry that this account isn't a new editor at all but without a sockmaster in mind, I can't really file an SPI complaint. So, that's where I'm at. They have only been active for a few weeks so if they are a sock, more will be revealed as they continue to edit, I think.
Hi Liz, noticed your note on Ivanvector's talk page. Swapd came up on my radar not that long ago trying to research sources to determine reliability and kept coming across ads there for paid articles in certain publications (ex. [21]). I then started looking at Wikipedia services. They banned offering Wikipedia services back in 2020 [22] but in August last year started allowing it again on a trial basis [23]. Google search "Swapd" "Wikipedia" and you'll see all kinds of stuff. See also these YouTube videos from a SEO expert: [24] and [25] which he references in the other one. I've debated about posting something about it at AN but need to do some more research. They do appear to be legit as far as they monitor/oversee activity to ensure transparency, prevent scamming, etc. S0091 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful to know. I think the part that bothered me the most was not offering to write articles but the offer to sell a buyer an account with advanced permissions. I know that Swapd is not the only platform to offer Wikipedia services plus there are private companies that claim to be able to write articles that will never get deleted. I think a list of the "marketplaces" and companies would be useful to have in Wikipedia space. I'm not sure where but it's important that editors and admins are aware of what is going on because we tend to assume good faith of other editors, even precocious newbies. Thanks for those links. LizRead!Talk!04:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I know who's that user trying to sell his account for 20k dollars (I was watching him since February actually), he's someone with some advanced rights, he closes AfDs (there was even some controversy about it), what's more worrying is he even got VRT access recently, I don't know how to report it as I think paid-en-wp queue was being removed, there was some revamp with these things recently right? but even if I knew, it doesn't look like he found any buyers and I don't think he will find anyone to give him 20k dollars for an account anyway so reporting it wouldn't be useful anyway as there wouldn't be any useful change in checkuser data because he couldn't sell it and he still owns the account anyway.
So that Qasemi guy is still trying to find someone to hire to go around that salting, better to check it time to time for any shenanigans :) Tehonk (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Houbeib
I noticed that your closure says that " editors arguing for Deletion have rejected the sources brought forward by those editors advocating Keep as being ROUTINE coverage". I have a major issue with this. The definition and examples for ROUTINE don't cover transactions. The examples are about box scores and match reports being used in articles about specific matches. You can't say that there's no leeway because of the recent RFC (unless there's another RFC I'm not aware of since NSPORTS) - it's not applicable (and besides - it never was a rule). Also, I brought forward an secondary source, and User:Mach61 claimed it was primary, and making false claims it was primary, and refused to explain why they thought it was primary, other than "I explained why I thought those sources were primary", despite never having discussed the source! When I pointed out the independence of the source, they simply refused to discuss it, and made another mistruth that "Most every source you've brought so far is primary"! When I pointed out that I'd only brought forward a single source (and that they was being uncivil) they simply said that they didn't have to explain. Surely, if nothing else, Mach61's vote needs to be discounted, given their propensity to just make stuff up. Thanks for the detailed, clear, closing statement - even if I disagree with it! Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Houbeib, as I said, I felt as though my hands are tied with closing discussions on these articles on athletes biograhies. The editors supporting Deletion make very persuasive arguments because, to be honest, the same editors show up to every AFD and they've made these arguments dozens and dozens of times. If I had closed this discussion as No consensus, it would have been brought to Deletion review. I am not going to revert this decision as I do believe it was correct, but you are welcome to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review and contest my closure. I won't take it personally.
But, if you want my opinion, I think a better use of your time is to go to the relevant policy page and start a discussion to better define what is considered "routine" news and what is not. That's a step that I think we would all benefit from because, I agree with you, it's not black and white except for the examples cited in the discussion. It's not that policy has to be comprehensive but if there are doubts about certain sources, then clarification is called for. I see ROUTINE come up in AFDs for most athletes' articles so it would be very helpful to get this issue debated and decided. LizRead!Talk!04:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles
Firstly, thank you for these comments. There seem to be no response from the editor, if that continues I will re-post the articles with maybe a few improvements in the next coming days. As I see no major concerns with those drafts as all of those athletes have won gold or medals at major sports events. Regards.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to appeal a Draft decision. Also, I'm not sure the expected responsiveness I should get from an admin; I've requested that the decision be moved to a higher authority but no reply. It does not seem that the guidelines in WP:ADMINCOND and WP:DRAFTNOTIFY are being followed.
A long time ago I was assigned autopatrol privileges to prevent this type of unnecessary overhead when editing pages. I don't think I've abused this privilege. It makes creating pages much more frustrating when pages get drafted. Please let me know what I need to do to appeal; this is the first time I've faced the roadblock of an article stuck in Draftspace. Tx. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
`== Sources ==
Hello, Liz, this is the third time I am asking you a question about Jacek Deniz Troshupa, all of which you have not replied to. Assuming you would not be willing to draftify my article, would you be willing to send the links to the sources I used in the deleted article to my talk page so I can use them to add to BalkanianActuality's draft? Thank you for your time, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StencilJS
Hi! Re: your query. Yes the G4 was a mistake but the G11 wasn't. Don't worry, I won't re-tag. If they don't make a real attempt, I'll take it to MfD. Consensus was to draftify, but periodically they just repaste the same thing. Yesterday it was also in mainspace which has since been deleted. They don't appear to have an interest in improvement, just having the company listed. Le sigh. Happy Monday StarMississippi12:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Urban agriculture in Barcelona - deleted page
Hi Liz,
I hope you are doing well. I was recently made aware that you knocked this wikipedia article back to the draft phase. I was hoping you could provide some feedback on how to improve this article as it is my first time contributing to wikipedia. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Mjgirard10 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about User:Mjgirard10/Urban agriculture in Barcelona, right? I'd try submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. Those editors review draft articles a great deal of their time on the project and they can spot any errors that exist and provide some advice. After a review, if you have questions, ask the review on their User talk page or go to the AFC Help Desk for more guidance. I just spend my time on the project on admin maintainance tasks, not reviewing content creation so I don't have much help to offer you. You also might go to a related WikiProject and see if there is someone there who shares your interests who would like to offer you some help and advice. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!05:55, 10 April 2024 (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.
It is a comedic hoax created by some one in Sri Lanka. Atthanayaka M. Herath, a popular tv figure in Sri Lanka erroneously mention this on TV as if it is a real fact. Herath was ridiculed for his lapse in fact-checking. I thought I was clear in the edit summary. You can verify this with this podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o0ldD9_43g&ab_channel=Wajira. Though it is in Sinhala, hope you could get an idea. Chanaka L (talk)05:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to listen to a podcast in a foreign language I don't understand. For pages tagged for speedy deletion, the problems have to be obvious and I didn't see any problems with this page. Maybe you'd have better luck approaching an administrator who is fluent in Sinhala or familiar with Sri Lanka culture. But I didn't see any issues that warrant deletion here. LizRead!Talk!05:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Liz, I want to open an AFD for Abhishek Kumar article, but on opening the AFD, the AFD has already been taken place in 2011 for another subject that goes by same name. So shall I open the AFD as second nomination because the current article Abhishek Kumar speaks of other subject i.e an Actor who debuted in 2019. Please guide me for the same. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Imsaneikigai: Yes, if you wish to nominate it, it should be opened as (2nd nomination). The fact that this article concerns a different person with the same name should be noted for the record, especially given that the title had been previously salted (the article only exists at the current title because an admin had moved it from Abhishek Kumar (actor)), but otherwise the procedure is no different from a normal renomination. --Finngalltalk18:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why undeleted the pages I listed on my subpage. The banning policy is incredibly clear: "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad"; "...they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." If you support allowing sockpuppets of banned users to create pages and feel the need to completely disregard WP:CSD#G5, please feel free to resign. ✗plicit00:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These were just category talk pages. Again and again I see admins and checkusers on SPI case pages say regarding CSD G5 that admins should act in the spirit of policy, not the letter. There was no content here. CSD G5 does not require page deletion, this is up to admin discretion. I don't think deletion was called for in this instance, it seems like you often see the goal of page deletion as a solution for a nonexistent problems. It's the first and only option that you consider. You've deleted over a million pages, when will it ever be enough? It probably never will be enough. LizRead!Talk!00:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:CSD#G5 does it say deletion is optional? And how does your opinion negate banning policy? BMB very clearly calls for all page creations to be deleted, regardless of their merits. DisuseKid's abuse was bad enough across projects that the account is locked. They have 60 confirmed sockpuppets and an additional three suspected accounts, which is incredibly prolific. If there is no content, then what desperately needs to be restored and not simply recreated by someone else?
Hello, I was wondering why you closed as redirect, only 1 person !voted for that. The consensus looked like delete to me. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't see anyone objecting to a Redirect and a closure isn't based on vote numbers as you know. But would you feel better if I reclosed this as a "Delete" then "Redireect"? I'll admit that I do prefer ATDs when possible but I try to take challenges to my closures seriously. LizRead!Talk!04:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, LibStar, you do what you feel is necessary. I've decided not to close any more AFDs that you start because you don't seem to be able to accept closures that you disagree with. I hope you have better luck with other AFD closers. LizRead!Talk!06:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, feel free to close AfDs I nominate. This is only one instance out of the hundreds/thousands you close that I don't agree with. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take from your reaction of me taking this to deletion review, you are a little upset? For that, I apologize for. I think you are doing great job, as I said this is 1 instance in thousands. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amy Eden. 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. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2024 (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.
Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Henry Benedict Stuart, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum707 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here for almost 11 years and have over 600,000 edits to my name. You have been here one day and have less than a dozen edits. You don't have to send me a template with a link to a Introduction page. And here I thought you were the vandal. I'm pretty sure you are socking though but if that's so, it will be discovered at some point. Newbies don't know about template messages and policy abbreviations. LizRead!Talk!06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.
Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).
Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.
Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hello, Liz. Thank you.
Hello Liz. I wanna say thanks for contributing one of my files. I know, it's just a little edit (human review and stuff, I know that lol.), but... that means a lot.
Now, since today is my retirement day from Wikipedia, I think I might not come back and edit no more.
If you want to ask why and stuff, just reply to me.
Tell @Minorax that I say hi.
Cya, Liz!
I'm sorry that you are choosing to retire. Maybe consider it a WikiBreak. I took one for 6 months and then, later, another one for 2 years. I wouldn't be editing still if I hadn't taken a few extended breaks. I wish you well with whatever happens next for you. LizRead!Talk!04:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I looked at several sandboxes that you tagged for speedy deletion as test pages, the rest of them were, I believe, in WikiProject space and I didn't notice that this one wasn't. But there was a time years ago when lots of articles had subpages that weren't archived talk pages, many of them had (and might still have) "to do" pages where editors worked out plans to improve an article. Now that you have corrected me, I don't recall seeing many sandboxes though but the tag for test edit pages specifically say that this criteria doesn't include sandbox pages. Let me think about whether there is a better place where it might be moved or if another criteria fits this page. If the page creator, User:Jerem43, was around, there opinion would be useful but they haven't edited in many months now. LizRead!Talk!20:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seemed like an example of "emptying a category out of process" where, instead of nominating a category for deletion, an editor removes all of the contents so it gets tagged for "speedy" deletion (which isn't really speedy) as a empty category. So, I refilled the pages that hadn't been turned into redirects. We do have thousands of categories that only hold one article so it's not that unusual. But now that you've inquired about it, I'll reconsider my actions later today. But, any way, that was the thinking behind my reversions, I couldn't say all that in an edit summary but I could have left a better explanation for you, my apologies. LizRead!Talk!20:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joce Nuttall
Kia ora Liz. I see that you moved my article on Joce Nuttall to Jocelyn Nuttall, because "This is the name the subject is referred to in the article body". My understanding is that it is common practice to put someone's full name if known at the start of their article, but that doesn't mean it is the name they are commonly known by, and articles should be under the name someone is generally known by. Jocelyn Grace Nuttall is the subject's full name but she is known as Joce Nuttall in almost all the sources I have seen. Would you please undo the redirect? I have been told previously that if a nickname is a common or obvious one not bother adding "known as" but if it would help we could have "Jocelyn Grace Nuttall known as Joce"? Ngā mihi, DrThneed (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the correct name for this article subject. I simply moved the article to a different page title because the article referred to Jocelyn Nuttall in the body of the article. The page title has to be in agreement with the content of the article. So, if you believe the article should be under the name Joce Nuttall then please change the article to reflect that. At the least, the lead sentence should state Jocelyn "Joce" Nuttall so that readers will not be confused. Make sense? LizRead!Talk!05:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a redirect because I thought about the name the article should be under and had made one. I hate getting into a mess with redirects so I'd appreciate you fixing it, given you moved it (sorry if you think I'm being grumpy, but a cursory glance even at the title of the sources would have shown that Joce would be the correct name, and therefore the better edit than moving the page would have been to add "Joce" than to create a mess with redirects). DrThneed (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done but you do sound a little grumpy. I don't think the redirects caused a mess but then I move a lot of pages and as an admin, redirects don't cause any problems for me. To by honest, I didn't know which name is correct (and I still don't), I just wanted the page title and the article content to be in agreement. I hope you have a good weekend. Good night. LizRead!Talk!05:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
It is considered a high point when a javanese official or politician speaks for an hour and nothing is really said....My comment at bumi yana (?) was that such a person can be a link in a chain, metaphorically speaking, and yes at face value of the article per se - the deletionists have their point and it should go - but in understanding the cultural and real life connections, a number of non notable things and people can combine to effect things of a larger dimension, and the capacity of an editor to navigate people and things between what might be considered at first view not connected, but then are... The editors quoting rules and things are in the right space in one sense, but then the larger picture can complicate the issue.JarrahTree09:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I think R3 does apply. R3 states: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created (italics added and footnote omitted). Here, the moved page, DJ Dominic, was created just a few hours ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, the CitrusAd page was deleted because of "abandonment" and it sounds like it was in a "draft stage" prior to deletion, could you undo this in order for me to make any necessary edits? I apologize in advance for being new here, but learned about the page status in the teahouse- I am hoping there is a way to get a copy of what was here and and advice on anything that needs to be fixed and addressed prior to republishing. Kind regards, TLN27 TLN27 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CSD of Beloit and Madison Railroad
Liz, thanks for taking a look at my speedy deletion request at Beloit and Madison Railroad. I agree with you that it was just created and when I saw the article I also thought to let the author work; however, what led me to speedy deletion was the discovery of Draft:Beloit and Madison Railroad, which is an identical article created by the same user through the AFC process where it was rejected back in January with no further edits. The article creator appears to have ignored advice from the AFC reviewer and simply recreated their own article in mainspace with no interest in improving it.
Hello. I would like to urge you to review your protection here:
The article was created in 2004 under the title "Pêro da Covilhã" and has been stable ever since. Such title is consistent with reliable sources (examples: Britannica, Infopedia).
The page was moved a few months ago to "Pero da Covilhã" by an account which is currently banned from his home wiki for long term abuse and sockpuppetry (ban discussion here).
I did revert his move immediately, but he moved it again 3 months later. It was only yesterday I noticed the issue and had the chance to once again undo his move. It's hard to keep track of all the POV-pushing changes, as they take place on different articles, on different projects and sometimes using anonymous edits to avoid scrutiny and even tag team with other globally locked LTAs.
Yet, you have protected the page in the disputed version of an LTA account that goes against RS. So, please, I would like you to reconsider your decision. JMagalhães (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Just noting that I won't insist on such disputes, as already stated in Magalhães's talkpage. So I don't oppose moving back the page to the old name. But as I've asked I would like not to be called and LTA, sockpuppet or troll, since I'm simply not one, and I kindly urge you to stop categorizing me as so. What happened on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia should stay there, and it was solely an administrative decision (decisão administrativa) with no reflections on other projects (for instance, I have several flags on Commons, such as autopatroll and rollback).
Phocas Software page deletion - is it best to write a new page based on Wiki template or address issues on existing page
Hi Liz
I work for Phocas Software and we were shocked to see the page deleted. The company has a rich history in Australia, UK and USA and was accredited as a B Corp business in 2021. We have also grown and added financial planning to the BI platform. We would love to be reinstated to Wikipedia. Can you please give us some advice on what's the best approach? Write a new page based on your template or provide 3rd party evidence of the growth, new products and commitment to the environment? Thanks Katrina Kat CN (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I am not a new editor. I have been a prolific Wikipedia editor since 2005. I added an IMDb link to the Mawqef Micro page and updated its information to reflect the fact that the second season aired in 2016, as confirmed by the show's official YouTube page. I really don't see why you reverted that. I mean, I hadn't noticed that Category:2016 Syrian television series endings didn't exist, but there was really no need to remove the IMDb link and the brief sentence about the show's second season.--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum economics
Hi, the page quantum economics was proposed for deletion on April 9 and then a decision was made to merge with econophysics on April 16. The reason proposed for deletion was that this is a fringe subject, however as I noted on April 15, the subject has its own journal with a top academic publisher (Sage Publishing). It seems that the editors were unaware of this, but there was no response or discussion, and instead a decision to merge with econophysics was made. This choice appears to be due to a single article an editor found on "quantum econophysics". However the field is not normally considered a branch of econophysics, and the expression "quantum econophysics" is unusual especially in more recent works. So it seems the proposal to delete or merge the article was not based on good information, and the decision was rushed through without a balanced discussion. Can you please revisit the decision to merge? I have added some references to the page which include established journals and secondary sources. Also if a merger is to be made, it would seem more logical to merge quantum finance (which has its own page) with quantum economics, since the latter has many applications in finance but is more general. Sjm3 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flag up, mail to be delivered :D
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi! Sorry if my CSD tags were a bit confusing, as for some reason we can't use subcriteria when adding several criteria at once. I intended to delete it under the other G3 (hoax, rather than vandalism). The creation of these nonexistent Windows 8.x pages (in reality, versions stopped at 8.1) is typical of User talk:13.234.2FortytwoUser, who, on top of the obvious username similarities, has been recently active and socking. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Draft:Windows 8.4 for an example of a redirect of them that was speedy deleted. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done 3 1/2 years closing AFDs and this is the first time I've seen this happen. The sources must have become available that weren't around years ago. LizRead!Talk!03:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz! A few days ago you reverted my edits (1, 2) at Q-Be with the reason Reverting edits. Don't change an article to a redirect and then nominate it for AFD. It's a redirect now, not an article. I've read up a bit more on various guidelines and I understand your reasoning, so thank you for reverting – I agree I shouldn't have nominated the redirect for deletion.
However, you said "It's a redirect now", but you reverted both of my edits, including the one that turned the page into a redirect. Was this intentional? My view is that the page should be a redirect to MobiBLU DAH-1500i because the Q-BE is just a rebranded version of the same product.
The reason I'm bringing this up here is because I was about to modify my AFD nomination to remove the note about the Q-BE article for the reason you gave in your edit, but I realised that Q-Be isn't even a redirect anymore: it's now just an article. If you did mean to remove the redirect then I think the article should be deleted per the reasoning in my nomination, but if you didn't mean to remove the redirect then I'll need to remove it from my nomination because, like you say, I shouldn't have nominated it after changing it to a redirect.
Hopefully I've phrased this right – I completely agree with your reasoning, but I am genuinely unsure about whether you meant to revert both edits as you acknowledged the page's new status as a redirect in your edit summary.
As I have still not received a response on this, I have restored my edit that changed the article to a redirect, but not the edit that nominated it for deletion. I will also edit my nomination to remove mention of the redirect. AlexGallon (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication
Hi, Liz, since you deleted my article Jacek Deniz Troshupa without warning, would you be able to userify the article or draftify it so I can improve it or add to BalkanianActuality's draft? Thank you for your time, Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an exact link to the deleted page so I can see the reason why it was deleted? By the way, I tried to get to your Contributions to find this out and wound up on your User page. I'm not sure what the problem there is but doing this crashed my laptop SEVEN times! I had my browser open with a tab to your User page, the browser window would automatically open to that page and, BAM! my computer shut down and was unresponsive. I kept rebooting the laptop, opening Chrome and the browser window would open again and again crash. This didn't happen with any other Wikipedia page. Do you have too much content on that page? Do you know why it would cause problems when people try to load the page? LizRead!Talk!02:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, that is very odd, the page was Jacek Deniz Troshupa and was deleted cuz of G4 but I was surprised cuz the page is drastically different source wise to the deleted page that was deleted 5 years ago. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As everyone (including the nom) is in agreement, wouldn't it make the most sense to close the discussion as keep instead of relisting (though if you really wanted to, you could IAR and place an {{Afd-merge to}} template on Mastering (audio) to spare the effort of opening a talk page discussion, though I understand if that is undesireable)? Mach6123:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as editors are asking for a Merge that is not possible within the limits of this AFD, there is no consensus I can close on. I can't do a reverse Merge of an article that has not been nominated so, as I believe I said, editors have to change to "Keep", let the AFD close and then they can pursue the Merge they want to see happen. I might leave this discussion for another closer to handle. I definitely won't relist it again. LizRead!Talk!21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, all of the voters except the nominator have now changed their vote to keep - that's 3 votes to keep against the nom, seems reasonable to consider closing as keep. BrigadierG (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't review every open AFD every day but I'll check this one out and if it hasn't been closed yet, I'll see if I can take care of it. Thanks for the update. LizRead!Talk!04:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
April 2024
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Tetrainn (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me examples of this "canvassing" so that I know what the hell you are talking about? What "community decision, debate or vote" does this concern and on which users' talk pages did I notify them of this discussion? Please be specific. LizRead!Talk!21:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the hell I have provided above, look properly. Don't show your attitude here. Be civil and respectful. I am not your servant. Tetrainn (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But talking about another editor and a dispute doesn't qualify as a "an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote" so canvassing doesn't apply. If we used your example then no editors could mention other editors on another user talk page which happens every day here. My own talk page is full of messages from one editor talking about other editors. And that's what I'll say if you escalate this further but I'll warn you that that decision might not end well for you. Not with your kind of attitude. That's just what I've seen over 10 years here. LizRead!Talk!21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tetrainn: I fail to see how Liz was trying to influence a discussion when asking for assistance in enforcing community consensus. I also still feel comfortable in acting if you continues to violate community consensus, especially after explicit warnings against doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz and Hey man im josh see bureaucracy. I will not waste my time arguing with you people, but being a *trusted* editor here its my responsibility to point out ongoing canvassing, as I already knew your fans would come to defend you. But be careful next time. This will not be the case every time. My final note: If the community can make you sysop, it reserves the power to desysop you too........ Tetrainn (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tetrainn: Please feel free to look for support in having me de-sysopped, that is your right to do so. To be clear, your threat will not dissuade me from enforcing community consensus. Your related statements of "trusted editor" are also, frankly, meaningless. We are all expected to work within the lines of policy and within what the community has deemed acceptable. As mentioned, you are misunderstanding canvassing. Keep it simple. Stop moving pages older than 90 days to draft space. That's it, it's very simple, take another route (AfD or PROD). Hey man im josh (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Apologies if this is the wrong place to inquire, but I have some questions about legitimate uses of alternative accounts on Wikipedia before I do anything further. Outside of Wikipedia I am doing volunteer work with secondary school students (but am not employed by any educational institution) and I would like to use an alternative account to teach my students how to edit on Wikipedia. In the process I hope to assist them in creating their own articles. I have created an alternative account, Mr. J. F. Lee for this particular endeavor and to maintain my privacy in real life. I have, however, not done anything on that account beyond making my user page declaring my link to my main account (this account). I am aware of WP:COI.
So, a couple questions:
Is the proper procedure to create articles on my alternative account since WP:COI states one should not review articles they have a COI in? Or should I not edit or create possible COI articles at all? I am in direct contact with students who may create articles about their school.
Because my reason for creating another account is privacy, am I allowed to link to my alternative account on my main account but not to my main account on my alternative account?
I do not receive any monetary or material compensation for my potential work with the students as I am a community volunteer and not an employee of any educational institution. Do I have to prove this fact to the administration team, and if so, how might I do that?
Other questions will surely arise from me, but they escape my mind at the moment. I am trying to make sure I have a proper understanding of these guidelines and that I receive a green-light from an administrator before I open pandora's box. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of your weekend. Yue🌙21:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck Pratt (bird)
Hi Liz, it's a hoax as there is zero evidence that the characters are named "Chuck Pratt"[26] or "Red Jack Bird"[27]. Having one of them wrong might have been some typo, but having both wrong? That's just making things up, i.e. a hoax. Fram (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dead yet
Hi Liz. Yeah, it's me. Have you used the "Move" special page recently? Maybe admins have a different interface? Anyway, "Move to mainspace" is one of the options that appear in the Reason dropdown. If that lingo is no longer in fashion, presumably there's a way to edit it somehow?
I don't. I meant article space. I may not be dead but my WP skills have definitely atrophied. It took me way too long to figure out [[ & [ | (internal, external links) NE Ent13:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Illustation provided... FWIW, I'm now embarrassed to admit I have always called it mainspace too :) Classic Holy Grail reference though. "See you Thursday!" ——Serial Number 5412913:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, hope you are well? I noticed your edit and revert on my page. I sent that back to drafts from main space. I don’t know how close it is to the version you deleted. Don’t know if you want to compare and nuke the draft? Have a great day. Equine-man (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N. Koppelman
I learned by looking at the history of Fedir Bohatyrchuk that a redlink to N. Koppelman was unlinked because that article has been deleted. Now I am curious to see the article about Koppelman, or what it looked like before it was deleted. I used the search box at WP:AfD but it didn't find that. Where might I look for it? Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why you marked a category as empty here when it had one entry in it (it has since been reverted by an IP). Please elaborate. Maybe you meant to mark it as something else?
Hi Liz. Perhaps you can help this user out. They mucked up archiving their user talk page, and probably all that needs to be done is for them to swap pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Growth team will now send quarterly reports to keep you in the loop. Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work.
If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
Community Configuration
Growth features are currently configurable at Special:EditGrowthConfig. This quarter we are working on making Community Configuration accessible for other MediaWiki developers while also moving Growth feature configuration to the new CommunityConfiguration extension.
An early version of Community Configuration can be tested at Spanish Beta Wikipedia. We plan to release the new Community Configuration extension to pilot wikis (Arabic and Spanish Wikipedia) in early May, 2024. The first non-Growth team feature to utilize Community Configuration will be Automoderator.
In parallel with the development, the Growth team will propose Community Configuration usage guidelines, Community Configuration design guidelines, and provide technical documentation.
The Growth team conducted an experiment to assess the impact of the “Add an Image” structured task on the Newcomer Homepage's "Suggested Edits" module. This analysis finds that the Add an Image structured task leads to an increase in newcomer participation on the mobile web platform, particularly by making constructive (non-reverted) article edits:
The likelihood that mobile web newcomers make their first article edit (+17.0% over baseline)
The likelihood that they are retained as newcomers (+24.3% over baseline)
The number of edits they make during their first two weeks on the wiki (+21.8% over baseline)
A lower probability of the newcomers' edits will be reverted (-3.3% over baseline).
This feature was developed for Mentors as part of the Growth team's Positive Reinforcement project. When A/B testing on Spanish Wikipedia, we found no significant impact on retention, but we found a significant positive impact on newcomer productivity. However, we concluded that the results weren’t positive enough to justify the time investment from Mentors. We plan to discuss this feature with our pilot wikis, and consider further improvements before scaling this feature further. Meanwhile, communities willing to test the feature can ask to have it deployed. (T361763)
As in previous years, donors were directed to a Thank you page after donation (example). However, this year we tested a new “Try editing Wikipedia,” call to action on the Thank You page. This call to action linked to a unique account creation page. From this account creation page we were able to track Registrations and Activation (editing for the first time). During the English banner campaign, the Donor Thank you page led to 4,398 new accounts, and 441 of those accounts went on to constructively edit within 24 hours. (T352900)
Future work
Annual Plan
The Growth team and the Editing team will work on the WE1.2 Key Result in the coming fiscal year. We will start initial discussions with communities soon to help finalize our plans. (T361657)
We plan to A/B test adding a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We are early in the planning phase of this project that will take place first at our pilot wikis and wikis volunteering. We welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.
I am surprised that an article which has been around for years about a denomination which has existed since 1965 and was founded under the direct influence of a relatively major figure in conservative Calvinistic theological circles, John Murray (theologian) can be deleted suddenly in a period of 7 days.
You may say that articles are not prepared professionally, but you have to remember that once upon a time Wikipedia advertised itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - little did we know back then that this would become "anyone who knows how to jump through the hoops" that would later be enforced by people who by their own admission "delete many pages every day". I was once sickened when my detailed article on a late 19th/early 20th century Scottish Christian leader of very wide influence was deleted and replaced by a present day sporting figure who will no doubt be rapidly forgotten. I frankly don't understand what the motive is of people who delete any but the most frivolous articles. It's not as if extra articles are doing any harm - and just because they are about things or people way outside the knowledge of most, does not mean that they are not important in their context. For instance it has been suggested that the Presbyterian Reformed Church may be the only indigenous North American denomination which holds to the original 17th century Puritan Westminster Confession of Faith - most Presbyterian denominations hold to a modified American form instead, which is important in the context of the relationship between church and state, something in which American history differs somewhat from that of the countries from which its people largely originated, and which is a matter of live debate at the present day. PeterR2 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems an odd coincidence but today someone else (Dclemens1971) has started the process for deletion of Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States, and I actually got an email about this one before it happened (I only had notification on the Presbyterian Reformed Church after deletion). I had suggested on its talk page back in 2020 that it should be deleted because as far as I could tell it no longer existed in any public way, if at all, unlike the Presbyterian Reformed Church. PeterR2 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - while I respect your judgment, but I believe this promotional BLP should have been soft deleted. Despite noting that the page was PROD'd, I highlighted that it was the creator of this BLP who made the PROD request. Even if we discount the votes from IPs (SPAs), the BLP still falls short of meeting the notability criteria, both WP:GNG and specifically WP:JOURNALIST. And additionally, though there's no concrete evidence of paid editing, Faizanalivarya's admission of editing BLPs on behalf of subjects suggest a potential COI scenario which also raises some concerns as well. sincerely —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
might have been the typo in "draftify" actually, it happens ;), I think it should be fixed now. I don't really see to much of a difference between a "merge" and "redirect" close in the two other cases mentioned though? (I am, of course, also not Liz but a (talk page stalker)) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If merge and redirect are the same, then it might be beneficial to fix how the AfD scoring is done. Performance in AfDs is held against editors when they apply for privileges FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma mind linking me to what this AfD scoring is? I have no privileges to apply for but am curious as I'm not familiar with it. Thanks @Alpha3031 for that link. I also wonder if it's because it's a custom option and not one of the built ins. I see it a lot in my contributions. @Liz hope all is or will be well soon. StarMississippi13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I'm just doing some basic editing because I'm on my phone in the hospital ER for the past 5 hours. But when I get back to my laptop at home, I'll review these closures. I do sometimes do an ATD as an option if it has been brought up by a discussion participant so it's not a Super Vote. But give me a little more time here. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!04:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Zhang Jingyi (actress) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NoCringe (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no, I don't think so. I just did an article page move that was requested and this left behind a redirect. So, A3 is not valid because it is not an article. Maybe you should spend some time reviewing WP:CSD so you understand the speedy deletion criteria better. But thanks for the editing tips, after 10 years here I might need a refresher. LizRead!Talk!04:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was trying to fix the interlanguage wikidata for said actress and messed up with the deletion request. Thanks for the link to WP:CSD I will read up on it!NoCringe (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. Hey, @Liz. I decided to come back to Wikipedia. You're probably thinking it's because I regret doing that or something, but no. My project is done.
Speaking about your reply about Wikibreak and a word (I forgot what is it, lol), I'd definitely take it as an advice. Thanks, anyways.
I was tempted to make the same change about a week ago, but wasn't sure of my ground. I didn't realize that the linked article was proposed for deletion. Athel cb (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgiveness
Hello Liz,
I had never thought you'do be angry per my comment in that AFD. You can't see that comment that way—as bad. In any regards, I just realized it isn't good and all I please is forgiveness. You know I can't also berate you or at other editor, when you were one of those good faith and advisors who if not for the word, "calm down", I could have landed in ANI or there about. Unless you respond that you are no more angry, I will keep begging. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!08:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sigh. Are you (TheTechie) wilfully ignoring the actual text of the criterion? Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages [...] You can't cherry-pick language like thta to justify clearly invalid deletions, and I've caught you trying to do so several times before. And as an admin with over half a million deletions Liz is clearly aware of what the requirements for speedy deletions are. * Pppery *it has begun...03:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not willfully ignoring. I said let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they forgot about that part of the U5 criterion. That's all. Thanks --- thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$14:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This is probably belated but...thank you for all of the admin and non-admin work you do here. I appreciate, as I think others do too, your tireless work in helping this wiki. (PS I recommend archiving your talk page, I see quite a lot of threads.) Enjoy your evening! :) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$03:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for feedback on a page moved back to draft
Hi Liz, you moved Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition back to drafts, I'm looking for feedback. I understand there would have been some discussion of this before the move, but as a basic newbie I don't know where to look. There's nothing on the talk page. I'll declare my interest, these are students of mine and I think they've done good work so I'd like to take the article forward to mainspace if I can get some feedback on what needs to be improved. Thanks. Bcndz5 (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore page Draft:Harriet Pullen
Hi there! I wanted to reach out to see if you would please restore my Draft page for Harriet Pullen. It was marked for speedy deletion under CSD G13...I believe this page contact still merits creation and now have time to complete it. Please let me know if you have any concerns! Thanks.
I don't think there is a point in restoring this page as it was just a blank page with no content on it. That's why it was deleted as a Test page as it wasn't an article draft. I'd work on the main space version (thank you, EdJohnston), or if your "Harriet Pullen" is a different person with the same name, start a new draft. LizRead!Talk!00:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better use of your time would be to work on a new draft version and submit it to Articles for Creation. This is the best way to overcome a past AFD Delete decision. Putting a version you copied from a Wikipedia mirror site into main space will result in a speedy deletion. LizRead!Talk!00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Katya passed away recently[1][2][3], and since I was an acquaintance of hers, I was wondering if you might share with me the contents of the Wikipedia page about her that you deleted[4] in 2020? I am not contesting the deletion - merely interested in its contents for personal reasons. ʈɧɛ fɨʂɧ (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Not your deletion, but since we discussed Saira Shah Halim following my deletion (also not being queried, so I don't feel this is canvassing), I linked our discussion there. Courtesy heads up, and no action needed unless you choose to participate. StarMississippi02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for alerting me. I'm so behind on responding to messages here. I found out a week or so ago that a well-meaning editor was telling new editors to come here with their problems, I get a lot of traffic here. LizRead!Talk!04:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These need to be restored to article space where they were unilaterally and improperly moved by a user whose competence for moving pages you've already questioned on their talk pages. In short, they need to be restored to the status quo ante bellum, considering the "bellum" was a mess up by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Based on their move summary, it looks
Like they wanted to do a wholesale replacement of the existing article text with a draft on their user space sandbox, without discussion, and are attempting to do that by improperly moving a main space article to draft space and then overwriting the deleted redirect. They need to be stopped immediately and their improper moves undone. oknazevad (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. If you look at the Move log, this student editor had been moving around a lot of pages with this title, from User space to main space to draft space. I should have looked closer at this page's history. I reverted their most recent edits but they also did some work a few months ago. It would help if you could look it over. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention so I could fix it. Is there anything else that needs to be undo/restored? LizRead!Talk!04:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's okay now. The rest of it can be taken care of in normal editing. I do have to question whether or not the editor in question lacks the competence to be involved in these matters, based on the quality of their edits (or lack thereof) and their obvious errors, but I'm going to assume good faith that it's just inexperience o their part. oknazevad (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, CathStudies is a student editor and my experience with them, for good or for ill, is that 95% of them disappear after the school term is over. Very few student editors stick around to do any editing once the course is over. So, I don't think there are any long-term concerns to worry about. LizRead!Talk!00:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need you and some others to investigate on this wikipedian Saqib. He is constantly deleting my articles and he first adds nobility to it and the next he nominates it for delete. He previously also accused me of Sockpuppeter and also though I have connections with someone but I said that I don't have any connection. He is trying to make me block from wikipedia. I have started wikipedia in 2020 and this is my only account which I use till now. I am purely contributing to Pakistani Entertainment. I take sources from newspaper, books, magazine and interviews.
He thinks that my sources are not fine and keeps saying they are not significant but these sources are used in other Pakistani articles as well. I did a litte bit of my search on Saqib and I learned that he has previously did this thing also on other users as well such as deleting their works like of Faizan Munawar Varya whose articles he also deleted. I saw their converison Reporting User Saqib for Harrasing other Users on Administrators' noticeboard in April 21, 2024.
Please do some investigation on Saqib.
Thank you.
Have a very wonderful day.
(12:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC))
First, please be sure you correctly sign all messages you leave on talk page. Secondly, I don't consider my activities on Wikipedia as "investigations" but I'll look over their contributions. :Could you perhaps look over their criticism and see if there is any truth to it? There is a possibility that they have a valid point about your articles and it is just being delivered in a hostile way. I know what it's like to feel targeted but they might have a reasonable concern about your work and some improvements you might make to your editing skills. But I'll see if the attention is verging on harassment.
But if you came to an admin looking for someone to deliver a swift block on someone you are in a dispute with, you came to the wrong administrator. That's not how I operate. LizRead!Talk!00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I'm not talking about blocking but I only want to investigate on him. I don't know anyone here so that I could have told them to investigate. I will look again at everything and check everything.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Well, often when some editors get in a fierce dispute they would rather try to get the other editor blocked than talk out the issues. But I'm sorry if I made an incorrect assumption here. I'll get to this tomorrow. LizRead!Talk!06:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I just came across the article on Hayley Mills and its title is oddly italicized. As you know articles about people are not italicized. I've been trying to figure out how to change this, but I can't seem to find a way. Any help fixing this would be much appreciated. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Cryptic who provided an answer. To be honest, I'm not the best admin to come to when there are format/technical concerns. You'd have a speedier response approaching a content creator who is familiar with templates or even go to WP:VPT where there are usually pretty quick responses. LizRead!Talk!00:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz. I started an AFD on the page Tanmoy Roy and everyone has agreed that it should be deleted, and I think we're starting to approach a WP:SNOW close at this point. Let me know your thoughts and I'll respond back ASAP. Thanks. (please mention me on reply) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will this obscure toy line qualify for inclusion on WP?
An article on Woodsey--a very obscure toy line produced by Fisher-Price at the turn of the 1980s--has sat idle in my article sandbox for a decade and a half. At this writing, the only coverage thereof is the barest of a one-line mention in the "Historic brands and products" section of its company's article.
Coming back to it this season as I clean out the sandbox one topic at a time (while transitioning to a brand-new AFC queue), I've found three--make that six--usable citations so far from the fishwrap morgue (via WP:Library) that may be enough for a standalone page. An ambitious task given that most of the WP Library hits are advertisements; if you or I can find more coverage, then we'll remind you!
"New toys at library". The Sun Times. Owen Sound, Ontario. 1981-08-14. p. F12. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. ("Fisher-Price has produced two sequels to the Woodsey family house, the Woodsey Store and the Woodsey Airport.")
It might as well be an understatement that this quoted excerpt from one of those tie-in books--Uncle Filbert Saves the Day, the one I've always remembered from my primary-school youth in the Commonwealth of Dominica--aptly serves as a metaphor for my efforts those past several days, and (on a wider scale) for those committed to upholding WP's RS/notability expectations no matter the subject, vintage, demographic, or obscurity. (H/T Etsy product pics.)
"When will he [Filbert] settle down?" said Mama [Milkweed], shaking her head.
"Sometimes you have to run up many trees to find the right branch," said Papa, who often said things that took a while to understand.
Before I possibly get involved, have you approached the closer? That is the first step you should take. If you believe their decision was in error or shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin, outline your reasons ask if they would consider a reversion of the closure. LizRead!Talk!17:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz. I contacted them And they answered {{"he marginally satisfies the WP:GNG. One delete !vote believed that she had not received sustained coverage and that The available coverage is limited in depth, often focusing on her arrest for hate speech or her association with notable figures, rather than any significant achievements or unique contributions.".
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Hi there, I understand you had to follow rules on drafts so I won't complain / blame. But could I have the source code restored to my userspace please or via another method? Thanks very much Mtonna257 (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a link to the exact deleted page? Then I won't have to search for it. That will speed things up as I will be on and off Wikipedia over the next few days. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!19:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz: a non-admin editor who has no clue has closed it a keep on a contentious Afd. I was planing to address a comment to it. Can you reopen it. scope_creepTalk20:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those 3 categories that you nominated for deletion. I'd only created them less than three hours earlier. Will be needing them slightly longer than that. However, in a day or two, they won't be needed anymore and I'll delete them. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed it was completely deleted and then a redirect of the same title was put in place, hence the history is gone and the current redirect history is a single entry unrelated to the original. Technically, unless an admin did some something fancy, getting back the history would require at least a brief undeletion of only a matter of seconds before it was turned back into a redirect, if need be with one of those padlock thingies.
Not to gripe, but I do so wish that were a more common practice, thereby allowing the deletion to stand and the content still be there for weirdos people like me to take a peek or use the content. Everyone's happy. Cake. Eat. Too. (Then there's the matter of someone post-deletion wanting to move the content to elsewhere - like fandom/wikia - but being unable to since the history is gone, or being unable to save the content for their own personal use and can't because they missed their only chance…)98.97.14.142 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of going through a lot right now. I will be glad to help you when my life stops circling round the drain. Not sure when that will be but it won't be during the next 48 hours where I'm sitting with a relative on hospice care. Please do not take this personally. LizRead!Talk!03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again and it is much appreciated. Sorry to hear about the relative in hospice care.
For years when I saw redirects (usually for TV series characters and episodes), I would check to see if there was a history. Sometimes I'd find it used to be only a stub, other times a respectable article that nevertheless was determined best to remain only as a redirect (likely due to it being considered excessive fancruft?). Still, many times it had no visible history to speak of and I was left wondering if the history got wiped out in the decision to delete it and then make it a redirect. When I bothered to check if it got Waybacked, the answer was all too often that the article did once contain quite a bit of info and I don't understand why there was no effort made to preserve a history. Seems harmless.
This particular Rocky & Bullwinkle episode list was different for me since I used it so frequently, and while I of course could just continue on independent of wikipedia by using the (several month old) Waybacked version or the harder to browse list at thetvdb.com, I felt the need to speak up since it seemed indicative of what I consider a bigger problem of an unnecessary purging of histories that could easily live on. It allows for everything from casual reading & browsing of what used to be as well as more thorough saving, copying, or even article export for a new home at a user page or different wiki. 2605:59C8:150D:D610:9C68:F5E4:C9BD:6D3E (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is this still being worked on? (Figured I'd give it a month before replying, if still needed.) If you'd like, I can put this in as a WP:RFU, with the above caveats about it not being a real undeletion request, but just about history restoration. Thanks. 2605:59C8:150D:D610:8190:37E8:EE45:E490 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, answering parallel request on my Talk here for centralization.
Hi @Usimite. Articles deleted as advertising, which this was, are generally not restored. Can you please advise how you became aware of a deletion discussion that closed before you had this account? cc @DrmiesStarMississippi15:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi, I don't know--yes, maybe, I guess. I had a look (and rolled up one set of socks--look at User:CharlesTaze34, but they were not this one) and found a multitude of accounts on a few ranges in Spamland, but there is so much that I really don't know what to do with it. I just see that Spicy has kindly checked (thank you!) on an account that pops up continuously in my checks, including this one; Spicy, I hope I'm paraphrasing you correctly when I say that this is just really difficult or tricky, given how busy it is. So, Star Mississippi, maybe there's just no point in it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background @Drmies & @Wikishovel. I see from Bovlb's note that's this farm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ukpong1, no wonder they found me after some discussions I hadn't been involved with. SPI is so hopelessly backlogged so unless Drmies or @Spicy wants to fast track it, I'm not sure paperwork is needed since will end up with a period between edits. Happy to file if someone thinks it helpful. StarMississippi02:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never kicked the can down the road as much as I did with today's log. This lack of participation overall and some niche topics. Yuck. Just venting. There are no answers as you well know. StarMississippi14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, I don't like to relist AFD discussions but when you have a handful of people making valid arguments on both sides (or unruly discussions with editors all over the map), well, I see more No Consnsus closures in the future. Which can mean more visits to DRV my favorite place on the project.
We got a temporary boost in discussion closers when I made a comment on AN about it about a month ago but we also need more thoughtful discussion participants. But people burn out, especially those who are frequntly arguing to Keep articles. But you know all of this, too so I won't repeat myself. We should consider a discussion board for venting or maybe that's what email is for! LizRead!Talk!16:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I was half tempted to make a plea for participants. There was some definite IARing happening. It may be ineligible for soft deletion but two weeks of silence means what other options do we have? THanks for always listening. I'd totally be here for WP:ANVentStarMississippi17:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these can be somewhat reliable sources, but you've thrown in a bunch of unreliable ones too. Plus, even with these ones, not everything they publish would pass WP:RS. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of the sources included are reliable, the coverage of the subject matters too and the citations covers it in detail.When the sources are reliable, how you can determine which one should pass and which one should not?182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had about an hour and a half of sleep last night so I won't be doing any "investigations" of anyone right now. Feel free to contact another administrator or, even better, talk out your differnces and resolve them through on of our dispute resolution processes. Go to the Teahouse for details about them. LizRead!Talk!15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Liz, thank you for editing Wikipedia. I was wondering, do you use a bot to archive discussions on your talk page, or is it managed through a template? Or do you handle it all manually? - Macrobreed2 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could speedy keep this for me please? I found out it was just a case of the wrong article name which can be fixed out of AfD so have withdrawn, and there are no delete !votes on it. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was hesitant to make this comment because I don't want to sound obtrusive, but I notice that when you delink deleted articles on disambiguation pages, set index articles, etc., you often leave the entry there, such as in this edit. I feel like this goes against the spirit of MOS:DABNOLINK/MOS:DABRED and similar navigational guidelines. Do you think you could take care to remove the entries completely on disambiguations, set indexes, see also sections and hatnotes when the article it's linking to has been deleted? (in the case of hatnotes, the hatnote should be removed completely if it contains only a redlink). Hopefully there's not a misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for all the work you do here! AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, where is the problem, her article has a reputation, anyway, I was not familiar with Wikipedia's rules
I have read the rationale and disagree that it should have been deleted. Political candidates are subject to significant media interest and pressure. Added to which, having been a columnist at a national newspaper and a television pundit on national news in the UK the subject is more notable than those arguing for deletion suggest. The article should at least be moved into draft; as noted in the discussion it was well-written and detailed. Toadynudge (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadynudge, hi--you did not read Liz's rationale; what you read was Liz's summary of the "delete" arguments. I see that you did not participate in the discussion. You can take this up at WP:DRV, but I have no doubt that the consensus there will be that Liz correctly closed this discussion, which is the basis for any decision by the closing/deleting administrator. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mercuri_Urval_International
DearLiz, We have gotten our page deleted based on this log: Expired PROD, concern was: No evidence of notability - sources are not in-depth, independent coverage. MU are a 66 year old company operating world-wide and we have several sources and independent coverage to add if needed. Please let me know how to proceed to get it edited and restored. Warm regards, Sofia Sofiahl (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you providee a link to the deleted page? Then we can see why it was deleted. It may take a while for me to respond back these days. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!15:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to me for help but I have a lot going on in my life right now (see the header at the top of the page). If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone else will tend to it soon. Have patience. LizRead!Talk!04:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I am an administrator and bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons. It was brought to my attention on a platform not Wiki that there is a problem with some edits on an article Donald_Young_(choir_director). As stated on that talk page,[28] I found some problems with some edits on that article and corrected as many as I could. I then went to the page of the editor responsible for the odd citations and found that you recently deleted a draft article on the apparently same topic. The diff is here [29]
I do not think that the changes that I undid are relevant to the Wiki project. They have been undone by others before. I wish I had more experience with en:Wiki - do you have an equivalent to "check user" to see if there are socks of this user? The person who brought this forward to me suggested that there may be other edits or other accounts involved.
In the interest of completeness, I looked at other contributions of this editor and found
Benedict_Biscop of which the first four citations either do not mention, do not exist, 404 page not found. Later citations at least mention him, and one https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095458439 seems to be the source of much of the en:Wiki article including perhaps full phrases.
Please reply to me at my Wiki Commons talk page [30] which sends me notifications.
Thank you so much in advance for your time and attention to this matter.
hello Liz, this is a page you deleted in on the 26th of April, 2024. The copyright infringement issue has been resolved as the subject's source has added a disclaimer on their site where the links/statements were gotten from. Could you please restore the page, as i have some edits to make to it?
If you'd prefer, you could restore it to the draft space if you have any concerns. Concerns i hope you would share with me so i can correct them.
Thank you.
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.
Please provide a link to the deleted page. We can't restore content that is a copyright violation. I'm not sure that this declaration resolves the copyright issues. I recommend going to the Teahouse for specific advice on copyright issues. LizRead!Talk!02:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries
Dear admin-chosen-at-random-who-seems-to-be-active, do you think edit summaries like this are acceptable? Do I need to raise this at an admin board somewhere? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for other admins for stepping in here. I'm active but as you can see by the header at the top of this page, I can be slow at responding. Sorry you had to put up with this nonsense. LizRead!Talk!00:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. This G8 deletion of yours seems to have been erroneous. G8 excludes "Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move or retargeting (these should instead be retargeted to their target's new name), except where R2 speedy deletion would then immediately apply if they were fixed (e.g., redirects to articles that have been draftified)". (And, of course, R2 doesn't apply to redirects from userspace.) (Do with this comment as you wish; I don't particularly care if it's undeleted.) SilverLocust💬06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following you as User:Lillyanacut/Gelsen Gas isn't deleted now. But it was previously deleted because it was a broken redirect to Gelsen Gas Student Article and we delete broken redirects. This was a page that was moved around a lot so it's a little confusing. I try not to make mistakes but I'm a very active admin so it's possible I made an error. What sort of resolution are you looking for here? LizRead!Talk!00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after my comment here the page has been moved back to the title of the deletion, so there is nothing to do now.
G8 says (quite correctly) that broken redirects should be fixed, not deleted, when broken as the result of a page move — unless the fixed redirect would be an R2. The move redirect from userspace was broken when you draftified the article. SilverLocust💬00:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping
I mentioned you at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Unlink_and_disambiguation_pages (one of your edits made me think that maybe Twinkle could be improved). Somehow I had forgotten that you are unpingable (when I was reminded, it did ring a bell though). Anyway, here is a proper notification so you know I have not been trying to talk about you behind your back. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm "unpingable" but I get so many pings that I stopped monitoring them. Thanks for letting me know. I'll see if I can wander by that discussion. LizRead!Talk!22:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that. If I am addressing an administrator concern with which you were involved, should I refrain from pinging you? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's best if it's important to do what Kusma did and alert me on my user talk page. I just post so many welcome messages to new editors and notices about expiring drafts that I get more pings than I can respond to. To be honest, I'm also pretty slow and inconsistent about responding to talk page messages, I just seem to get so much traffic here, I'm not sure why. I found one editor was recommending to new editors to come here if they had any problems and I was like, "Sigh. Thanks but no thanks." Luckily, I have some awesome talk page stalkers that get to messages to supply help. LizRead!Talk!00:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request to restore deleted page
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Liz,
I somehow missed the notifcation from March that an article I edited was proposed for deletion due to "Bandcamp artist spam". This page has since been deleted, titled "Wally Scharold". If I recall correctly, I updated a dead link on the page to that person's band, which is currently only linkable to their Bandcamp page as the official website of the band was no longer active. Had I been aware of the proposed deletion in time, I would have gladly removed the edit in question. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate it if this page could be restored. Thank you. AimlessIdler (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, yes, Wally Scharold. Great news that it can be restored. Will the content from the deleted version of the article need to be corrected upon restoration? Happy to do so if so, just checking. Many thanks for your swift reply and help with this. Kind regards. AimlessIdler (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done All of the content is restored. Please know that the editor who tagged this article as a PROD might nominate it for an WP:AFD deletion discussion. If it is deleteed via an AFD it will be much more difficult to restore. If you want to work on the article undisturbed, you might move it to your user space for a while. Please look at the PROD deletion rationale so you understand what should be fixed. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!00:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look into Gregory J. Marchand and examine the circumstances of deletion? It might be possible to restore it to draftspace.
You're definitely right that the AFC process can be tedious and tiresome, we went through a lot of draft revisions to get through! But, as you can see from the logs I did indeed follow the AFC process all the way through. I did not take any shortcuts or post in mainspace without permission, and so CSD may have been mistakenly applied. I really appreciate your help with this. Also, if you have any suggestions to improve the page I will be happy to comply.
Are you a paid contributor? I ask because articles on this subject have been virtually identical and resembled advertising every single time. I'm not willing to restore this kind of promotional content to the project. It would be best if you started from scratch and wrote a draft article appropriate for an encyclopedia and not a business directory on the world's best doctors. The hype of winning world records, for example, was completely inappropriate for an article on a physician. Good luck but I'm doubtful that editors with an obvious conflict-of-interest can write an article that would be approved by an AFC reviewer.
This is what I would advise you to do. However, if you want to contest my deletion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review but you have to present a very solid argument to win the approval of the editors who review appeals. I think it would be unsuccessful but it is an option you can take. LizRead!Talk!23:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Liz, thank you for your quick, detailed reply. If you would be so kind as to review the AFC logs, you'll see that my conflict of interest (COI) was disclosed with the initial AFC submission and continues to be displayed on my userpage. I made sure all editors throughout the AFC process knew of my COI. I'm a published researcher at this institution. My conflict of interest was completely disclosed and discussed during the AFC process, (a lot of the back and forth is also on my talk page,) and we were very careful to avoid promotionality with the help of the nice editors at AFC. I'm not interested in disputing your deletion, but I would like to avoid the 6-12 month process of starting AFC from scratch.
Therefore, from reading all of the above topics you've worked on in this talk page, I see that you seem extremely reasonable, and tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I've been open, clear, and obeyed all of Wikipedia's regulations and pillars. If you would be so kind as to allow me to submit a draft of this page to you for consideration, I believe I can perform a rewrite that excludes any promotionality and that you will find suitable for this online encyclopedia.
Oh and congratulations on your new barnstar below! I sincerely appreciate the tremendous amount of time and effort you put in to improving Wikipedia as an unpaid volunteer. Keep up the good work! Danthemedguy22 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your tireless work at WP:AFD, I've seen you taking excellent decisions in closing and relisting discussions. Thanks so much for your contributions :-) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar and I will archive my user talk page. I'm helping take care of a parent on hospice care, hence the message at the top of this page. I'll get to it soon. LizRead!Talk!16:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz, please I want you to restore my sandbox User:SafariScribe/sandbox, its urgent as it contains part of an ongoing peer review for FA. I thought I had transferred all to the main page before tagging it for speedy deletion. It is urgent and was an error. Thanks for your consideration. Regards. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!20:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, I explicitly appreciate that. Who am I when I have a good one like you, take it easy also and always take some deep rest. Let me rush to the reviewer ASAP. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early NAC closures
Since that DRV is now closed, I figured we'll continue this here. You said,
Owen×, I've observed that many NAC closures are early closures. AGF, I think they want to gain experience with closures but with a current shortage of closers, it's usually unnecessary to do closures early. I don't want to single out this closure as it's just a trend I've noticed this year. I've seen "SNOW" closes with only 3 or 4 discussion participants which is not how I interpret SNOW to work.
Personally, I'm not bothered by eager NACs jumping in to close an obvious Keep AfD a few hours before the seven days are up. If consensus to keep is obvious enough for a NAC, waiting the full week is an unnecessary technicality. What bothers me are closures that are completely inappropriate for a non-admin. Almost anything closed as No-consensus is a BADNAC, pretty much by definition. Marginal Keeps are also a problem. Yesterday I had to revert a NAC Keep closure based on a grand total of two Keep !votes, one of which was little more than an ILIKEIT. The closer was friendly and understanding, so this didn't end up with a wheel-war like with that other guy I took to DRV, and the harm was minimal, but these things happen all the time.
We need to find a way to encourage non-admins to get involved with closing AfD, without creating this mad race to the Close button I see as we approach the seven-day finish line. Currently, most of the obvious NAC-elegible AfDs are closed by you, by Star Mississippi and by Explicit. By the time I check the backlog, usually all that's left are the contentious, messy, often political ones that no one else wants to touch, and almost invariably end up in DRV. I try to tackle at least one of those whenever I see them. Would it make sense to deliberately leave more obvious Keep AfDs open for NAC closure? I know you hate seeing anything in the AfD backlog, but these are easy, straightforward cases, and no harm is done by having them open for eight days rather than seven. With more opportunities for NACs to hone their closing skills, maybe we'll get fewer of those forced-SNOW inappropriate closures. What do you think? Owen×☎12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX, If I may, as the one who performed the NAC mentioned here, I totally agree with what you're saying and had a quick thing to add. How about not allowing AfDs to be closed prior to the 7 days (at least, by non-admins, and still allowing nominations to be withdrawn)? I think that it would help reduce the amount of those SNOW closes from occurring (just as I did with my first couple, unfortunately very much mistaken, closes). That way, NACs could safely happen on eligible keeps after the 7 days and would reduce the occurence of that SNOW trend that Liz mentioned. Obviously, there'd need to be a community consensus for such a change. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining in, Cocobb8! If all non-admin closers were as cooperative and as eager to learn as you are, things would be much easier. I'm game for the procedural change you propose, but I doubt it would gain consensus if proposed as a policy change. That's why I'm looking for a change that can be implemented without updating policy, just by changing how the most prolific AfD closers handle the task. But I'm open to other approaches. Owen×☎17:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply @OwenX! I'd be interested to see what other admins and editors think about this procedural change too. Would it be a kind of proposition for which all admins would support and non-admins wouldn't? How here's an additional thought: maybe some kind of "AfD closer" user right can be created through WP:PERM, so that it works the same as WP:NPP. But that might be a little overkill too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! just noting I've seen this and will circle back to it in the coming days. I was offline this weekend and will be again next. (Sorry @Liz, I know I said I'd pick up the slack) StarMississippi02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Random question
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Liz,
I am a student currently writing a paper on gender bias on wiki. I want to ask you a few questions regarding your experiences as a female editor on wiki. If you are not comfortable responding, then no worries about responding. Thanks!
These are the questions I would like to ask for my paper:
1. Have you ever experienced anything that you would classify as a result of gender bias on wiki?
2. How you heard of the "Women in Red" list on wiki> If so, have you tried writing a page for one of the women with a red link? What were your experiences like and what type of edits did you receive from other editors on wiki?
3. Why do you think gender bias exists on a platform such as wiki, or even in general? Is there anything you think that could be done to lessen this divide caused by gender?
Could you please advise me on how to fix it or not? Because Draft:AP (Thailand) Public Company Limited has been deleted. I'm not sure where I went wrong. 58.137.32.194 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hello, @58.137.32.194. I am not Liz, or an admin, but I can tell you that the page was deleted as a redirect that goes to a page that doesn't exist. Currently, Liz is very busy, and they may not reply fast. If this is urgent, I recommend asking another admin; we have quite a lot of them, you know. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$02:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking Guidance on Republishing Sergey Smbatyan's Article on Wikipedia
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to express our gratitude for your invaluable contributions to improving Wikipedia content. Your dedication to maintaining accuracy and reliability within the platform is truly commendable.
I am reaching out to discuss a matter regarding an article draft that was deleted last year under your supervision. The draft in question pertains to Sergey Smbatyan, and it was removed due to a lack of reliable sources at the time.
Since then, I worked to gather sufficient and verifiable sources covering Sergey Smbatyan's accomplishments and contributions. I believe that now I have a robust set of references that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability.
Given your expertise in this area, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the process of republishing the article. I want to ensure that I adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines and protocols to guarantee the article's compliance and accuracy.
Your insights and direction on this matter would be immensely valuable to me, and I am eager to collaborate with you to bring this article back to the platform in a manner that upholds Wikipedia's integrity.
Thank you once again for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Warm regards Grigor Khachatrian (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @TheTechie, thanks for your commitment to improving Wikipedia. Could you please guide me which part is reading like an advertisement, and how can we improve that? Thanks in advance Grigor Khachatrian (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, your use of the subject pronoun "we" gives me an idea that you are a company. Wikipedia accounts are strictly for one person. I am sure that you are an SPA, but I'm sure someone will find out soon. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$16:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @TheTechie, Mentioning we I mean me and you, as me and you are contributing of the improvement of the Wikipedia. As you are a senior editor, I am seeking your guidance and help to improve the article. Thanks in advance. Grigor Khachatrian (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi, I'm subbing for Liz on their talk page as they are very stressed. Note: you don't need to ask Liz here, they clearly say in the deletion note: If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13. Hope that helps and good luck! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$02:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was sorry to hear that Liz is stressed. If she is too stressed to respond here, perhaps it would be wise for her to stop deleting things.
I have no idea, since the page is deleted. Once I can see it, and the history, I will be able to form a judgement.
I note that Draft:Mankind has been deleted since, so perhaps I should take a look at that too.
I have also not been following any issues with any other users editing, and strongly support editing from the standpoint of content rather than authorship.
@Rich Farmbrough, Draft:Humankind is restored save for some early bot weirdness. Pinging @Interstellarity to shed some light on whether the history swaps are useful, but they're restored for now. There is nothing at Draft:Mankind as the text was, in its entirety: Dummy page to use as a reminder to edit Draft:Humankind. Mankind should redirect there when the draft is accepted.
Apologies, I didn't realize you operate SmackBot. Those were the edits I described as "bot weirdness" but have now restored. How dare you not immediately recall high impact 2008 edits ;-)
User:Star Mississippi Thanks! This is just a history of ... well lets be nice. Can you move this draft page back to where it belongs: Mankind, reverting User:Immanuelle's move to Draft space. I think you can safely overwrite what's at Mankind at the moment, although if you want to do a history merge, more power to you. Liz should have spotted this, bulk deletion is never a good idea. I'm not sure that User:Interstellarity's "round-robin" move (that's not what a round robin is) was a good idea, but that's another issue. Once again thanks. All the best: RichFarmbrough21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
At least the end result, I think I messed it up along the way but I'm 99% sure I got what you were hoping for in terms of history at the right title. Let me know if more is needed? I am not the most tech savvy of editors if you hadn't guessed so can't promise I can take it further. Have a good evening StarMississippi01:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hello, I'm subbing for Liz as they are very stressed. Not done: It's unclear what you'd like to be done. Please let me know what you are expecting. If you need an admin, please ask another one, this one is going through a lot. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$16:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That ANI discussion about Synthesis seems to be very much on the wrong board. Not a surprise as the editor who brought it there only has made 123 edits in over 3 years. Do you see any behavioral issues that justify keeping it open? Doug Wellertalk11:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi, Liz isn't around, for now. As listed above, they're busy in real life with personal issues. I am replying on their behalf because, as noted above, they are stressed because of said personal issues. If you like, you can move it yourself. If you would like a third opinion, please let me know which section of ANI you are talking about, there is quite a lot. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$16:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad. I'm helping provide hospice care for my mother along with my brother and sister so there are times when I'm busy off-line and times when she is sleeping where I do basic editing to relieve stress. I just am not up for putting out fires and chatting a lot (I typically leave long talk page messages!).
But we are all dealing with some kind of stress, I know, and even though I archived a lot of messages recently, my user talk page is still pretty full and most people don't see the header at the top of this page. I hope you are doing okay these days, you're all in my thoughts. LizRead!Talk!16:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry that’s necessary but glad you’ve got family to share it with. It’s. Good that your mother can be with her family. I’m doing ok really, living a pretty normal life for my age, although may be having chemo again soon. That won’t be too bad. Doug Wellertalk18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, TheTechie, to be honest, I have mixed feelings about it. I have been blessed by several helpful talk page stalkers who have offered replies to editors' questions before I got around to responding to messages. I have a tendency to either respond to messages immediately (like now) or I can take a few days to get to messages. If it is an editor with a general question and you can tell them where to get help or where to find an answer, then it would be very kind for you to respond. But if it's a question about an AFD closure or some other admin act I've done, then I really need to reply myself. And don't speak "for me" or about me, I'd like to choose when to share about my life.
You can add the "stress" header to my edit notice, that would be helpful but don't, for instance, archive my user talk page. Several years ago, an editor set up automatic archiving for me, without asking, and my talk page archives are still screwed up as the archiving was done to whatever archive page had the most space, not according to date. I can handle that on my own. But thanks for asking me how you can help, if you can work within the limits I describe, then your assistance would be welcome and appreciated, thank you. LizRead!Talk!18:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. And about archiving someone else's talk page...I do agree that it is going too far. I won't tell others the details, but I will say that you are busy/stressed, and if it is about something you did, well, I'll leave you to it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not arguing with you about the article content. I'm asking you to respect prior consensus, and stop trying to re-nominate articles that have recently been discussed at AfD. Toughpigs (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mention this mainly because you appear to be deleting pages directly from the category, so your opinions at the discussion would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has suddenly become empty, it typically contains several hundred drafts that are coming due for G13 speedy deletion over the next month/4 weeks.
But the three admins who typically handle G13s (me, Explicit and Hey man im josh) actually make use of daily lists generated by User:SDZeroBot for this purpose (see User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon). SDZeroBot's lists are more complete that this category ever was. Years ago when SDZeroBot started helping with G13s (Sept. 2020), I asked the bot operator, SD0001, why SDZeroBot's lists were more accurate than this category, but we didn't figure out an answer beyond the possibility that not all expiring drafts were tagged for this category. But I have no idea what bot was in charge of tagging drafts to be in this G13 eligible AFC submissions category in the first place!
But I've never seen this category completely empty before, this is really strange!. Did someone change a template or something? We have editors who tag expiring drafts with CSD G13 tags and they typically use this category, not SDZeroBot's lists. It's a very small group of admins and editors who handle tasks related to G13s so we kind of have a routine operating procedure. Again, I'm not sure if a bot stopped tagging drafts or what that would cause this category to empty out. In the past, it has gone down to, say a hundred drafts and I'd ask DGG for help and he seemed to know how to fix the problem and the category would fill up again but, unfortunately, that's not possible any more. There might be a query about this at WP:VPT from years ago when this would sometimes happen. LizRead!Talk!20:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon! You recently closed this AFD as "keep", yet you relisted this AFD earlier in the day with the comment "A comment to "procedural keep" is not an argument on why an article should be Kept. I'm relisting this discussion." I am curious why one merited a closure as "keep" when the other was relisted. Bgsu98(Talk)20:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You filed dozens of AFD discussions for articles on this subject, most of which were relisted because we have low participation right now in AFDLand, especially when there are so many AFDs filed on the same day on a similar subject. We have a limited pool of editors who participate in AFDs.
I'll have to look into this tonight when I usually have more time to address talk page queries. I do recall that I saw another closer close an AFD on a skater that had similar comments as a "Keep" and that might have influenced my decision. But I'll have to look over the daily AFD log page and both AFDs to be sure. I was handling so many of these AFDs you filed yesterday, this one isn't sticking out in my memory. Hope to have an answer for you later in the day. LizRead!Talk!21:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Syringa Pinnatifolia
Hi Liz, I see you've moved or deleted a page (Syringa Pinnatifolia) I was trying to move to mainspace. Thank you; I'd made a mistake with the page name (I think I inadvertently created a userpage with that name somehow) and I was trying to see how I could correct it. Is there a way of restoring it under the correct name, please? (You'll have guessed I'm rather new at this). Anyway, any help you can offer is appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's possible can be seen by looking at why the article was moved or deleted. Can you provide me with a link to the page that was deleted that you are concerned about? That would speed things up. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request permission to recreate the draft for the article on RG Qluck Wise, a Ghanaian record producer, author, and graphic designer.
I understand that previous attempts to create this article were met with deletion due to various reasons, including concerns about notability and promotional language. I have carefully reviewed the deletion log and taken steps to address these issues:
Notability: I have conducted additional research to ensure that RG Qluck Wise meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians, authors, and graphic designers. I have gathered reliable, secondary sources to establish his significance in these fields.
Neutral Tone: I have revised the content of the article to remove any promotional language or bias. The tone is now neutral and factual, focusing on providing an objective overview of RG Qluck Wise's career and achievements.
Draft Status: Instead of resubmitting the article directly to the main space, I plan to recreate it as a draft. This will allow for further refinement and review before seeking publication.
I believe that the revised draft meets Wikipedia's standards and guidelines for inclusion. Before proceeding, I wanted to seek your guidance and approval to ensure that I am following the correct procedure.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I am open to any feedback or suggestions you may have for improving the article further.
Hello, I would like to thank you very much for helping me move the article. Because I am a newbie, I need help in many places. However, this article is an assignment left for me by my teacher. The teacher’s request is to put it on my personal homepage in, So I'm moving this post back，Thank you very much for helping me, have a nice day Mcx8202229 (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)@Mcx8202229: Please see the message I left for you at User talk:Mcx8202229#Your userpage because, as Liz mentioned in her post at User talk:Mcx8202229#May 2024, your userpage is not really intended to be a place to work on drafts for future articles and leaving the content there only increases the risk that it will either be moved to the draft namespace again by another Wikipedia administrator/user or even possibly tagged for speedy deletion. If having your work in the draft namespace is really undesirable for some reason (though it's hard to think of good reason why that might be the case), then you should create a userspace draft and copy-and-paste the content there instead. Once you've copied-and-pasted the content into a userspace draft, you should remove from your user page. Whatever you do, please don't try to WP:MOVE your user page to the userspace draft because doing so will create a whole new set of problems that will need to be cleaned up. Finally, as I also posted at User talk:Mcx8202229#Non-free images and article namespace categories, non-free content can't be displayed on user pages per relevant Wikipedia policy, and article namespace categories can't be used on pages in the user namespace per relevant Wikipedia guidelines; so, please don't re-display the non-free file or re-enable the categories until after you're draft has been approved as an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals (SCIP)
Hi Liz,
I noticed that you deleted the wikipedia page for Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals (SCIP). I want to edit the content for the page to update it with the most latest information. Can you guide me on this? AakritiBasnett (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up
I've just been contacted (via WhatsApp) by someone (Ali Al Suleiman, Arabic: علي محمود السليمان) whose article you once deleted. Wanted me to help him restore the article, to which I said no without even looking into it. I was then told that he's got a draft (in Arabic?) ready that's just about to go into main space, "hence there shouldn't be a problem". Interestingly, there does not appear to be a Wikidata entry for this person. Do we care about people's autobiographies in other language Wikis? Schwede6603:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the title 'Manu Munsi' to 'Manu Munshi' and 'Kumkum Munsi' to 'Kumkum Munshi'
Hi,
Recently I created 2 articles with the title 'Manu Munsi' and 'Kumkum Munsi'. But, from google search I came to know that these people used to write 'Munshi' more frequently than 'Munsi'. That means, the original spelling was 'Munshi'. So, first I tried to create redirect pages with 'Manu Munshi' and 'Kumkum Munshi', respectively. But, I came to know that previously these pages were created by someone but deleted later. But, I have enough sources to make these pages notable based on which I created these pages with the surname spelling 'Munsi' which is actually wrong. The original spelling is 'Munshi'. I don't know who created the previous articles. I would like to know whether it is possible to change the title of the articles accordingly. If you kindly advise me in this regard, it will be beneficial. Finesilpo (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Can you please undelete 19th Division (United States)(Prior to World War I) looks like that one had substantive history, and was also a bit of accidental WP:WHEELing. I plan a running a script to find these and go through systemically to deal with a some point when I have the time. Probably in most cases they will be fixable by moving without leaving a redirect, but there will probably be some XFDs needed. Of course if an obvious title presents itself you can go ahead and move it there right now.
Separately, I have a nagging feeling I was supposed to assist you with something a few months back, and I can't remember if I got around to it. Probably not important, but if you want to give me a hard time I won't object. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A024:5E49:D03:3D9F (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said user may be a sockpuppet of User:SteaminThomasTheTrain32 because of unofficial Thomas & Friends-related Auto-biography pages and said in the pages that his name is “David J. Murray Jr”, which is the user’s real name
Also he was infamous on FANDOM as an account named “Really Useful Hedgehog 2” for attention seeking and trying to steal another user named “Too Much Toby” IP address..
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place to spread rumors. We only make claims when we know we have evidence. I ask that you stop disturbing Liz, as they can't do anything about this, and bring your concern to a checkuser by clicking herethetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$00:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg
Hi Liz. I'm not sure I agree with your assessments of File:JC Pressac - Auschwitz- Technique and operation of the gas chambers (1989).jpg and of the article where the file is being used that you gave in your deprod rationale. Even so, if you're planning to rename the article and make other changes so that it focuses on the book instead of on Pressac (as you suggested should be done in your deprod rationale), then perhaps the cover could be kept; however, this file is essentially a collage of multiple images, and I don't think a non-free image of the interior pages would meet WP:NFCC#8, at least not based on the current version of the article. If your intent is to use the image in accordance with item 1 of WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#cite_note-3, it probably needs to be cropped to just show the cover. The cover and interior pages should be treated as separate files if the argument is that the latter also satisfy WP:NFCCP since their justification for non-free use isn't really equivalent. If you disagree with my assessment and feel the file is fine as is, I can nominate it for discussion at FFD to see what others might think and to try to sort things out; it could (at least in my opinion), however, be difficult to establish a consensus in favor of even keeping the cover as long as the article remains as is (i.e. about Pressac). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you closed this PROD a while back. I would like to request undeletion. The concern was "Unused, obviously incorrect license tag (not PD-US), but unclear if this is eligible for Commons. Esoteric file format, dubious encyclopedic value".
"Unused" - Can just be transferred to Commons, clear educational value.
"obviously incorrect license tag" - image was made in 1960s, likely published somewhere without notice. Website also states "No known copyright restrictions", it is unlikely these photos went unpublished.
"esoteric file format" - tif is in no way esoteric
"dubious encyclopedic value" - Clear c:COM:EDUSE as photos of a building from a collection
Done PROD'd articles and files can be restored upon request so you don't have to present me with an argument. However, it can be nominated at WP:FFD and there, a Keep rationale would help preserve this image. LizRead!Talk!20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Polish people murdered in attacks
Hi, I have a question on something that I've run into a few times. What is the best procedure if a user immediately recreates and article in mainspace after it has been draftified? I tagged this one for CSD under a custom rationale but I figure there is a better way. Thank you. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this happens far too often. Some patrollers try to tag the recreated article for speedy deletion, I think as a CSD G6 but that doesn't apply to these situations. Since an editor can always object to draftification and move a draft article back to main space, there is no CSD criteria that covers a cut and paste job. I give a C&P Twinkle warning to the content creator but all that does is try to prevent them from doing this action again in the future. You could move the newly created main space article to Draft space and Merge the two articles or turn the draft article into a redirect to the main space article. But, after making this mistake early in my editing career and being corrected, there is no deletion rationale for deleting either the main space or the draft space version of the same article. I've seen editors try to bend the CSD criteria to fit this situation and admins vary on whether or not they will agree with the tagging.
But, honestly, most of the time, nothing is done in these situations. I believe this is mainly because, typically, the content creator is the primary editor for both a draft and main space version of the same article so attribution is not a big concern. I wish new editors would understand how draftification can be a positive step and allow them to work on an article in draft space with less of a threat of deletion but I think most of them see it as a punishment or a negative action. Sorry I can't present you with a one-size-fits-all magical solution. I use to review the daily draftification list and be more aware of when this was happening so I could talk with the editor or post them a notice but I stopped doing that task a few months ago. If you want to know the link to the bot page which lists all draftifications, I can dig it up for you. Let me know. LizRead!Talk!20:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean like moved to something like Draft:[pagename]2 and then redirect? I'm not really concerned about attribution. More that it's an unsourced BLP page, and apparently autobiographical as well. I've recommended the creator submit the draft through AFC going forward. Honestly I might suggest a CSD criterion for this situation or for the too-common case of an editor moving or copying a declined draft to mainspace without improvement. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category: Black Sun Ensemble albums
Hi Liz - you removed the C1 speedy deletion tag from this category on the basis that the category was not empty. As I explained in my edit summary, effectively yes it is... because the only entry in the category is a redirect, this band has no album articles at all. So a category is considered not empty even if it is only populated by redirects? Richard3120 (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check logs to see if Irfan Ajvazi had been through AfD before, but having both seen the prior AfD and references (sic) that are in the current version, I agree that the problems from the AfD have not been addressed. There was some progress; any objections with moving the page back to Draft space instead of deleting it outright? —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, Saqib is correct. That IP was blocked so he was correct in striking their vote. Please be more thorough and cautious. S0091 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Kys5g, I'm not Liz, but usually when older versions are RevDel'd, it has something to do with copyright (e.g. a copyrighted image scaled down and the old full scale versions deleted), but I noticed that some revisions were from a blocked user, maybe they were vandalism? I don't know, I'll let Liz respond though, just wanted to chime in with my thoughts on this. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$14:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I don’t think Michael Sugrue qualified for speedy deletion. He recently got a NY Times obit- I’ve never seen a subject with one not meet notability requirements. Could you restore the article and if you feel it is necessary, nominate it for deletion? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was nearly two years ago. Since his death, there are have been several obits with The NY Times being the most prominent. I’d like a return to mainspace if possible. Thriley (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley If I restore it to mainspace, it's likely going to be immediately G4ed as it also was in February as it's admin interpretation. (JUst because I wouldn't have doesn't mean Liz & @Wikishovel were wrong). I'm trying to avoid that step/cycle. StarMississippi15:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Star M. The NYT obit (unpaywalled copy available on dnyuz.com), published four months after Sugrue's death, talks about how an obscure academic became popular online during the pandemic. Looking at the archived version and the AFD, I'm not comfortable with circumventing AFD and G4 policy on the basis of an obit, and the outcome wasn't a soft delete. WP:DRVPURPOSE point 3 about "significant new information" doesn't seem to apply here either, but I'll defer to Liz (and you) on whether this should go to WP:DRV. Wikishovel (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense @Wikishovel, and thanks for the links as I hadn't dug on this at all beyond trying to help Liz.
@Thriley I think the best solution is probably draft space or DRV review of the one just deleted or February (essentially User:Etyuxdy/sandbox) citing new info since we all seem to agree there was no issue with the AfD close just that facts may have changed.
About to be offline for a couple of hours so will need another admin to restore the May one if you want to go that route, Thriley. StarMississippi19:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I think a move to draft would work to allow me to flesh it out. The article was a late evening stub of mine that wasn’t very good. Best, Thriley (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted everything but the original versions that were old/clear G12s and it's here Draft:Michael Sugrue. Apologies for templating you @Thriley.
I leave it to you, @Wikishovel and any other interested parties to decide whether an improved draft needs to go through DRV, AfC etc as it's definitely subjective. NOt watching so just ping me if needed. StarMississippi01:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected meatpuppetry
Hi,
General request for advice as per the above. Current involved in a move discussion on a page (Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992)) where it appears nearly every person pushing for the move is a meatpuppet (and likely member of the group in question) given the highly niche organisation it pertains to yet sudden surge of new and/or low-edit accounts only interested in this one group. Would you be able to look into this or if not provide advice as to where to go for investigation?
According to Liz's edit summary, she objects because the article is over 90 days old. We're not supposed to draftify articles older than 90 days, per an RFC a year or two ago. Sorry that I forgot to mention this. Guess we'll have to take this restriction into account. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I just archived several months' worth of messages a week or so ago. But this User talk page gets a lot of traffic so I'll do some more archiving over the next week. Thanks for providing an explanation of the draftification change. LizRead!Talk!15:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Novem Linguae but the last editor who set up archiving on my user talk page (without my permission) screwed up my talk page archives and messages were randomly added to different archive pages regardless of the date. I have procrastinated on spending a weekend straightening all of the mess that resulted from that. But thanks for the offer. The thought is appreciated. LizRead!Talk!03:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May 2024
Hello, Liz! I hope you're doing well. Please remember discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Thank you. – Primium (talk)03:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whose comment did I edit but my own? I've made over 650,000 edits on this project and have been here for 11 years, I don't need basic warnings like this especially when they are inaccurate. If I've done what you are accusing me of, present a diff. LizRead!Talk!03:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an impressive tenure! I appreciate your extensive contributions to the project and apologize if my message seemed accusatory. The change happened here. – Primium (talk)03:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeds of Hope Publishers Deletion
Hello Liz, apologies for the inconvenience but I noticed the article I worked on for "Seeds of Hope Publishers" (Seeds of Hope Publishers) was deleted on the accounts of not having enough credited sources and not enough votes to prevent deletion. I understand that I didn't respond to these edits in time, but would it be possible to make changes to fit these requirements in a brief period of time, or at the very least copy the information created on the article? I can assure you that as a volunteer of the organization, this wasn't an attempt to advertise or market them in any way. but to provide a means of cataloging their history, especially due to the information being from the founder/manager Katie Cook herself. If by chance you need verification I would be happy to communicate in private through email, and provide a link to their website for proof (https://www.seedspublishers.org/)
Any response would be appreciated, and thank you for your time. I also promise I never meant to provoke the wrath of the kittehmaster :)
Oh, well I suppose my "conflict of interest" is that of a recent student volunteer from Baylor University. The non-profit organization was willing to task people with media tasks, such as helping to create new/updated articles of current events, update the website, etc. My task was delegated from Ms.Cook herself, and she needed someone to help update the Wikipedia article with new material (or stuff she forgot to include such as pictures and such), while she was busy volunteering with other projects from the organization of course. If by chance you're worried in regards to bias, I can assure you that I'm fairly new to the Seeds of Hope itself, hence had no experience with the events listed in the article, and was mainly given the task on account of wanting to learn the wikipedia article format. I hope that answer was sufficient, if you need more I'd be happy to tell you more about my time. Devangae200 (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my apologies but has the "conflict of interest" I listed enough to discuss either revoking the deletion of Seeds of Hope Publisher's, or at least allowing me to edit the article (or possibly save the information listed before deletion)? Devangae200 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We recently were messaging with @Seawolf35 about recent updates we made to Shiftboard's page. We are affiliated with Shiftboard and were trying to understand the appropriate next steps.
I understand and deeply respect Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining neutrality and accuracy in its content. As such, I am keen to ensure that Shiftboard's page adheres strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.
(talk page stalker) @WinterSea20, I participated in that AfD and concurred with the majority consensus that the organisation lacked significant reliable sourcing to justify the existence of an article. Liz merely deleted the article in accordance with adjusted consensus. It wasn't so much a failure to comply with guidelines, but a lack of sourcing in compliance with WP:SIRS and much of what I found was sponsored news posts. You note you have an affiliation with the company and therefore seemingly have a vested interest in restoring the article, but you would need to address the concerns raised at the AfD. Bungle(talk • contribs)18:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also with a declared affiliation, this likely constitutes a potential WP:COI and the expectation would be any potential future article to be scrutinised via the WP:AFC process, particularly as it's already been deleted via community consensus on notability grounds. Bungle(talk • contribs)19:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed like the one to talk to since you made the deletion. While it is somewhat obscure now, was made by a company who hasn't existed in 8+ years and frankly sucks, JCreator is still the standard editor of lots of school programs, and I believe it's notable enough for Wikipedia. 100.6.92.95 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no, both are separate, unrelated films. The title in both films refers to the brahminy kite which is what Garuda was. In fact, "Garudan" is both a proper noun referring to him, and a common noun meaning a brahminy kite. Kailash29792(talk)02:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to repeat another editor's comment, but I do believe I only posted one notice and I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Sorry if my mistake aggravated you. LizRead!Talk!03:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't do research before responding to you. I have literally posted 100,000s of Twinkle notices on User talk page as part of my daily tasks and I don't recall all of them. If my apology and assertion that it won't happen again isn't enough, I'm not sure what else you are looking for from me. Back to work. LizRead!Talk!03:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil Genocide
What made you think that the article had to be kept despite it is fraught with so many problems? Can you find a single country that recognizes this "genocide"? At best, you could have opted for WP:TNT or drafting but there is no consensus for a "keep". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I dont think you deleted that page but, it has been fully deleted but heres what to look for "Aero Spacelines Mini Guppy". I saw you were removing redirects to that page, and found out it was someone else who deleted it. Sorry, im still new to wikipedia a little A-37Dragonfly (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all, while the "wiki" structure seems simple, Wikipedia, with all of its policies and guidelines is actually quite a complicated system.
First, we have three distinct types of page deletion, Speedy deletion, Proposed deletion and Deletion discussions or AFDs. They all have their own rules. Aero Spacelines Mini Guppy was deleted via a Proposed deletion. The deletion rationale was "No references, this article fails GNG" with WP:GNG being a way that Wikipedia seeks to establish notability of an article subject. PROD'd article deletions are supposed to be "uncontroversial" so if they are contested, the article can be restored upon request. That is what occurred in this case.
What can happen though is if an article that has been "PROD'd" is restored, often the editor who originally tagged it for deletion will seek its deletion through an AFD deletion discussion. If an article is deleted through an AFD, it is much harder to restore. So, it looks like after Aero Spacelines Mini Guppy was restored, it was moved to User space, User:ZLEA/sandbox/Aero Spacelines Mini Guppy, which is much "safer" than being having the article back in main space. While it is possible to get draft articles in User space deleted, they are generally left alone. I'm assuming that once the editor ZLEA believes the article has improved enough to meet GNG, it will be moved back to main space. If you would like to help improve this article, I'd guess that ZLEA would be thankful for your help. It would be polite to go to User talk:ZLEA, introduce yourself and ask if it would be okay if you helped with this User space draft. You already have one thing in common, you both think that this article should be preserved. So, good luck!
For the record, anyone who wants to contribute to the article in my sandbox is free to do so. I have had little time to visit my university's library to find sources the past few weeks, but I plan on improving the article to be moved back to the mainspace, or incorporating the content into an existing article if that is not possible. - ZLEAT\C00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
vertiport
The article wasn't created in error. It is a translation from the German version. It was really a lot of work. There's a difference between a Heliport and a vertiport - just have a look on the different articles (even if the authors of Heliport don't seem to see it). Please move vertiport in normal Wikipedia, thanks. It's not a draft. Leo067 (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi Leo067. I'm not Liz, but I've added some information to your user talk page related to translating articles from other Wikipedias into English. Perhaps you'll find it helpful because there are some things related to translating articles into English that you may not know. In addition, drafts for potential articles shouldn't be created in the Wikipedia namespace, they should either be created in the draft namespace or as a userspace draft instead. That's most likely what Liz meant when she stted the page was created in error (i.e. it was created in the wrong namespace) and why she moved the page to Draft:Vertiport. You also shouldn't create pages like Wikipedia talk:Vertiport because that kind of talk page doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace. You can post comments related to the draft at Draft talk:Vertiport instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance request Regarding the Abdul Azim Badakhshi's Article
Hello dear @Liz, I am reaching out to you requesting your Cooperation regarding one of my Articles Abdul Azim Badakhshi ,He is fully meet the WP:SPORTSPERSON. Please keep this article and close the nomination for dilation.
Hello. You recently closed this discussion as merge "in case there is information in this article that is not in the target article". I was wondering if you would reconsider this, as there is no information in the article, or the article's history, which has not been exactly copied into Emmanuel Mwambulukutu.
Here's the section of Yamaha's site which features their Yamaha Artists. https://www.yamaha.com/artists/
A directory of their artists can be queried on the top right of the page.
I am an employee at E.ON Next, the gas and electricity company based in the U.K. We are looking to create our own Wikipedia page, as we currently don't have one to direct our customers too. The most we have is a subsection on E.ON UK's page, as they are our parent business. I can see that in March 2022, you created a draft article for E.ON Next, but it appears to have been abandoned. May I ask what stage you were at with this content? Would it be better for you to delete the article so we can create a new one from scratch? Please let me know what you would best advise, and any help is appreciated.
Thank you so much, Maria.
Dear Maria, I am an independent editor of Wikipedia that happened to see your comment. The E.ON Next section at E.ON UK suffices. Liz did not create the now-deleted draft at Draft:E.ON Next; she deleted it. Ellakirbs had created it and submitted it once, early in 2021. Another editor then resubmitted it multiple times until it was not just declined (pending fixing of content issues), it was actually rejected (meaning a reviewer firmly believed that further submissions should cease because the issues are not going to get fixed). The resubmitter Jess.farm98 received many messages with explanations about what's wrong with the content, including this one: User talk:Jess.farm98 § Your submission at Articles for creation: E.ON Next (September 8) (please read at least some of it, but see the text in the green box in the linked section especially). Eventually, Jess gave up on the standalone article idea and added details about E.ON Next to the E.ON UK article, which was probably a good thing.So with this prior experience, and seeing that the new initiative to have this article comes from someone in the company, knowing that you are unlikely to be capable of writing suitable content about your company (creating quality encyclopedic content about companies is challenging and is extremely challenging bordering on impossible when the attempt is made by a person with conflict of interest and very little experience editing Wikipedia), and analyzing the already-present content at the E.ON UK article, renewed attempts to create this article should almost certainly not happen.What should happen is working to improve and update the coverage at the E.ON UK article involving E.ON UK in general and E.ON Next in specific. But this work should not be done by you directly, as you have a conflict of interest (which in this context is just a description of a situation, and not a judgment about a person's opinions, integrity, or good faith). Still, you may suggest changes on that article's talk page. If you decide to involve yourself with this topic, you will need to WP:DISCLOSE your conflict of interest. Sincerely—Alalch E.14:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really should be removing the whole thing you know... Now we have to string search to remove these see also additions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}23:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we delete articles, we can either leave red links or remove red links. I have chosen to remove the red links. But some articles have dozens or even hundreds of links on other articles. I can't manually check every single link when deleting hundreds of pages a day. If you would prefer, I can leave the red links. But those are the 2 options that I and other admins who focus on deletion have. It would be different if I was just deleting a dozen pages a day but it is typically between 200-300 pages every day. LizRead!Talk!23:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would much prefer a red link that gets properly deleted, than a superficial unlinking that leaves pointless text behinds and makes cleanup more difficult. I understand that Twinkle's options might be limited, but that means Twinkle should be updated, or another better tool found (like AWB). It's a condition of WP:MEATBOT that edits made semi-automatically don't sacrifice quality for expediency. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}23:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issue about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (2nd nomination)Liz, @Zero0000Ratnahastin has a caste association/conflict of interest in the subject; he belongs to the Rajput caste. I'm afraid he might be encouraging his fellow editors through the backdoor to come and cast votes randomly with not actual explation. I don't see any editors here who clearly talk about cited references and then vote in favor of Delete; they are just randomly pushing Delete votes with no depth or talking seriously about the source. Instead of all this Ratnahastin encouraged editors to come maybe that's why such editors started allegations against the creator? Who might be Sock or might not be sock. And that's why Ratnahastin has been trying to push his own association-based agenda here for the last two weeks. I don't believe in personal attacks or fallacious allegations, but the way he is manipulating, deleting, and arguing with everyone with toxic behavior clearly shows his caste association/conflict of interest. Kindly count every vote before any conclusion, and don't get manipulated by him. I just make sure to raise my concern Infront of you. 2404:3100:18A6:C6A3:1:0:9AF:DFA4 (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you moved the page Discrimination against Bengalis in India into Anti-Bengali sentiment. However, if you follow the history, the original title was Discrimination against Bengalis in India before someone changed the original title to Anti-Bengali sentiment unilaterally. I later reverted the unilateral move per WP:RMUM before you removed again. Please also note that the same user also changed the title of the AfD too, which may have led you to mistakenly assume Anti-Bengali sentiment was the original title. Shouldn't the article be moved to the actual original title - Discrimination against Bengalis in India, since it was changed without any discussion? Shubhrojeet (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I'm a bit confused. You've reverted without explanation the IP on three different articles they tagged as WP:A7. They re-added the tags, which is against policy. I reverted them for the policy violation and also blocked them for disruption. But it appeared to me that the tags had some merit. Why did you revert them in the first place?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I don't recall the exact reason I reverted those taggings. With CSD A7s, sometimes I will move the article to Draft space but I don't generally remove a CSD tag unless I think the deletion request has no merit. With this IP editor, I believe I was looking into their edits after seeing their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nima Hashemi.
Patrolling CSD categories and AFDs, I have run into a few IP accounts and registered accounts who specifically seek to delete articles on Iranian people and I might have assumed this was one of them. I haven't run into this with articles on people of other nationalities, just Iranian. Most of the accounts seeking article deletion originate in Iran so I've wondered if the requests are political in nature but I don't know enough about the culture to be sure about that. But thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll try to leave an edit summary and not just revert in the future. LizRead!Talk!20:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A redirect would not be considered substantially identical to an article, so unless there was some other CSD it met I'm not sure there's anything Liz can do about it acting in the capacity of an individual admin. I would suggest nominating it for RfD if you believe the redirect is inappropriate The Gnome (unless it meets another CSD of course). Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm simply going by established practice. If the proposal was for a Redirect or the decision for a Redirect then I wouldn't be here. But I believe exactitude is what holds together this project - a truly majestic project, as it happens, and in more ways than one. We simply cannot be ignoring nor violating the rules we ourselves set down! A Delete is entirely different from a Merge or a Redirect. Of course, we could change the way an AfD is conducted (i.e. "Hey, folks, a Delete decision also means you can create a Redirect or Merge page to a target article of your discretion"). -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an expired draft. We generally don't look at the content of the draft, just at the edit history to see when it was edited last by a human editor.
If you want to preserve your work without having to worry about CSD G13s, keep your drafts in your User space and don't tag it with any AFC tags and then SDZeroBot won't list it as a page that should be deleted. LizRead!Talk!20:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is welcome to work on drafts. It's troubling that you aren't considering content. Why would we delete drafts on notable subjects? How does that improve Wikipedia? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not purposely deleting articles on notable subjects. We are following WP:G13 and this policy doesn't say anything about evaluating expiring drafts based on their perceived quality or merit.
At times, as an individual editor, I have delayed deleting a very well-written draft it if looks main space ready. But, inevitably, the draft creators do not return to work on the draft and it just becomes eligible for CSD G13 six months later. I know there are several editors who postpone deleting your draft articles as actions of an individual editor or admin but that is the exception rather than the rule or policy. You have several editors looking out for you but I only know one other draft creator who receives that treatment and that is Thriley.
I, on the other hand, see some of your drafts from 2022, 2021 and even 2020 that keep getting their deletion postponed and assume you have forgotten about them. At times, I think a CSD G13 deletion can remind an editor that they have unfinished drafts out there that they started and forgot about. By going to WP:REFUND (or not going), they are reminded of these drafts and they can decide whether they want to spend the time polishing them up and submitting them to AFC. So, I think CSD G13 can serve a positive purpose. But I know there are others who disagree with that position. LizRead!Talk!21:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalking) I do think something would be gained if admins, when deleting a draft, could look at it and see if it would indeed pass if someone requested a move to mainspace. If nothing else, if an editor passes away or otherwise can't finish a draft, it'd be a shame to let it disappear. I'm not sure if this would be a policy change or just something up to the individual admin's discretion. (knowing nothing about this specific example, I'm just speaking generally) Tduk (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tduk, two points, not to be a bureaucratic wonk about this but every suggestions like this has to be able to work scaled up. It would be different if we were talking about 10 or 20 expiring drafts each day. But we generally have between 150-200+/day and it used to be even more (300-400/day) a couple of years ago. How to evaluate each one of those and what standards are we using? Do the article subjects meet GNG? Then 99.9% of them would fail. We have a tag for "promising drafts" but that is really in the eye of the beholder. Secondly, I use to postpone deleting a lot of drafts that I thought were interesting or promising. We are probably talking about 100 drafts over the past four years. Very, very, very few of the editors who created them ever returned to work on them. Unfortunately, what I see is that if AFC declins a draft, instead of polishing it up and fixing problems, most new editors quit and do not return to work on them. That's tragic and I don't know what we can do about it but if they don't succeed at first, few new editors will try, try again. LizRead!Talk!01:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I've heard these arguments regarding similar issues on wikimedia commons - that there simply aren't enough people doing the work that needs to be done for upkeep for them to all put in the due diligence that the encyclopedia deserves; I don't have any answers for it _but_ I think we should be asking ourselves if we can do anything differently, over and over again, because things like this don't look good to people looking in from the outside, who, if they had a different impression, might have more faith in the project and be the new editors that we need. Does that make any sense? Tduk (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An aside, maybe a lot of the work with deleting drafts can be done by non-admins; the deletion itself can be admins, but maybe more formal non-admin review process for drafts (and moving no namespace) wouldn't be the worst idea; or does anything like this exist and I don't know about it? A draft orphan project maybe, where drafts that are five months old can get a fresh set of eyeballs. If we don't have anything like that currently I'd be happy to float the idea in person at the next meet-up I end up at where it's appropriate. Tduk (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFC has 3186 pending drafts that non-admins can get involved with to look at and potentially move to mainspace. I don't see where the manpower might come from for a second draft review process. G13s can be undeleted upon request though. CMD (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that typically people don't get involved unless it's requested (i.e. submit); are there other circumstances? Tduk (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the submissions, which, unless I'm not understand, are not what I was talking about - this is a different problem. Unless you're saying that since this isn't happening, then nothing else would happen either. Is that what you're getting at? Tduk (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. All things equal the submitted ones are going to be the most likely to succeed, and even they are backlogged. CMD (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage redirects
Hi Liz, I noticed the deletion of User talk:MemeGod27. Is there a reason it does not redirect to the current username? There is a GAN currently open under this username, and it now shows the talkpage as a redlink instead of sending the user where they want to go. Best, CMD (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a broken redirect. The page it pointed to was deleted. If you know of an alternative target page, feel free to recreate it. LizRead!Talk!03:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A man, a plan, a canal: random procedural question
Hope you are well. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalloor as delete, with a close note saying anyone should feel free to recreate it as a redirect -- I'm undeleting it to do that but I don't know if this is the preferred thing to do. At any rate, I am letting you know here in case it's not. jp×g🗯️07:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically when I write that in a closure, I mean that editors should feel free to create a redirect from the the deleted page, not that the article should be restored. LizRead!Talk!07:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.
Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.
Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here.
Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hi, could I please trouble you for a copy of this (paste it to my talk:, email it, anything is fine). It's an article we should have, it's just there's a shortage so far of English language sources to demonstrate this, hence the draft expiring.
Good day to you.
Please I need your help here, there is this admin that I think is biased and he is not being fair with what he is doing on this article: Hamis Kiggundu. He first reverted changes for over 3 years on the page and he reverted the changes I made yestarday on the same giving the same reason which is not true. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010 What is really your problem?? for me to ask another reviewer to review reverted edits isn't nonsense and mind you I didn't ping you in that text and you are not the only editor who had worked on that article so why are you guilty? Please style up! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is you, your paid promotional editing to that article and your FORUMSHOPPING. You're the only person that cares so deeply over this article which speaks volumes. Please exit Wikipedia and find a real job that doesn't involve being paid to edit an article!. –Davey2010Talk17:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I realize this is a long shot (I have never seen a talk page with so many sections), but if you have a moment and are interested in giving feedback on my brainstorm for a proposed policy.. it would be an honor!
"Don’t be a drama mama” .. but sometimes it’s so fun to be a drama mama. Haha.
I have seen User talk pages with over 400+ discussion threads so I don't think I'm that bad but I do need to do some more archiving this week. This page gets a lot of traffic for some reason despite the notice at the top of the page saying I won't be checking it that frequently. LizRead!Talk!22:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m convinced you’re omnipresent! I’ll find myself in some long-forgotten, low traffic area of Wikipedia and still up pops Liz. It’s like at the end of that Scarlett Johansson movie, Lucy. I AM EVERYWHERE. I mean this as a compliment! I word things strange sometimes. 9t5 (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my apologies but during May 29th I submitted a topic about the article "Seeds of Hope Publishing" being deleted. I recieved a response stating a conflict of interest regarding the matter was needed, to which I listed myself of a recent nonbiased student volunteer from Baylor University. Is the decision to reverse the deletion of the article, or at least allow us to scan the info before being fully deleted, still under consideration? If the former is considered, I can promise we can provide edits to any problems the article carried that permited removal. Again, we apologize for responding about this a second time, but any replies back would be greatly appreciated,
If you require more info about my Conflict of interest read here: The non-profit organization was willing to task people with media tasks, such as helping to create new/updated articles of current events, update the website, etc. My task was delegated from Ms.Cook herself, and she needed someone to help update the Wikipedia article with new material (or stuff she forgot to include such as pictures and such), while she was busy volunteering with other projects from the organization of course. If by chance you're worried in regards to bias, I can assure you that I'm fairly new to the Seeds of Hope itself, hence had no experience with the events listed in the article, and was mainly given the task on account of wanting to learn the wikipedia article format.
Please stop asking the admin who closed an XFD discussion to undelete it. The page was deleted with consensus and cannot be re-instated by a single person. It appears that you are WP:NOTHERE, but I'll let an admin block you if that's the case. Please stop wasting others' time. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$23:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I figured this was an administrator and the decision could be reversed by asking, thank you for the info and apologies for bothering you. Devangae200 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a G11 tag on PolyAnalytik. I pinged you to that discussion but from your other talk page comments, you might not have seen it. Anyway, I would like your input since the author of that article is working in good faith to make it less promotional. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Undeletion of page Aamir Tameem
hello,
I would like to request for undeletion of the page Aamir Tameem which was deleted sometime ago. the page is of an Indian actor who has been cited in 3 more wikipedia pages of the films. Request you to kindly consider this request.
1. Prayanam (2009 film)
2.Katha (2009 film)
3.Katha Screenplay Darsakatvam Appalaraju
here are some YouTube links of the actor
Hi Liz, at phab ticket T365374 I saw your commment about "Unknown column 'pl_title' in 'field list'". Recently, I had similar issue (not exactly same error), & needed Query change here. Thought to share as this may also help you. Full details are here. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Quarry query is here if it would help to look at it. All of the queries I use were created by other editors and I'm just the beneficiary. But thanks for the advice. LizRead!Talk!20:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, Same with me-clueless how all the works, just know enough to change Category names to select different data to query. Usually I post at WP:VPT where there are helpful experts. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, Earlier today, I posted here a "before" and "after" of how my query got fixed. For yours, part of the solution may be changing that "pl_title" to "lt_title". Again, I'm just guessing. But it could be a clue. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct and I have restored them. This sometimes happens but it still pretty rare. Because I deal with so many G13s throughout the day, I'll open a window with an hour's or two hour's worth of expiring drafts, one open in each tab, and when it is time to delete them, I do so. I hope you can understand how unusual it is for a draft to go six months without a single edit and then suddenly be edited right before it is due to expire. But I'll be more careful and refresh the screen so this doesn't happen again. And maybe you can get to these drafts a little earlier? Sorry for the inconvience, thanks for bringing it to my attention. LizRead!Talk!20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this deleted? I spent hours trying to find this article again only for me to find out that it deleted. Why? Can you please "un-delete" it if you can do so? Ironzombie39 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible socking at AFD
Liz, sorry to ping you but I don't know what to do. The AFD discussion for Matthew Brown is getting some really odd replies which may well be socks, or at least solicited. All of the replies show a strong lack of experience with WP, some are their very first edits. Can you take a look and let me know if there's anything I can do? Thanks, Lamona (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was mainly because of the various IPs in the same range posting there. Dunno about the named accounts, although I find FourDoorsOneExit's long Keep suspicious on its face, especially in light of their comment "I...am familiar with AfD as well as COI". Why would a brand new user be familiar with either?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Cocobb8, we often close relisted AFDs "early" if the consensus is clear before the 7 day period is up. But I don't generally close AFDs on demand. LizRead!Talk!20:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User replaces file without rational reason - deterioration
Hi @Liz, I'm reaching out to you because you're obviously an experienced user with elevated rights.
This file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UEFA_Euro_2024_Logo.svg was simply overwritten with another version that contains obvious graphical errors. This probably also ensured that bots marked the file. Unfortunately, this doesn't allow me to undo the other user's edit. Maybe you can help. Best regards Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help you but I don't work much with Files or images. I suggest you ask at the Teahouse or an admin who works more with files like Explicit or Fastily. If you go to WP:FFD and look at the participating editors, you can find more admins and non-admins who'd know how to make the adjustments. Have you tried approaching the editor who made the change you disagee with? LizRead!Talk!20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented out some image files on these articles. I more or less understand why. They were keep local files that should have been on Wikimedia commons. The images are sort of essential to the article. How can I fix this?
> Intel also opts for their Skymont E-cores, which are designed more for efficiency while maintaining a solid level of performance at a lower power envelope.
> The Skymont cores feature a significantly broader decode architecture, with a 9-wide decode stage that includes 50% more decode clusters than previous generations. This is supported by a larger micro-op queue, which now holds 96 entries compared to 64 in the previous Crestmont E-Cores.
So, now these disambiguation pages are completely wrong.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi @Liz, I see there is a bit of a pile-on occurring at User talk:Number 57. Would it be appropriate for me to close the discussion and provide options to proceed for the editors? Or would that be not welcome? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.14:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:113 Med Regt
Hi, you reverted my tagging of this LTA's creations under G5. I immediately retagged them under U5. Does the wording of G5 require you to wait until this guy gets blocked as a duck on solely behavioral evidence? Air on White (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete pages because an editor has a suspicion that another editor is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor evading a block. At least I don't. I want to see that the page creator is blocked as a sockpuppet of a now blocked editor and that the article/draft/page was created when the sockmaster was already blocked. CSD G5s are more complicated than just tagging pages created by a sockpuppet. Look over WP:CSD under G5 for more details. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!16:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
832LT represents a well-documented, massive meatpuppetry campaign. I don't see a point in keeping their promotional drafts for the sake of process. This only helps the LTA's goal of promotion, which at this point they must realize is bad-faith, making it also vandalism. Air on White (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz; I hope you are doing well. You recently replaced a warning I posted in User talk:Kosta vreto with a more lenient one. You also mentioned that I posted my warning in June instead of May, in contrast to the heading that I chose (edit summary). I would just like to clarify that the reason I referred to "May 2024" was because my warning concerned the user's contributions during the month of May (late May to be precise), which I did explain in my edit summary. Furthermore, I don't think my warning was severe, considering that this user's entire mainspace activity since they began, violates WP:OR, and they had already received similar warnings back in March and April 2024. Anyway, no worries; I just wanted to provide some clarification. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion
Dear Liz,
I have filled the categories that i created which were nominated by you for speedy deletion yesterday.
Since I am the creator, not able to remove banners. Göycen (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CSD C1 is an exception to this rule (it should say this on the tag) but I will untag any categories that are no longer empty. Thank you for letting me know. LizRead!Talk!20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You closed this AFD discussion as Keep when there is no consensus. Per my rationale, I saw your edit summary/closure summary thought I withdrawn the nomination. No! I corrected skater or thereabout to boxer and nothing else. Please reconsider. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!20:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you weigh in gently and eloquently neutrally in some prior discussion, so I thought I'd mention that there seems to be some conflict brewing between users Amigao and CapnPhantasm over on the Article for deletion discussion for Registered Agents Inc.. Do you think you could weigh-in with a request for peace? WmLawson (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion
Dear Liz, I would like to request for undeletion of the page Swirl and Tumble Measurement which was deleted sometime ago. Could you please move it to my user namespace?
Yes, I am aware that Liz provided me this information. And I replied to her message explaining the reason why I did what I did trying to find a solution. Since I haven't got an answer (at least I do not see one) I try finding a solution with the help of a mentor. And he asked me to ask Liz to move my article to my user namespace. And for some reason I do not want to move on to another topic. I would like to find a solution.
I choose my username because I had no better idea. If by conflict of interest you mean that I have to disclose that I am paid by my employer for my contributions to Wikipedia - I already did that when I started Wikipedia. TumbleSwirl (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jeriq, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant promo article. Will fix it. Thank you. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I was just about to close it as moot. AfD isn't really a suitable venue for a proposed merger discussion, seeing as even the nom didn't propose deletion. Do you see any reason to keep it open? Owen×☎21:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this draftified after the AfD or is the draft dissimilar enough that G4 wouldn't be valid? I never saw the original before it was deleted, and wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz - since you regularly closed several AFDs, so I wanted to ask your opinion. Generally speaking, do we tend to keep BLP based on WP:COMMONSENSE? I mean between WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:N, which holds greater precedence? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion which is correct, but I need some help
Additionally, I found out how to link it, category might be not written right to category standards, so if you could help out on that, that would be greatly appreciated. A-37Dragonfly (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I found out how to link it, category might be not written right to category standards, so if you could help out on that, that would be greatly appreciated. A-37Dragonfly (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2024 (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.
PROD'd articles can be restored upon request so I have restored Shirdi Sai Baba movement. You don't need to tell me about sources but it would help if you improved the article because it very well may be tagged for an AFD discussion now. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!04:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! So sorry.
You may not even see it, but I wanted to get ahead and apologize for fat-fingering the rollback link here! Obviously not my intention, and I'm sorry! (I though, can't find the AFD you mentioned. Can you point me in the correct direction?) — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the rollback, that happens to me sometimes when I try to edit on my phone, try to look at a previous edit and hit "rollback" or "undo" instead.
Thanks for understanding, and much thanks for finding that page—I'd checked the talk page and definitely didn't do the thorough diligence you did. Cheers! — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your loss
Hi Liz,
I saw your comment at AN—I'm so sorry for your loss. Grief is so difficult, and I hope that you are doing alright.
Best wishes, ꧁Zanahary꧂01:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message of sympathy. Since the end of April, my sister, brother and I were caring for my mother who was put into hospice care. I'm glad for the time I got to spend with her but it was very sudden and unexpected when she was diagnosed with cancer and it upended our lives. She passed away on June 21st so it's been a lot of taking care of her things and getting back to our old lives that are now changed. But through it all, taking care of routine editing tasks on Wikipedia were kind of the way I handled my stress but I neglected requests on my talk page. I hope to be more responsive from here on out. Thanks again for your kindness. LizRead!Talk!05:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, you must have been too busy deleting empty categories to notice my request at CFDS.
You deleted several pages that needed to be moved. These were some of large group of categories that need to be moved together, because they are populated by templates.
Your deletion log entry stated that the categories had been moved under C2, but although the former contents were already populating the redlinked target page, the category page had not been moved pending nomination of the rest of the hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon12:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to respectfully request the recreation of the Wikipedia page for Akuma Saningong. I understand that the page was previously deleted and I appreciate the efforts of Wikipedia editors in maintaining the quality and accuracy of content on the platform. However, I believe that Akuma Saningong holds significant notability and relevance, and I would like to address any concerns that led to its deletion.I am committed to ensuring that the content is neutral, well-referenced and adheres to Wikipedia's standards. I am open to any feedback or suggestions you might have. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your positive response. 41.89.125.3 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus there was clear, IP41 and the article is not eligible for restoration. You're welcome to start a new draft about Saningong and put it through AfC. Please declare your connection to the subject. StarMississippi17:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!
Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
Hello Liz, I have a lot of new information and quality sources about the Boukari Laouali Chaibou page that you locked, can you please unlock the creation so that I can recreate it with all the new sources? Best regards, Wikipedien28 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, it really helps if you provide a link to the page you are talking about. But if this is a protected main space page title, just create a draft article and submit it to WP:AFC. Once the draft is approved, the protection can be lifted when the article is moved from Draft space to main space. LizRead!Talk!04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted the page Applied Minds in 2022. Right now information on the company is split between sections on both founders pages, which makes it hard to link to. Could you restore the page, I will try to improve it, otherwise I'll turn it into a disambiguation page that links to both founders articles for convenience.. — (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
That's not how I interpreted consensus in that discussion. But if you want to change the Merge target on the tag in your role as an editor, you can bring it up on the talk page. Also, if you are willing to do the merge, you can merge content to wherever you think is appropriate. You don't need permission to do so. LizRead!Talk!04:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very good point that there's a difference between summarizing the discussion, and coming to a conclusion that makes sense! I think that the discussants didn't read to the bottom of the list. My approach with other discussion, in such cases, is not to close the discussion, but rather to join as a discussant and point out the problems. Regardless, I'm very happy to manage this on the talk page of individual articles where the target seems inappropriate. Klbrain (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Would you be open to relisting this? I had just done so as I don't think the Keep !votes have full policy behind them since a merger is viable outcoome and the argument being made. Totally understand if not and of course TY either way. @Qwirkle, I didn't revert your post close comment, but would you if Liz doesn't reopen? StarMississippi12:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, it wasn’t closed when I started editing it. Had the closure been a little fuller, addressing the WP:NOPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFF, I might have won that race. (Yeah, almost an hour is a long time, although you never know with server sync issues.) Qwirkle (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The reason I relisted is they didn't IMO refute the nom that a standalone wasn't required. But it may close as keep in the end. Hope you're hanging in as best as possible @LizStarMississippi12:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a decision to remove a page's categories, I use XFDcloser to close AFD discussions and I guess it is programmed to remove all content from an article page that is changed to a Redirect. I'm sure you'll find the same result from any article that is changed to a Redirect through an AFD discussion as almost all discussion closers use XFDcloser to close discussions. But I'll look into re-adding the categories. LizRead!Talk!02:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sul Ross State University Lobos
Hey there, Liz. Hope you are well. What is the process for withdrawing an AfD where there are no keep !votes? Another user has suggested a better alternative to my recommendation to merge, which I agreed with and implemented accordingly. Please see the discussion here for more context. JTtheOG (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient math problems speedy deletion - i do not agree
"This criterion applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven days" - SEVEN DAYS
i created this category 24 hours ago. i think this category helpfull for categorization Ivan191navi (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
promptness?
Regarding your closure of this AFD discussion, the {{afd-merge to}} that you added to the "Michael Larson" page says, If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. Now, I'm not in any way advocating for haste, or chomping at the bit, or up in arms about anything. I'm just asking: in your experience, how long qualifies as "promptly"? As I said in the discussion, and mentioned in the merge-discussion I began, I don't think there's any actually mergable content that isn't already at the target article. Given enough time and unparticipation, I'm inclined to again just redirect the BIO1E to the event article, but I absolutely don't want to take undue haste in anything. I've just never partifipated in this sequence of events before and don't know how long is typical or expected. Many thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= |17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think editing your talk page is lagging my browsers? Not sure if it's templates, length, or anything else, but I'm not experiencing this at any other pages—for what it's worth.
I found a couple of better reliable secondary sources that can improve the Kamal Gray article but it might take me a day or two to do that so please don't end AfD discussion at least until tomorrow afternoon EST. Note it will still be an edge case but both sources I found have more coverage about Gray. Nnev66 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only closer so you might post this update on the AFD itself so that others see it. There is no obvious consensus right now so unless there is a sudden influx of editors coming into participate in the AFD (which doesn't happen that frequently on relisted AFDs), I don't think you need to worry about an early closure. Just keep participants informed on your progress. LizRead!Talk!16:36, 11 July 2024 (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.
Hi! How's it going? I was meaning to ask: I remember a deletion nomination where you pointed out to watch out for the correct citation of WP:BEFORE. From what I understand of what you said, it isn't an argument to argue to keep an article, but rather something that should be considered before starting a deletion discussion, is this correct? Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I've just been notified that I have been given access to wikipedialibrary tool. This is the first I've heard of the wikipedialibrary and appears to be a superb tool for newcomers creating their first few article drafts. I wish I'd known about this sooner. Are there any other tools that you might be able to recommend?
cheers, Rockycape (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Yang Ming (basketball)
Hi Liz, I noticed you deleted Draft:Yang Ming (basketball) for CSD G8 (Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page). I don't mean to criticize you or anything, but as far as I know it was a draft that was awaiting review by the AFC team. If you can view the draft's history before its deletion, would you like to review your decision, and by any chance, restore the draft to where it should be? Regards. 23.165.40.219 (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You'll note that not one of the redirects were valid; each and every one was for a species article that does not exist, redirecting to a misspelling of a genus name that redirects to a valid genus name - but that's a genus that none of those species are placed in - so they very much should not point there, as your reversion is now making them do. Yes, really, not one of those species is in the genus Stylochirus, and there is no genus "Stylochyrus". Regardless of what happens to them, there is presently nowhere for them to point that is either a valid species article in Wikipedia, or a valid genus article - yes, I pointed them to redlinks, but at least those redlinks are where they would point if those articles existed, or if someone creates them. As it stands, they're all orphans, and will probably always be, since they are all based on misspellings and incorrect genus combinations. Whoever created those original redirects created a problem for every future editor to have to contend with. I'd be very happy if, instead of reverting them to point to articles they shouldn't point to, you know the proper way to speedily delete them, given that they have presently have no viable destinations to point to. If you know how to initiate a speedy delete, let me know and I'll happily vote to delete them. There's no easy fix for it otherwise. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you undid all of the redirects, including the ones pointing to actual Stylochirus species like giganteus. Either delete them all, please, or let them all point to redlinks; the present situation is not viable. Dyanega (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a redirect points to an inaccurate target article, you can change the target article but please do not change it to a red link or it will be corrected or deleted. LizRead!Talk!01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Books & Bytes – Issue 63
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024
Please provide a link to the page you are talking about. I don't even know whether it is an article or a draft. Then I can tell you why it was deleted.
It was an entire page of my figure skating career and coaching career. I attempted to go back and edit with new details about my career and it is no longer clickable. You had removed a dead link to a page connected with Tim mckernan, aka barrel man, as we have the same name but no family connection. 5.30.140.63 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I wanted to edit with updates to my new career in Dubai and also list the page on my CV and low and behold, it is gone :( 5.30.140.63 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done In this instance, with a deleted PROD, I can easily restore the article. Please know that it might be sent to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. But as for now, it's up and present on the project. I encourage you to register an account and if you are Timothy, abide by our Conflict-of-interest guidelines. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!02:28, 19 July 2024 (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.
A concern about an editor's objectivity and a request for arbitration(?)
Hi Liz, I'm a newer editor who generally works on IE linguistics. I've been having some issues with a more established editor on a page about the originator of a 'new religious movement' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abd-ru-shin_) and I believe this editor's objectivity is, at best, severely compromised regarding that specific topic. This editor, tgeorgescu, posted in the administrator's noticeboard to which you replied very recently (I'm not sure how to link that). Since I am new and don't quite understand how things work here, I was hoping that someone could arbitrate (or at the very least, read) the discussion on that article's talk page, as this editor seems to embody the quote at the top of your page:
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
The biggest issues:
a) The editor misrepresented several WP guidelines until I read them and challenged those notions.
b) The editor claimed that dictionary definitions are WP:SYNTH or OR (which I don't believe they are, but please correct me if I'm wrong).
c) The editor also, on my talk page, explicitly stated that they "[weren't] a fan of [the individual about whom the original article is written]." After I asked the editor to clarify, instead of doing so, they went to the admin notice page thingy and blatantly lied about my desire to have them 'indeffed' (which I don't actually understand the meaning of).
d) It appears that everything added to that article must conform to this specific editor's viewpoint on the matter or it will be deleted.
I think it would be prudent for a moderator or administrator (however these things work) to simply read the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abd-ru-shin; I think it would be abundantly clear that the editor in question's objectivity is questionable on that specific topic. All I was recommending on that page was that a dictionary definition should be added but the editor claimed that could not be done because it "sounds odd and contrived." If you could please let me know how these issues are resolved I would greatly appreciate it as I honestly feel that it's getting close to cyber-bullying, viz. harassment from an established editor to a new(ish)comer and I am absolutely sure this isn't the first time this editor has behaved in such a manner. If I am in the wrong place here, I would also appreciate a point in the right direction.
You are asking for a lot. First let me state that tgeorgescu has been editing for over 21 years which is almost from the very beginning of this entire project and racked up over 51,000 edits. So, they have been around a long time and are probably very familiar with the majority of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Of course, this doesn't mean that they are perfect.
Secondly, disputes between editors are very common here, it's the nature of a collaborative editing project. You will have disagreements with other editors about content and interpretation of policy. This is especially true for all editors, even editors who have been around for a long period of time. So being in a dispute with another editor does not make headlines here and shouldn't be taken to ANI unless there are serious allegations being made that are supported by evidence. We encourage editors to talk out their differences.
I'm willing to look over this talk page over the weekend but I don't tend to take sides unless I see policy guidelines being violated and even then I typically issue warnings. I am an infrequent blocker unless I see vandalism. So this request will not result in sanctions against the editor you are in a dispute with unless I see something very, very wrong which I don't expect to see.
You can go to official arbitration but if you want to pursue this next week to take advantage of one of our other dispute resolution processes. You can learn more about these by asking at the Teahouse. Some new editors expect that admins will step in and remove the other editor from the discussion but that's just not how it works, you need to find a way to work with or around editors you have disagreements with unless we are talking about trolls, vandals and socks. LizRead!Talk!00:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can often help in these situation is to get other editors involved in the discussion which eliminates the "me vs. you" part of a dispute. Is there a relevant WikiProject where you can neutrally invite other editors to offer their opinions? Just having 1 or 2 more editors as part of a discussion can often clarify what the problem is and diffuse a situation. Just a suggestion. LizRead!Talk!00:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Hi Liz, thank you very much for your response. I just wanted to clarify that at no point did I request that this individual be blocked; I simply stated that I think that their objectivity in this specific matter is compromised and that it would be prudent for someone to take a look at that article's talk page because it seems to be this editor's personal fiefdom and everything must conform to their POV (even though it is a low-importance article). It seems that this topic is very near-and-dear to this editor and I think it would be a manifest absurdity for an editor not to have personal feelings about one of the 21,000 edits they've performed -- I believe that this topic is one of those personal matters for this specific editor. Vindafarna (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was described at Wikipediocracy as "Wikipedia's resident religious fringe fighter". And yup, I have edited with criticism about other gurus, such as Rudolf Steiner and Gregorian Bivolaru. In respect to Bivolaru: I was never a fan of him, and, by and large, I did not read his works (except for his anti-Masonic review).
You never asked for me getting blocked? Somewhat more than a month ago you wrote You should have your privileges to edit on this website revoked.[33]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning my friend. Hope you're enjoying a relatively quiet weekend after your rough months. I'm happy to perform the merge here, but as closer would you mind if I rev del'ed the copyright violating text before doing so? Didn't want it to appear as if I was end running your close. No worries either way. Thanks! StarMississippi12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We moved all of the furniture two days ago and now have two more days of clearing out my mother's apartment before we turn in the keys on Monday. So, it's been a lot of cleaning, sorting and packing her things up for the past three weeks. Next Saturday, 7/27, we have a "party" (that's what she wanted it called) for her and life will begin to return back to the way it was back in April before she entered hospice care. And I'll remove the "stress" tag from this page which I don't think most editors even noticed!
As for the "merge", I don't do merges myself so if you could take care of this, it would be some welcome help. Thanks for the offer. LizRead!Talk!02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rev del done.
A party is a wonderful way to celebrate a life well lived. Glad you're able to honor her memory that way. I hope the packing and cleaning has been as stress free as is ever possible. All the continued love your way StarMississippi14:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How Come ?
My User talk page is not appropriate place to have a battleground argument. Don't come to an admin's talk page attempting to get another editor blocked. It can backfire on you. No one comes off looking good here. Consider whether you are making allies or enemies when you make accusations and counter-attacks. It can matter if you are ever brought to WP:ANI which is a very unpleasant experience, believe me. Remember, Civility is policy, too. LizRead!Talk!02:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am writing to address the concerns and accusations regarding my contributions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I have reviewed your feedback and would like to clarify a few points @Gabriel601. I have been going through your user contributions here on Wikipedia and seeing your negative feedback on editors.
Firstly, I have made numerous contributions to Wikipedia, including uploading pictures to Wikimedia Commons. Some of these pictures have been removed, and others have been added to various pages such as the "Enchanting" article and others. The sources of these images vary, including screenshots, images from the internet, and Facebook pages. I have always aimed to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines when uploading and adding images.
I understand there have been accusations of sockpuppetry and other violations of Wikipedia's policies. I assure you that I have never engaged in any activities that violate Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are specific issues with the images I have uploaded, I encourage you to address these concerns through the proper channels within the Wikimedia Commons community. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could provide concrete evidence to support any claims made against me.
I am committed to continuing my contributions to Wikipedia in a manner that upholds the community's standards. If there are any misunderstandings or if further clarification is needed, I am open to discussing them constructively.
@SafariScribe have asked me to ignore and overlook this false accusations but i cant if @Gabriel601 keeps trying to tarnish my image here on wikipedia his not the only editor here and definately not an admin here Stop Personal attacks and Disruptive to my contributions. Afrowriter (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regarding the conflict of names, I understand there have been concerns about editors using similar names. Unfortunately, I do not have the power to control or choose the names that other editors decide to use on Wikipedia. If an editor is attempting to impersonate me, I assure you it is without my consent and beyond my control. If this is a significant issue, I recommend reporting it to Wikipedia's administrators for appropriate action. and its absolute non of my business honestly i dont know whats your problem is with me first you complained about the draft i was working saying because am from a certain region am not suppose to edit or create articles that has to do with people from other region, who made those laws or rules ???? wikipedia is not your personal blog or platforms where you get to choose how or what topics an editor gets to edit or create
Secondly, I would like to address the comments made about my ability to edit or create articles related to regions different from my own. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where anyone can contribute to any topic, provided they adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. There are no rules that restrict editors from editing or creating articles based on their regional background. I believe these comments are unfounded and do not align with the principles of Wikipedia, which promotes a neutral point of view and open collaboration from all contributors.
I have always strived to follow Wikipedia's guidelines in my contributions, and I am committed to improving the quality of content on the platform. If there are specific issues with my edits or drafts, I am open to constructive feedback and willing to make necessary adjustments. Afrowriter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my final response to the accusations of sockpuppetry and paid editing. These allegations are both unfounded and distressing.
Accusing editors of collecting money for editing or engaging in sockpuppetry without evidence is not only unacceptable but also damaging to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Imagine if similar baseless accusations were made against you—it would be equally unjust and disheartening.
I urge you to refrain from making these deceitful claims. Your actions are making Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment for editors. Please remember that you are not an administrator, and such serious accusations should be substantiated with concrete evidence and addressed through the proper channels. Afrowriter (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe I will advise you say what you know and don't say what you don't know. What happened to the images? or has wikipedia turn to a community where COI are now being welcomed and not disclosed by such user. Why didn't you say anything about that. Also make sure you read User_talk:Gabriel601#Personal_attacks_to_my_contributions_and_false_accusations. I have no issue you being accepting the article but you have a mistake over there and you know that now. So you can either take care of that or you over look that and stop shutting me up of what I know and if you need evidence then provide your email. Gabriel(……?)16:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to engage in conflict or use any inappropriate language, but your actions are pushing me to my limits. I have the right to edit and make contributions to Wikipedia without being subjected to unfounded accusations and harassment.
Please stop making baseless claims and allow me to continue my work in peace. If you have legitimate concerns, I urge you to follow the appropriate Wikipedia processes and provide evidence which i believe you have done, there was nothing to match both account also u can go ahead and cook up your lies. damn this is not the first time you are accusing an editor for such. Afrowriter (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrowriter I have not provided any evidence. All what you saw was just a report. The main evidence I kept them for any administrator who cares to look forward according to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Keep acting like you don't know what am talking about. Until an admin cares then I will forward everything I have and know against your account. I don't have to start uploading here as they don't suite the Wikipedia guidelines for uploading. I have never accused anyone for sock. All your fishy grammars to make editors believe you are cool and of course you can edit in peace but don't forget I have never provided any evidence even if I have them. I am ready to forward all evidence via email for the community to take a look and then come back to finalise this case. Gabriel(……?)17:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe You also said have been going around to other administrators. Can you point out any administrator have been going around except being here. Bunch of lies. Something I cant just put on my laptop and start typing if they ain't a truth. I vow to always accept what is right. Gabriel(……?)17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You vow ? similar to how you have been attacking other editors. I must remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, not a personal blog where one can make unfounded accusations.
Your initial claim that I was switching edits using the draft "Samklef" as a reference against me was unfair and not neutral. I have always aimed to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and contribute positively to the community.
If you believe there are specific issues with my edits, I urge you to address them through the proper channels.
this is 21st century, where anyone can fabricate evidence with the help of AI or computer-generated images, I want to address the accusations against me clearly and unequivocally.
I categorically deny any allegations that I have ever collected money for editing or that I am associated with the account you claim is mine. Despite any so-called evidence you might present, the truth remains that I have always adhered to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. baseless accusations and fabricated evidence are not only unjust but also detrimental Afrowriter (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just hold on till an administrator gives me the rightful email to reach out and I will forward all the evidence starting from day one I nominated the article Willie XO. They haven’t been any evidence so far I have uploaded. So just hold on. And if I am lying to the community I should be blocked permanently after providing those evidence. I see no reason you responding to all my statement if you are clean. If I was you I would have been encouraging the other editor to go ahead to forward all evidence to the community via the appropriate email. Gabriel(……?)17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to AI evidence. If I ever provide any AI evidence to the admin community my account should be blocked permanently. I look forward to the admin email to contact. Gabriel(……?)18:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol you are funny so the admins should believe you and not me because you are who ??? founder of wikipedia anybody can cook up lies,swear, and at the same time say shiiiit about other people that doesnt change the facts that my contributions here have been from a neutral point of view. like i said earlier i would stop responding to your baseless accusation and focus more my edits here. thanks have a nice day Afrowriter (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Zjq0qlkqjqjab"
What actually happened there is that an editor vandalized and then page-moved a real article that had already existed since April, so I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted all of their vandalism and put the page back where it was before they tried to crap on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for figuring it out. I couldn't figure out what was going on because it looked like the edits had been done by an experienced editor, not by a vandal. I think it was a couple of days ago so the details are already fading in my memory. But I appreciate the update. LizRead!Talk!22:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It confused me too, to the point that I actually reported it to WP:ANI because I couldn't figure out whether it was a good editor gone rogue or a good editor who had been hacked. But they ended up doing something else that got them editblocked shortly afterward, which kind of resolved that mystery (or at least rendered it irrelevant). Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: @RedParrot, we can't have two same draft and article at the same time. Why should yours be accepted and another editor's work moved to draft. Fwiw, you are the one at fault, and please, always check whether there is an existing draft or article before creating new pages because from the page creation dates, the draft was created earlier, and because yours has a better content than Imsaneikigai's, hence my move. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!07:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this is wrong, I created the page first with production section as well. Why to credit the page creation to some one else. Please consider @User:Liz @User:SafariScribe. I have waited patiently to improve the article and then seek permission to move to mainspace. I think my article should be credited.Imsaneikigai (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not watching, so please ping me if anything needed. You can disregard the AfC headers of course, that's a factor of the draft script. StarMississippi01:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this was deleted on my watchlist and didn't remember it being nominated in the first place. Up until just about a week ago, this was a full-on article with citing 19 sources, then it was converted into a redirect (admin-only link) (which I did miss at the time) and now deleted. I think it should probably be restored and discussed on its own merits. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the recent deletion of Hatim Zaghoul's Wikipedia page. Hatim Zaghool is a highly prominent figure in the wireless internet industry and has made substantial contributions to the field, deserving recognition on your platform. His achievements include:
Pioneering WiFi Technology: Hatim Zaghoul was instrumental in deploying some of the earliest WiFi networks in Calgary, in collaboration with WiLAN, the inventors of WiFi. This pioneering work has set a foundation for modern wireless connectivity in the region.
Given these significant achievements and his substantial impact on both the industry and community, I strongly believe that Hatim Zaghool's Wikipedia page should be restored. His contributions are of public interest and importance, deserving of proper acknowledgment and documentation on your platform.
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.
Hey, the issue has been solved now, so please do not worry about the email :)
I just saw on your page that you are dealing with a lot of stress. I am so so sorry to hear that. I really am sending you all the best and well wishes. I really hope things get better. *Virtual hug* DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help explaining why we remove unreferenced material?
Hi Liz. I might be wrong in admonishing an editor at User talk:Therealangelo1177#Reverting back unsourced material but I have the feeling that they just don't understand how referencing works. They have reverted me a number of times with difficult to understand rationales, including [34]. Over here they reverted me a second time, and introduced a source for a table of over a dozen people that only mentions three of them. Again here with an edit summary that doesn't make sense to me as an English statement. There may be language issues as well as policy-comprehension issues.
This is a heavy beauty pageant editor... they have a number of talkpage warnings about sourcing and other issues. Maybe a third opinion from an administrator at the conversation would help them? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I really apologize. I know very little English. I have contributed a lot to Wikipedia and other family sites for years (19 years). But I really wanted to have an English version of this article. I do not find it acceptable to delete the page in line with this policy you developed. I am currently making this comment again via Google Translate. I am getting more and more disenchanted with contributing to Wikipedia every passing day. Therefore, I do not find the permanent deletion you have done justified. But you are one of those people who do whatever they want. Therefore, do as you know how. I am very upset. I am really upset. My faith in Wikipedia is shaken. In fact, it is finished. You, the people who know best, do not see the help that others give here. You do not want to see it. I hope that one day you will be face to face with the truth.
The Growth team released Community Configuration at all Wikipedias. You can access it at Special:CommunityConfiguration.
This new special page replaces Special:EditGrowthConfig. For now, all Growth features can be configured using Community Configuration. Configuration for AutoModerator (T365046) and other features will be available in the future.
We will add a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version available to beta wikis. We will conduct an A/B test at our pilot wikis using the new Metrics Platform. We still welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.
As part of the Growth team 2024/2025 Annual Plan, the Growth team will explore various ways to increase the percentage of newcomers who successfully start editing.
Editing a Wikipedia page requires too much context and patience. It means many trial and error for newcomers to contribute, meaning a steeper learning curve and potential discouraging reverts. To support a new generation of volunteers, we will increase the number and availability of smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows (E.g. Edit Check and Structured Tasks). The Growth team will primarily focus on Structured Tasks, while working closely with the Editing team to ensure our work integrates well with Edit Check.
Stay informed
Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
Hey there, welcome to the 25th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 March 2024. We've got a ton of wonderful editors taking back their pitchforks today. Don't worry, for they come in peace, to forcibly fix and extend existing scripts you use with sheer passion. There's so many, them forks have got what's basically their own column now! gift us with some rows before it's too late Aaron Liu (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
An easily configurable script to add a link to the #p-vector-user-menu-overflow portlet with a name, target, and icon. This one should be a relatively easier one. I would do it myself, but I'm too busy rotting away on Celeste (video game).
After the ＲＩＩＪ update, Aaron Liu: Watchlyst Greybar Unsin has a dismiss button that allows you to mark an item as read in one click and cycle to the next Watchlist item.
Lordseriouspig/StatusChangerImproved is just like Enterprisey's script, except you select your status from a dropdown instead of cycling through them with a button. The WMF operates out of car-centric infrastructure anyway. Shame!
Newly maintained scripts
Aaron Liu has created Duplinks from Evad37/duplinks-alt; his fork adds a config variable to automatically highlight duplicate links on the loading of any page where the portlet link would've appeared.
Tired of staring at a bunch of filtering text and waiting for darn filter logs to load? Msz2001/AbuseFilter analyzer can parse abuse filters into a visual syntax tree and evaluate locally on-demand!
Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences finds references with the same link and displays the number of them along with a button to add the {{duplicated citations}} tag under the references section. Being lazy has never been easier!
fastest gun on the net Ponor/really-quick-block really quick add to contribution lists three buttons awesome
I can't restore a page created by a sockpuppet. And if you are a sockpuppet, please stop editing because any pages you create will also be deleted and your edits reverted. Go back to your original account and submit an unblock request. LizRead!Talk!08:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor seems to be intentionally misrepresenting an image
Hey Liz,
I was hoping i might ask you for some guidance on how to handle something I noticed. There was a photo on an article by a user who has been blocked for, um, lets just refer to it as turkish-nationalist editing tendencies. The caption provided said that it was "indian troops departing Samsun." However, I did some digging because something about the image didn't strike me as correct, and the original image had a caption of its own dating it 5-6 years prior to the event alleged in the article and stating that the soldiers pictured were in fact Ghurkas in France. I have concerns that whoever added the image was making an intentional misrepresentation, but I am not sure if it is ANI worthy. I figured the best course of action would be to reach out to an admin for advice instead. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, an article that you moved to Draft space earlier this year has (sort of) had an attempt by the author to move it to main space - it is now at Wikipedia:Charles Corm II. Though it has citations I doubt the subject has been proven to meet WP:GNG. I'd be inclined to nominate it for deletion, but because it isn't an 'article' yet, that might be complicated. Do you think the best thing to do would be to move it back again to Draft space? Sionk (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk, I have deleted the draft on the project page. Also, there' no need to nominate the draft for deletion because the author has draftified it and it's now on the draft space. I added an {{AFC draft}}, which will help them submit it for review via AFC. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!12:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Because the article didn't agree with your suggested new article title. We can't move an article to a new title unless the content of the article agrees with the new title name. The article stated the name was the original title not your suggested new title. Changes to the article should be done and approved before a page move not after. LizRead!Talk!05:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Because of a system lag of almost 100 hours, we haven't gotten updated bot reports that alert us to pages like broken redirects. LizRead!Talk!07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination for Brownstones Coffee
Liz, I noticed that you recently closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownstones Coffee discussion as speedy delete per G11. I'm guessing that this was simply a cleanup action following Seraphimblade's speedy deletion of the article during that first day it was listed at AfD. That's where I first noticed it and started to fix it just before it disappeared. After discussing the matter with Seraphimblade, and with his permission, I went ahead and recreated the article with sources in the most sterile and neutral tone I could muster. I'm just wondering if anything needs to be adjusted now on the Afd page, and how it will reflect on the article's talk page. StonyBrookbabble13:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've only made 6 edits. That's not a sign that you are even going to stick around. Get some experience editing first and come if you have any questions. Better yet, bring them to the Teahouse, that's a place for new editors to ask their questions about editing. LizRead!Talk!08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about not "sticking", but perhaps that could be averted by posting a message on their user talk page explaining why the article was redirected and what (if any) options they might have if they disagree with that consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged as a Proposed Deletion. Editors had a week to consider the deletion and no one removed the tag. So it was deleted. Just because someone is rich, doesn't make them notable. But if you want to work on this article, you can ask for it to be restored at WP:REFUND. LizRead!Talk!08:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I see your edit notice and I apologize for adding to your stress, but ... your second response to Bloodofox suggested that disparagement of neopagans is not on the same level as "discrimination faced by members of established religious groups". I'm not sure it's useful to imply a comparison to discrimination when Bloodofox's complaint was about incivility. I'm very sure it's not useful to imply that neopagan religions—what the insult in question referred to—are not worthy of the same respect as "established" religions. I'm sorry, but that's prejudice. Please don't imply that some religions are less than others; what are neopagans to think of your trivializing their religion in passing like that, whether or not you were responding to one? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I find this outrageous. Open discrimination against any religion should have no place on Wikipedia, nor should any user engage in such conduct. This is simply not the place to express one's personal disaste for any group of people. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Yngvadottir, I saw your message earlier, I just didn't know how to respond or what you were asking of me. If I was insensitive, I apologize.
In hindsight, I should have not commented in this complaint. It's just the circumstances of this incident, where the edit was almost immediately reverted and the editor stated regret for making the remark, seemed less serious than an incident I just dealt with, where an editor told another to "stop pushing muslim pov". That edit was not reverted or apologized for and I told the editor if it happened again, they could face a block. LizRead!Talk!02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking about it and for getting back to me. You have every right to comment in an AN/I section! But I hope you can now see that one religious-based jibe being worse in your mind doesn't mean another religious-based jibe is ok?
I am curious about your reasoning for the relist of Mark Malecki. Since the last relist, there were four comments (including mine), in support of keeping the article because sources exist and no other positions were taken during the discussion (or refutation that the sources meet GNG). Thank you - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Why did you delete the article Yaroslav Kysil? Imho the article is ok, so it can stay on wikipedia, and will be grown and better over the time. Is there a copy of the deleted article somewhere on Wikipedia? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The first page you provided does not qualify for G8, even if it has redlinks. The second page is in the user namespace and does not qualify for G2, and I don't think it'd qualify for G8. Rusty🐈14:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC). 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.
Falls under G6 redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended. The addition of "(film)" by a subsequent editor to a page about a novel was obviously done in error, it was moved away accordingly. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I know you hang around AfD a lot so I was hoping you might be able to help me with a question. In doing a RS search for a currently-nominated article, I found zero evidence of notability for what's currently in the article (very positive, philanthropist, etc) but at least 3 RS naming the subject as someone who was willing to meddle in US politics on Russia's behalf, among other allegations. I was confident in my vote after checking the currently cited sources, but now I'm flummoxed. The article would need a complete rewrite and I can't see how it could be anything but heavily biased against the subject, which feels wrong. Do you have any advice? Thanks for reading, and I wish you an excellent day! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I’ve notice that you’ve closed several debates for which I’ve commented on. In several of those, I didn’t vote, but merely discussed the pros and cons. Are my comments useful to you? Bearian (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
yesterday (2024-08-16) you have deleted the article Roman Savchenko (footballer). I found some references ref-1 and ref-2 that I think can be considered as having significant coverage of the subject. Especially the first source is in my opinion a good one if we talk about significant coverage.
What do you think about the references, especially about the first one?Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't restore an article deleted through an AFD (twice) to main space or it will just be deleted again as a CSD G4. I can restore it to Draft space where you can work on it but you can't move it into main space or it will just be tagged for deletion. You have to go through an AFC review so the reviewer can see that the problems that caused it to be deleted don't still exist. Would you agree with this option? LizRead!Talk!22:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz,
I don't know what is an AFC review, and how it works. I can imagine to go through the review, but it does matter only if I would have answer to my question: Does the ref provides WP:SIGCOV or not, if we talk about the above article? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon this before seeing this message because you created a lot of broken redirects through your page moves. Somehow, a main space article wound up at Draft:Move/Teenage Dream so I moved it back to main space along with its talk page. I'm not sure what move you were attempting to do. It's just that this is a well-known song and shouldn't be in Draft space. Does this take care of your problem? It seems like these round-robin article page moves often end up with extra redirects or unpredictable messes. LizRead!Talk!22:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Utopes. We can end up with these pages when Robert does a round-robin article page move which can involve extra, unnecessary pages in his User space. I see them tagged CSD G6. LizRead!Talk!23:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz and @Utopes, thank you so much for the help. Yes! The intended changes are now in order. I’ll have to be EXTREMELY cautious next time. Once again, thank you. Best, Reading Beans02:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, I think that page mover is the most underrated privilege on the project. New editors tend to focus on rollbacker or extended confirmed status but there is more potential damage that can be done with improper page moves. That's not the case here, this was a mistake, but I see a lot of page move vandalism and it can result in valid pages being deleted. But in this case, I'm glad we got everything straightened out. LizRead!Talk!02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to do. XFDcloser, which we use to close AFD discussions, should have removed all red links when the discussion was closed and the article deleted. Are you saying that they still exist? Because I can use Twinkle's "Unlink" tool to remove them, just let me know if this is what you mean by "backlinks". I do sometimes have to use "Purge catch" on individual pages (like CSD categories) because, especially categories, do not always show all changes that have been made to them. If you are asking me to do something else, you'll have to explain a bit more. LizRead!Talk!00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Backlinks" means "What links here". Did you click at plenty of backlinks?. When you remove an item from a template the backlinks to articles listed in this template live for a long time. I was thoroughly confused when I run into this for the first time: I saw the page backlinked, but I could nit find the link in the page itself. --Altenmann>talk00:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being busy, you misunderstood me :-) The "what links here" resolved itself; it just too time until your change in the template propagated all across wikipedia. My question was whether you know how to speed this process up, like "Pure cache". --Altenmann>talk07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that a recent edit in the Nearby Share article added a link to a malicious website. Would be greatly appreciated if you could delete their revision; I already reverted it.
Acidananas (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I see you deleted the article Soe Win (general) because Appes900 moved it to userspace the same day. I am not sure why they chose to move the article to userspace, but it is a very important article about the second-most powerful man in the country and we need it back. Not criticizing, just need it back thanks. I am not sure if there’s a new title, but all the internal wikilinks including at Soe Win (disambiguation) are red now. TEMPO156 (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of you not following me. And what do you want to achieve? I know don't worry. But how you manage to put us on the same scale is remarkable.
== Request for comment ==
Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you submitted the draft Draft:Quarry Amphitheater on behalf of User:Quarry Amphitheater. I just declined the draft, but I feel like the author(s?) could definitely improve it to a good state if they provides the sources they used to get to the state it's in. I can't tell by the user talk page - was there a rename request granted? Or did this user just disappear to the aether after writing their piece? Reconrabbit20:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the draft creator has been blocked since December over username issues. It's just that I look at expiring drafts every day and if I see one that seems promising, I submit it for review, even if the editors are long gone, just to see if it will pass or to see if a patrolling editor takes interest in it and works to improve. Submitting it to AFC also takes it out of the "drafts to be deleted", even for a few months. I'm sorry though if you thought it was a waste of your time since the draft creator is blocked. I probably submit 1 out of 500 drafts/sandboxes I review so it doesn't happen that often. Most old drafts are in pretty bad shape but sometimes you come across one that is well-written and referenced so I try to give a shot. Thanks for reviewing it. LizRead!Talk!20:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Knowing that the draft creator probably isn't coming back to finish their article, I may just finish their work - there look to be some okay sources out there ([36][37] and surely some on newspapers.com). Reconrabbit20:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Reconrabbit, that is great of you to spend time doing that. Draft space doesn't get much attention from experienced content creators so cleaning up this article is appreciated. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!20:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GCSD, these apply to every type of page ... and so apply to articles, drafts... WP:G4 says that it excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement. I don't see why it wouldn't apply to AFC drafts. I suppose it might not be sufficiently identical to the deleted page, but how would I know? Srnec (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not accusing you of anything. I guess it's more of a custom among admins patrolling CSD categories to allow attempts to rewrite articles in Draft space that have been deleted in AFD discussions rather than anything written in policy. But it's pretty standard among administrators. In many of my AFD closures, I even advise editors that I will restore a deleted article to Draft space where it can be improved and all of these attempts must get AFC approval before being moved to main space. That is mandatory. And I know admins who work at WP:REFUND will restore deleted articles to Draft space, especially if it is okay with the admin who closed the AFD that led to its deletion.
Think of it this way: If we didn't allow people to write better versions of deleted articles in Draft space then AFD decisions would last forever and I don't think that's what the community wants. We want more well-written, well-referenced articles about notable subjects in main space and if there is crappy article in main space on a subject and the consensus in an AFD is to Delete, then we delete that version. If an editor says, "Hey, that was a terrible article but I believe the subject is notable and I found some new references that show that", rather than going to DRV and arguing, incorrectly, that the AFD wasn't closed properly, we direct them to Draft space so they can write a much better version of the article and submit it to AFC for review so we can be sure that this new version is better than the deleted version. If it's not, it's declined or rejected, if it is accepted then, hooray!, we have a better version of an article that had been deleted. All in all, it's a much better solution than for editors to try and slip it into main space where it WOULD most likely be eligible for a CSD G4 speedy deletion.
There is an accepted exception to this "No CSD G4s in Draft space" unwritten practice. If an editor, often UPEs, just keep recreating the same article over and over again and it was deleted in an AFD discussion and maybe in a few CSDs, too (probably G11s), then I've seen admins use CSD G4 as a deletion rationale, even if the article is in Draft space. But the custom has been to allow well-intentioned editors, especially those with good content creation backgrounds, to be able to write new and improved versions of deleted articles in Draft space. LizRead!Talk!20:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have made a mistake in the close decision. I feel that the consensus was a redirect, rather than a merge, as the article has no sourced content TO merge.
In response to your comments closing the AfD I started, I'm actually not satisfied. Yes, sources were provided with the AfD, but the commenter did not add them to the article, which was part of the reason the AfD was started anyway. I won't add them myself, because I don't speak the languages they're in, and I don't trust any online translator to be 100% accurate. TrueCRaysball💬|✏️03:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Email from Saqib
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.
I see you were the closer for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Harrity. Given the discussion I'm not sure why the article wasn't draftified rather than deleted as elected members of a large American city council often have a Wikipedia page provided there are reliable secondary sources and some of the commenters suggested this. While my main purpose here is to restore the draft so it can be improved, I also want to understand what was missing from AfD discussion such that it was deleted rather than draftified. Note Philadelphia City Council member Anthony Phillips (politician) stayed as a draft for a while before finally being reviewed and moved to mainspace, although it went through AfC. Nnev66 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frytown
Note about Frytown, Iowa - the state is not a "useless dab" but actually a rule of our naming conventions - WP:USPLACE states "When weighing a US city against other possible primary topics, the US city should never be considered a partial title match if the base name of the city is the same as the term being considered. For example, Nashville, Tennessee, includes the state name in its title and is also the primary topic for "Nashville" alone, which redirects to the city's page." and "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named "City" unless they are not the primary topic for that name." Frytown is not listed in the AP Stylebook, therefore it needs the state dab. Are there any other articles you have made this kind of change to, so I or you can fix them? Also, can you please consider clearing your talk page? Writing this caused my computer to lag incredibly. wizzito | say hello!23:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, sorry about the length of my user talk page. I'll archive it this week. Thanks for the prompting.
Second, I need a reference for your remarks about "Frytown". Does this concern an AFD or some other action I took? I make hundreds of edits a day and this isn't ringing any bells. I need more context to understand exactly what you are asking me to do. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've come back to review my User talk page, I can't remember which editor this is about but I think I replied to them last night. I spend too much time on Wikipedia and all of those expired drafts, CSD-tagged pages, AFD discussions and ANI debates start to blur together in my mind after a few hours passes. Thank God for my contributions lists because otherwise I'd never remember who I talked to yesterday. LizRead!Talk!03:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"New phone, who dis?"
I so know what you mean. They narrowly missed the boomerang at ANI. They wants charter and verse after your reply to them about having their user page deleted. They still smell of duck to me. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Today, after adding the "criticisms" section to the article on the Innovation Agency, which operates under the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport of Azerbaijan and is one of Azerbaijan's major state agencies, I realized that I had mistakenly edited the ministry's page instead of the agency's page. However, I later realized that the Innovation Agency's article had been redirected to the ministry's article, and since I accessed the article through language links, I was automatically redirected to the ministry's article. The issue is that this redirection was done without any discussion, and moreover, the content about the agency was not transferred to the redirected article. The user who carried out the redirection, Thenightaway, similarly redirected the articles of other Azerbaijani state agencies and committees to the respective ministry's article without transferring the content, simply deleting it instead. (State Agency for Compulsory Health Insurance, State Fund for Development of IT, State Service for Registration of Plant Varieties and Seed Control, State Agency on Renewable Energy Sources,State Service on Property Issues, Academy of State Customs Committee, Azersu Open Joint Stock Company) Despite my investigation, I couldn't find any discussion or consensus for this action. As a result of this action, information about more than one organization has been lost because no content was transferred during the redirection, only deleted. There is also no consensus. Generally, I should note that I believe the said user (Thenightaway) is not neutral toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. Previously, the same user accused two administrators of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia of a conflict of interest without any evidence, and both administrators have been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia since then due to this accusation without any evidence. (you might find this discussion interesting as well). As an administrator of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I have been familiar with the activities of both administrators for years and am confident that the accusations are unfounded. The user even did not provide any evidence. I had already noticed that Thenightaway was not neutral regarding Azerbaijani topics, but this action, redirecting articles without discussion and deleting content, is also against the policies of the project. I suggest applying a topic ban to the user. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how these things are handled on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but topic bans are generally imposed after discussions on WP:ANI (see this discussion for an example on this subject). Alternatively, you could look over Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and approach an administrator who is familiar with disputes in this subject area who is listed on this page. We all have our areas of expertise and mine ISN'T contentious topics and topic bans. I think if you approach an admin who is knowledgeable about disputes in this field, you might have more success here. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!03:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m trying to create Actor Amod Jande Wikipedia Page.. but my article deleted why nd how i create New Page About Amod Jande (Actir) Amod474482 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My New Article Delete
I m trying to create Actor Amod Jande Wikipedia Page.. but my article deleted why nd how i create New Page About Amod Jande (Actor) Amod474482 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First scenario: Article is nominated for deletion, a single participant provides a valid delete !vote, and a second participant provides a valid keep !vote. Article gets hard deleted.
Second scenario: Article is nominated for deletion, a single participant provides a valid delete !vote. Article gets soft deleted. Later on, a second participant requests undeletion at RFU. Article gets refunded.
This seems like system gaming to me. "Don't participate because it will allow a soft deletion which can then be refunded." What are your thoughts? In the AFD I link, the RFU requestor is the article's primary author. - UtherSRG(talk)12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the user responded to the AFD notification and had some conversation on their talk page about the nomination, but did not participate in the AFD. - UtherSRG(talk)12:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page deletion - List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria
Hello Liz, I would like to request a review of the deletion of this very page since it was a very useful resource in researches about the history of the Ottoman Empire. I believe that it didn't violate any policies. I am more than open to discuss what can be done in this situation.
The creator of that nomination copied another AfD and switched the signatures to mine. Previously, I closed several of their AfD nominations for also being copies and repeatedly warned them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of redirects were deleted as broken redirects because, for some unknown reason, most page movers don't leave a redirect behind when they move a page. Regular editors must leave a redirect when they move a page but page movers can opt out of that and, I don't know why, most of them do opt out. So, we end up with a lot of broken redirects, especially with mass page moves like what happened with the ARS archive pages. Broken redirects are ordinarily deleted as CSD G8.
Feel free to recreate any redirects that might be useful as long as they point to an existing page and are not broken. You can find the master list here at this page(. It's quite a lot of broken redirects but I don't think they all need to be restored. Maybe other editors who participate in ARS could help out, too. And if you come acoss another situation like this, where bad page moves are reverted en masse, please tell the "fixer" to either check "What links here" or leave a redirect when they move a page back. I mention this dilemma a lot to page movers (sometimes more than once) but the message hasn't really gotten through yet. LizRead!Talk!02:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I've recreated those that needed to be restored (the shortcuts and the one with /Article list instead of – Rescue list). Thanks a lot for the advice! I personally always leave a redirect except when it fits one of the redirect suppression criteria (in this case, the two moves I did were a {{db-move}} and a WP:PMRC#3). If there's any essay about page movers needing to be careful with suppressredirect, I'll be happy to share it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a question about my page mover user right that only occurred to me after placing the {{db-g6}} tag (which is why I didn't bother doing it myself). But in the future, could I have simply moved the redirect myself (given it does not have a substantial page history) to the draft space in a swap and retargeted it to the article so that the end result is the same: an article in the mainspace and a redirect left behind in the draft?
I wouldn't be writing this had you not acknowledged that it would get you in trouble....
My experience is that articles about Wikipedians are created with more rapidity than they are for equivalent levels of notability in other fields. This is for the obvious reason that Wikipedians have a conflict of interest (so our judgement is impaired), a great deal of subject area knowledge (so people are hyper aware of who has gotten press) and lots of skills at writing articles on Wikipedia. Given all of this it's not surprising that most Wikipedian articles are created when a person just barely has or just barely does not have notability and thus would be nominated for deletion more than most new article topic areas. Anyhow I said a version of this as a participant in the discussion rather than bringing this bias to administrating the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain
You left a cryptic/opaque reply in the article-for-deletion thread for Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik. What, specifically, are you "shocked" by? I'm unable to reply there, because the deletion has been enforced, so the thread is closed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you left a rather curt/snarky comment in the text closing the AFD. If this is due to the difference between my writing that "I haven't read the article" and "I haven't read the article in detail', then by all means, I guess that's a failure on my part. Did you read the article in question, top to bottom, before tendering the castigation? It was larded with unsourced material, lots of narrative on what amount to trivia and irrelevances. It was written by a user who sockpuppeted in order to vote, and what parts of the article I did read were written like a fan page. It doesn't take a deep reading of a new article with numerous red flags, overriding a decade old redirect, and a complete absence of said article since the murder of Cassie Jo Stoddard, to propose it for deletion, not in my opinion at least. I think it's inappropriate as an admin to insert an opinion in the closing text of the AFD. Do a little deeper investigation on the genesis of the article before telling an editor not to nominate articles for deletion or to comment within same, please. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.23:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, a closer is not assessing the article, we assess the discussion about the article and about its sources and determine if there is a consensus on what to do with it. You should know this if you participate in AFDs.
Secondly, I stand by my comments. I have closed thousands of AFDs at this point and I am truly shocked that you nominated an article for deletion that you admit you hadn't even read! That is just bewildering to me. Please read WP:BEFORE for the obligations on what a nominator should do before nominating an article for deletion. Did you review any talk page discussions? Did you evaluate existing sources and look for new sources that could help establish notability? Did you follow all of the required checks as outlined in BEFORE? Reading the article is just the start of what you should do before filing a nomination and tagging an article for deletion. Follow these guidelines with every nomination.
Assuming good faith, my only conclusion is that you DID read the article and your remark was perhaps referencing a citation that you didn't read. Did I misunderstand your comment and you actually did read the article? LizRead!Talk!02:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>"that you admit you hadn't even read!"
Did you not read the second sentence of my comment?
I stand by my comments as well. There's a fine line between 'due diligence' and 'obsessive-compulsive'. If you're unwilling to verify what I wrote regarding the content of the now deleted article (if that's even possible once deleted, I don't know), I think you're being a bit unfair. If a cursory review of a new article reveals: it fails WP:N, fails WP:RS, fails due to WP:NOT, is larded with WP:OR, violates WP:BLP, reveals no new information about the subjects that would lend them notability, fails WP:MURDEROF (while acknowledging it's an essay) was written by sockpuppets, replaced a functional and appropriate redirect that was in place for ten years, had a snowballed deletion vote...I don't know, to me, indulging a sockpuppet with a tedious examination when the article had gross failures in multiple ways, seems a fool's errand. I'm pretty sure most people would agree that WP isn't (or at least, shouldn't) be a playground for fetishists of murderers get their jollies. We don't glorify or lionize murderers, which the destination article existed to do.
The impression I get is that you started to review the AFD, and the moment you read my admittedly very badly expressed 'didn't read', you immediately stopped reading, dropped your comment in place and proceeded with the deletion, without reading any of the other comments and arguments in support of the AFD - by me or others. It was basically a snowball, and yet you've determined that I performed no due diligence somehow because of a casual error in expressing myself.
Yes, I've been a bit heated about this. I'm a longtime editor, I keep a low profile and have learned to stay away from drama (as much as is humanly possible), mostly wikignoming, and I don't propose article deletions on anything resembling a regular basis, unless 'two or three times, maybe, in the last two decades' meets 'regular basis'. All that said, aaaaalllll that said: I apologize for the heat I've generated. There's no question that it was idiocy to express myself so unclearly: "I haven't read the article" was shorthand for me that I haven't pored over the article with a fine-toothed comb, because it's so glaringly not an article that should exist based on numerous policies. For that, I'm to blame, and I can guarantee I won't make that mistake the next time I start an AfD, probably around 2029... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.02:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2024 Canada railway shutdown. 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. — I would like to add that you do great work at AfD and I'm glad that you do; I just read this one differently is all. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD close challenge
Can I ask how you came to conclusion of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Antònia Mínguez as keep? After you relisted it, the only comment was a vote to redirect, citing BLP1E. None of the keep votes - one which had no reason at all, natch - addressed the fact that the BLP subject does not receive meaningful coverage as a notable individual. Worse, the main keep advocate tried to defend this by adding personal information. I don’t know how you came to a conclusion to keep when there were no convincing arguments, either source or policy wise, and after you asked for more input and that input was to redirect. I implore you to revisit. Kingsif (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw more support for Keep than Delete or Redirect. I respect the opinions of all of the editors arguing to Keep, especially Cielquiparle who typically works to improve sourcing on articles whose AFDs she participates in. I specifically said that editors could discuss the possibility of changing the article to a Redirect on the article talk page and I think that would be a better use of your time than spending a week debating the closure at DRV. Would you have preferred a No consensus closure? LizRead!Talk!22:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Liz: I would like to retrieve the deleted material for the above article you deleted for improvement and I equally want to request for its undeletion, again. Jõséhola19:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
Done I'm kind of a stickler for verifying CSD G5 as many overeager editors will tag articles for deletion when they simply file an SPI case. I just want to see a) that the page creator is a confirmed sockpuppet and b) that the block-evading editor is identified. In some cases, Checkusers do not identify the block evading account and I turn those requests down. I know other admins aren't so strict about G5s but when I first became an admin, I was less rigorous about the CSD criteria and got rightly chastized for that. I don't know about you but I always remember the times when my admin decisions are critiqued by senior admins when I first got the mop. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Draft:Skånska Socialdemokratiska Partiet 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/2024 March 6 § Draft:Skånska Socialdemokratiska Partiet until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Usersnipedname's talk page. Usersnipedname (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Arbitration
Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Henry Benedict Stuart, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum707 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Tetrainn (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Vajzë Blu § Archiving your talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
mention me on reply) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done The draft in question still exists, and has been submitted for review, see Draft:Sergey Smbatyan. I'm not Liz, but I am responding on their talk page as they are very busy and stressed, indicated by the notice at the top of this talk page. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: you don't need to ask Liz here, they clearly say in the deletion note: 
Not done: It's unclear what you'd like to be done. Please let me know what you are expecting. If you need an admin, please ask another one, this one is going through a lot. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Bureaucrat changes
Courtesy ping: Davey2010: so you're aware. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Already done by Explicit. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scripts
Looks like a duck to me but whose duckling? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)