Liz is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. They may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict. They may also respond to talk page or email messages more slowly than usual, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
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 Sofiahl (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)
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
On 25th October 2023 (of last year) you deleted a draft titled One Air. The deletion notice says to contact you if I am unsure that I am creating the same article. What was that deleted draft about? Thanks Njsky (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for this delayed response. This User talk page gets a lot of traffic and I often fall behind in responding to queries. Luckily, I have some very helpful editors who watch this page and sometimes step up to offer assistance.
I'd be happy to help you but you need to provide me a link to the exact page you are concerned about. Then I can see why it was deleted which will determine what I can do about it. Again, I'm sorry for the wait. LizRead!Talk!02:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I do think these should be considered project categories, as we are constantly receiving new uploads of biographical images, which should be categorized by year of publication if the data is available. Therefore, there is reason for the categories to exist, even if empty. BD2412T23:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just go by the Empty Categories list, if there is an {{emptycat}} tag on a category, the bots ignore it completely. It's what is used on most WikiProject categories which are sometimes empty. Sorry for my delay in replying to you. LizRead!Talk!02:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do a careful analysis but at first glance, this current version is much more expansive and detailed. The version that was deleted was very short and had a lot of charts regarding elections which this article doesn't have. But I'll review it again tomorrow morning when my eyes are fresh. I don't think it's an automatic CSD G4 though. THe previous version was written by an editor who was later blocked. Is there any indications of sockpuppetry here? LizRead!Talk!03:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a kind of promotion on Wikipedia?
Hi Liz, I have always seen that you are one of Wikipedia's active administrators. And thank you so much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please include this matter in your note. I'm writing to you because I didn't get a satisfactory response on Teahouse. Note that I'm not criticizing anyone in particular. I would just like to know if that is correct or incorrect.
I have to ask, what is the status of Bollywood Hungama on the list of reliable sources, especially the list of ones from India? Sush150 is a longtime editor and I would guess familiar with the rules of adding external links and sources. I glanced at a few of their edits and they used other sources as well. Typically, in these types of complaints, the editor in question is a brand new editor who is trying to promote a media source or who is not familiar with sourcing guidelines but that doesn't seem to be the case here. If you think they are overusing this source, you could pose them a question or query about it on their User talk page. Or, if you have questions about whether or not this is a reliable source, it would be worth starting a discussion on the Reliable Source noticeboard. But I don't see anything immediately that would warrant admin action. LizRead!Talk!21:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please tell me why my article got deleted? They say too soon but the same reviewer also reviewed my 2027 Netball World Cup page and that was fine, despite it being almost 2 years after the 2025 Women's World Floorball Championships would've ended. So, in my opinion, I think that it's a bogus excuse. Then you could say that the article was not very good, but I heavily improved it with many Czech articles giving me very useful information for the article. I'm sick of people making bogus arguments about this article and not giving a proper reason for its deletion. To me, it comes across as one of the reasons for the article being deleted is simply because it's Floorball, a relatively niche sport, and that if it was football, it would've been kept. Once again, can people please give me a proper answer? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to overcome an AFD delete decision, the only way I know is to create a draft version and submit it to WP:AFC for review. The AFC reviewer will see if the new draft has overcome the problems pointed out at the AFD discussion. But since it is a 2025 event, it might just be TOOSOON for this article to be in main space. At least, the article was moved to Draft space instead of being tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. I don't think taking this route through Draft space is a "waste of time", it's how articles that have been deleted through AFD discussions are recreated.
One last thought though, if it is too soon for an article about an 2025 event, you might keep a draft in your User space like a sandbox, then you don't have to worry about it being deleted through CSD G13 speedy deletion. I realize this is not the answer you wanted to hear but it's what I know from working on this project and seeing many, many articles and drafts deleted through the CSD, PROD and AFD processes. LizRead!Talk!20:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding and thanks for giving me advice, but you didn't really answer my question. I'm asking why it was deleted, I can't see it being too soon, because the same reviewer didn't tag my 2027 Netball World Cup for deletion. The article meets all the requirements. It has numerous reliable sources, multiple sections and many primary and third party references. Also, I made it a draft, to make sure that my hard work it didn't get all deleted. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry to disturb, i'm new on wikipedia can you help me recovering data from the page: world rafting federation - i need to move it into my sandbox but i'm learning how - at the moment i don't have a draft.
Thanks for your time! Serioushaha (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for your quick answer: it was this article here: User:World Rafting Federation.
this is the message i received:
This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
18:17, 4 January 2024 Liz talk contribs deleted page User:World Rafting Federation (U2: Userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
18:17, 4 January 2024 Liz talk contribs moved page User:World Rafting Federation to Draft:World Rafting Federation (Moving to Draft space, not a User) (revert) (thank) Serioushaha (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serioushaha, I see you've posted this request in a few different places. Your deleted article was restored earlier by Ritchie333, and since then it has moved a few times but is now live at Draft:World Rafting Federation. You can work on it there. If you would like to move it anyway, the move dialog works like this: below the "new title" line are two boxes. The first is a drop-down where you select a "namespace" (the part of the title before the colon). All Wikipedia pages live in one of these namespaces, including articles (which the dropdown indicates by "(Article)", since the titles of articles don't include the namespace). The second box is for the rest of the title. Right now, the page is in the "Draft:" namespace, and has the title "World Rafting Federation". Your sandbox is located at User:Serioushaha/sandbox - if you wanted to move the page to your own sandbox, you would select the "User:" namespace, and enter the title "Serioushaha/sandbox". Sorry if that's confusing but that's how it works. You can always ask for help, too! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. So if i've doin correct now i moved it to the sandbox where i can work on without any problems right? Cause it's not published yet? Serioushaha (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Restoring a draft deleted by the request of the page creator is an easy thing for an admin to do! But there is an AFC tag from a submission in August 2023 that you might want to remove unless you want it to be reviewed immediately. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk!21:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you reverted the renaming of Embassy of Angola, Ottawa. That name is incorrect, so fixing it is a major part of keeping the article. Could you point to the policy that articles cannot be renamed mid-AFD? It seems counter the spirit of AFD which is to give an opportunity to fix flawed articles to avoid deletion. - SimonP (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I can locate a line in policy but at this point, I've closed hundreds if not thousands of AFD discussions and I'm in line with practice. Articles are not supposed to be moved to different page titles in the middle of an AFD discussion primarily because it messes up the relisting and closing process which uses XFDCloser. It doesn't understand when the article is at a different page title than the AFD page title and it takes extra time to clean up the mess.
I assume that this is what started this practice and I can only guess that in your admin career, you haven't closed many deletion discussions since we moved to using XFDCloser. That's where the practice has come from and when pages are moved during an AFD discussion, admins and participating editors routinely moved them back to their original location. This is not just a quirk I follow. But I'll look into whether or not it has been mentioned anywhere in official policy. Like I said, if the article is Kept, feel free to move the article to a more appropriate page title. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!04:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I remember !voting an RfC on this issue, Template talk:Article for deletion#RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move. It closed with consensus that "moving a page within mainspace is a perfectly possible way to improve an article while it is being nominated for deletion". The XFDCloser issues are real, though, so I'd encourage anyone who does move a page during an AfD to write in bold "Note to closer: this page has recently been moved, so please make sure the closure was carried out correctly" or something like that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ, that's my memory, too, that it isn't "forbidden" but it is discouraged. I'm sorry if my actions left the impression that some violation had occurred, I was just trying to make things easier for the AFD closer. LizRead!Talk!05:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you're "appalled". You disagreed with my nomination and removed the PROD tag. That's how the system works. As for me, no one is perfect. LizRead!Talk!04:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of a Double Pendulum of determination but I'll take it as a compliment. I don't put in as much time at AFD as Daniel does but I try to do my part when I have time. Thanks for the acknowledgment! LizRead!Talk!07:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that kitten picture reminds me that I just weighed my two cats this morning to see if they are gaining weight...Rusty is over 20 lbs and Ginger is a lighter 16 lbs. Compared to previous cats I've had, they are enormous but I hear that can happen with orange tabbies. But I do remember when they were the size of this kitten 3 years ago! LizRead!Talk!22:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
World Jewish Relief AfD
Hi, FYI I was in the process of unstriking the comments when you closed. I assume it wouldn't have changed your close even if they were struck/unstruck, but if it would, please feel free to revert my edit. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we both patrol the AFD daily log, often at the same time at the end of the UTC day, it's inevitable that at times we would be editing the same open discussions at the same time! I had added a comment about how inappropriate it was for a nominator to strike the comments of a participating editor they disagreed with and just removed the scolding once I saw you had "unstruck" the remarks. I wish I had noticed that this had happened before I relisted the discussion and I would have commented about it then. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!22:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problems at all - I have left some pretty pointed comments at the user's talk page, hopefully to prevent it from happening again. The first striking out of comments is some of the poorer behaviour I've seen at AfD in a while...! Daniel (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent PROD of Farad,_California
Hi Liz,
I maintain the Farad, California Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/farad.california) which has a link to a page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farad,_California) that you appear to have deleted for a few reasons you listed:
(ExpiredPROD, concern was: Non-notable location. GNIS does not establish notability; reference 2 is a trivial mention as a site of river data collection; reference 3 is an unreliable GNIS regurgitator, and reference 4 is both broken and unreliable (WordPress). This appears to have just been a railway point beside the hydroelectric station; no other information found.)
I had not visited the Farad wiki page in a very long time and hadn't been aware that some of its information or links were considered too stale, unimportant, or unreliable for the page to stay published. Several of the recent visitors to the Farad FB page had alerted me to the absence of the Wiki page we linked to. Could you please undelete it for a while so I may attempt to fix these issues and add some new relevant information about it?
For instance, the history of the Farad power house (It was the first working hydroelectric power station on the east side of the Sierra mountain range, and was built to provide reliable power to Virginia City, NV and the equipment used in silver mining operations around the city), presence of a public, unmaintained hot spring-fed soaking pool, the maintained hiking trails, and that it's a good fishing spot. The location, sometimes referred to as Mystic, has a marked and well-maintained set of ramps along Interstate 80. It hosted a small settlement of men who were involved in building and maintaining the power station and its related upstream infrastructure for several years. People visit the place every day to explore, rest, hike, fish, and learn about its history from maintained information kiosk. I assure you, it's more than an unremarkable spot along a railway.
Since the last time I visited the Wiki page and created my own page for Farad on Facebook, I've found many more articles and pages with valuable and verifiable information about Farad's history and things it provides, and hope to update the wiki page accordingly. Many thanks of you could help us out. Erik Schorr (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This only points to the need for an article about the power plant and the amenities available there, because the notable subject is that power plant. Notability of the power plant doesn't transfer to the populated place if there ever was one. And, this is the reason people want to delete the article as it's masquerading as a populated place, and it isn't. Why don't you just write the appropriate article and let this populated place article die.James.folsom (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would not be knowing me but I know you even before I myself started editing wikipedia. I had nominated 2 articles previously for Afd namely Shivalik Public School and Darshan Singh Sur and both were ultimately deleted by you. So first, thanks for that. And the question that how do I know you before even joining wikipedia personally would most probably be the question due to which you would be reading till here. Once my dad also joined wikipedia but for some other reason and out of lack of knowledge of wikipedia's policies was going to make a wikipedia article about his own book and which was surely removed by admins but you were the one who told him about the policies and he told me that and I was feeling nostaglic.
Hello
Sorry to waste your time.
Thanks!
Hi Liz, Thanks for cleaning up my extra Mildred Barnes Royse page. I knew I had messed it up, but wasn’t sure how to fix it.
Hello. I see you've nominated empty categories such as 1950 Australian films for deletion. I found Category:1959 Australian films, which is populated but probably shouldn't be as it seems to be our only remaining "yyyy Countrian films" category. I'm not a film or categorisation expert, but please get rid of it if appropriate. Thanks, Certes (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Chandrakant Kannake (Actor): user renaming is a public action, meaning that people will be able to see that you changed your name from "Chandrakant Kannake (Actor)" to whatever your new username is. If you are looking for privacy, you would be better advised to retire this account entirely and start a new account under a newly created username. This is permissible as long as you don't use the new account in a way that deceives editors into thinking that multiple people are, for example, commenting in favor of an outcome in a discussion. BD2412T16:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never got a reply to this question that I posted here back on 18 December. So I'm reposting it:
I just want to know the name of the editor who created the article at Draft:L Dee Fink that you deleted here a couple of years ago. And while you're at it, can you also tell me when that draft was posted?
I certainly don't mind you reposting a talk page message that I haven't gotten to. I can get behind on responding to messages. I'm sorry if that was frustrating to you.
In regard to your questions, that draft editor was User:ECA-F20. It was their only edit in October 2020 and they posted a full article on this subject in their draft. When that happens, it often means that the content was cut and pasted from another source but since it wasn't submitted to AFC, it was never checked for possible copyright violations. As for the date, drafts that are deleted via CSD G13 have their last edit to the page 6 months prior to the deletion date if that helps you in the future.
Vannet Kun is mine, but i still don't understand why i was a sockpuppet. I didn't intend to destroy anyting. I just created account to create an article related to The Miss Planet International organization, which has already been held three times. However, there is no article related to it yet. That's why I created an article related to it. I have not created Draft:Miss Planet International 2019 yet, but I have created:
There is enough information that you can check on Google and other websites. You can also check the official Facebook page of Miss Planet International. Lastly, please don't try to block me, as I have no ill intensions. I will read the Wikipedia Guidelines and learn from my past mistakes. I want to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. If you want to know more about me, you can contact me on my User talk page. Vankasida (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vankasida: when your account is blocked, and you just go ahead and create another one and continue editing, that is pretty much the definition of sockpuppetry; how is that difficult to understand? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz; I don't pay much attention to categories, unless I see obvious disruption e.g., addition of categories that aren't sourced in the article, etc, or addition of top-level categories already covered by more granular categories. I noticed this large scale creation of new categories; I have no doubt it's in good faith, but the first thing I'm wondering is surely there's a reason these categories didn't exist before? I'm wondering if they are too "intersectional" as defined in WP:CATDD. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Village Enterprise Wikipedia page
Hi Liz,
I hope you are doing well. My name is Brett and I work for the nonprofit Village Enterprise that is working to end extreme poverty in rural Africa. I'm reaching out because I believe you moved Village Enterprise's Wikipedia page into draft mode (see here), and I believe it may be deleted in the next week or so. I'd be more than happy to work with the editorial team at Wikipedia to answer any questions about the organization to get the page reinstated and more current.
In case it is of use, I thought I would point out several articles that could be of use to updating the page. Village Enterprise received a Fast Company World Changing Ideas Award for their DREAMS for Refugees project with Mercy Corps in May of 2023. They also received a $7 million donation from MacKenzie Scott in 2023. That same year, Dianne Calvi, Village Enterprise's CEO and President, was honored with the President's Award for the Advancement of the Common Good from Stanford University, and she had an op-ed published in Fortune on World Refugee Day. In 2022, IDinsight published the results of their independent randomized controlled trial of the Village Enterprise Development Impact Bond (see report here), and the Village Enterprise Development Impact Bond was featured in a 2022 Brookings event.
Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way to having the page reinstated.
Hi @BrettSlezak I made an edit to re-set the deletion clock. Have a read of WP:ORG to understand the kind of sourcing needed if Village Enterprise is going to become an article. Feel free to be in touch if @Liz or I can be of help in any way. StarMississippi02:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi thank you for making an edit to re-set the deletion clock—I really appreciate it.
I've read WP:ORG to better understand the sourcing needed for Village Enterprise to become an article. I believe the following articles are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources proving Village Enterprise's notability: Devex's coverage of the results from the Village Enterprise Development Impact Bond (the first impact bond for poverty alleviation in Africa), Fast Company's World Changing Ideas Award for Village Enterprise, Mercy Corps, and IDinsight for their joint DREAMS initiative to serve refugees living in extreme poverty, coverage of Village Enterprise's business and saving group model and the impact it is having on an entrepreneur named Salome Lodis in Kenya in Nation, and coverage of Village Enterprise's poverty graduation model and results in an article on the poverty graduation approach in Vox (this article features multiple organizations and studies but significant attention is paid to Village Enterprise. The organization is also written about in this SSIR article from 2013. There was also a Brookings event on the Village Enterprise Development Impact Bond results — multiple stakeholders from the project were part of a panel, including Village Enterprise's Taddeo Muriuki.
With those articles in mind, what is needed to get the Village Enterprise Wikipedia article back up? I'm happy to look at the draft and provide suggested edits here with sourcing for yourself to review. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. BrettSlezak (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure that sourcing is sufficient, others may disagree. In order to make this sourcing stand out, I'd remove things like the founders' pledge and charity newswire which add to volume of sourcing but don't add to notability. You'd then be welcome to re-submit it through WP:AFC for review. You're not required to, but since you noted you're an employee (and thank you for doing so) it's best practice to do so. Let me know if you need help with that. Happy to as I can. StarMississippi03:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Star Mississippi, thanks for all of your help. Is the best way for me to submit my edits for review to directly edit the Draft: Village Enterprise and then to submit it through WP:AFC? Just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. I've re-written and re-sourced the entire article in a Google Doc for the time-being, so once if this is correct, I should be able to update it soon. Thanks again. BrettSlezak (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and apologies for missing your prior note @BrettSlezak. Yes, you can add your re-write to the existing draft and re-submit it. I'd note on the Talk that you have done so in order for a large edit not to concern folks about a copyright/copy paste which isn't the case here. StarMississippi01:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Star Mississippi, thanks for all of your help. I just wanted to update you that I have submitted my rewrite of Draft:Village Enterprise through WP:AFC. I've also noted my rewrite on the Talk so hopefully it doesn't cause any concerns.
Hi @Star Mississippi, thanks again for all of your guidance as I was working on the Draft: Village Enterprise. One other question I wanted to run by you — is there anything I can do to help the page be reviewed? It's been about 4 weeks since it was submitted, but I understand it could take 8 weeks or so. Are drafts reviewed in the order they are submitted, so that we are moving to the top of the queue? BrettSlezak (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz and @Star Mississippi, I hope that you are both doing well. I wanted to check back in to see if there's anything I can do to help the Draft: Village Enterprise be reviewed. It's been a little over 2 months since the draft was submitted. I've also added tags to try to increase the chance of a quicker review. Any insights you have would be appreciated! BrettSlezak (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing your prior @BrettSlezak. Feel free to ping me on my Talk page if I do in the future. There is no queue, the ~2,400 drafts are reviewed in a semi random manner which I know can be frustrating, but hopefully it will be reviewed soon. I'm not certain about tags speeding up review. StarMississippi12:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:CiceroHunter
Hi, Liz. Based on the discussions on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CiceroHunter could the discussion be closed and could the userpage and subpages be redirected to my main account as the last comment suggested if possible I'd be happy if they were to be redirected to my main current userpage and account. Is this doable? Regards. ShadowWarfare21:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read this message more carefully before running over to MFD to check out the status of the discussion. I relisted the discussion since it had such low participation so I don't think I can immediately close it now. This discussion had no consensus so unless there is a new rush of editors to offer their opinion, it is likely to close as "No consensus" and then you can redirect the pages yourself. But please wait until it closes which should be in a day or two.
I really apologize for how long this discussion has been open, we don't have as many admins and NAC editors closing discussions on MFD and, in fact, I've only closed 2 or 3 myself. I'm sorry that you find the atmosphere on Wikipedia toxic. Over the 10 years I've been editing the project, I've taken two breaks, early on for 6 months and later for 2 years until I returned in 2018. I found myself involved in disputes with editors that looked like they would last a lifetime but when I returned both times, those editors had moved on from editing. Sometimes you just need a WikiBreak. But don't worry, we'll get this resolved for you. LizRead!Talk!01:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks done, I'll leave my email address on the account preferences because I may come back in the future as I'm not ruling it out but for now I'm not happy with editing the site . Thanks for the help though. ShadowWarfare22:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hibaq Jama until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I made one small edit to this article over 2 years ago. Why are you giving me this notice? It typically goes to the page creator and other major contributors. LizRead!Talk!00:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Apologies for the intrusion, but I thought I would try to engage some of the article's most recent contributors, particularly those who have had previous involvement in the deletion proposals. The original creator appears to have been banned from editing English Wikipedia and any other substantive edits have been thin on the ground as you might imagine.
Sorry once again for sending you this, however- this is my first AFD nomination and I realise I might have overcooked it on the courtesy notifications.
I was more curious than upset because we have an ongoing problem with deletion nominators not informing ANY content creators when they nominate articles for deletion. So, for you to go beyond the necessary to consider other editors who might be interested is admirable, I think. I'll check out the discussion as it progresses. LizRead!Talk!01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to undelete Jest (framework) ? My understanding is that it is one of the leading testing frameworks in the Computer science industry with multiple sources:
The AFD was closed as a Soft Delete so the answer is "Yes". However, I'd like to ask you where you would like it to be restored. If I restore it to Draft or User space, then you'd be free to work on improving the article at your leisure. If I restore it to main space, you run the risk of it being renominated at a second AFD where, according to our guidelines, it can't be Soft Deleted again so if it was a Delete closure, it would be very difficult to restore it again. But it's your choice. Let me know. LizRead!Talk!02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check all of those pages but I'm assuming they are copies of main space articles posted in User space? That is definitely discouraged. So far, the editor has not responded to your message.
Honestly, I don't think it's worth you pursuing this matter even though you are probably right. WP:MFD has its own unwritten rules and regulars and what I've noticed is that they frown on editors who patrol other editor's User pages and judge it to be unproductive busywork. They usually Keep nominated User pages unless they are clear violations of CSD G5 or they have content that violates BLP guidelines or has racist or other offensive content. We have millions and millions of User pages that probably merit deletion for being abandoned and useless but it's extremely difficult to get them deleted unless they can be CSD G5'd or have objectionable content. It's to the point where no one even proposes their deletion through a new CSD criteria any more, I imagine because veteran editors would argue against it. But this is all just my observation, not based in any policy. LizRead!Talk!02:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've noticed but I think about 5% of the time, XFDcloser screws up the relisting of AFD discussions. It happened to me last night. XFDcloser either a) doesn't remove the AFD from the current day's AFD daily log (1/3/23) or b) it doesn't repost the AFD on the future AFD daily log (1/10/23) or c) the worst, it removes the AFD from the current daily log and doesn't post the AFD on the future daily log. We used to have one or two editors who used to hunt down AFD discussions that fell through the cracks like this and just disappeared from the daily logs but I think they've moved on to other tasks. Unless the nominator keeps track of them, AFD discussions can linger on, unclosed for months if they are not reposted to the future AFD daily log. Luckily, this doesn't happen that often. I've meant to post about this at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser but questions there often go unresponded to so I guess the developers are AWOL. LizRead!Talk!02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming I didn't make any edits there - I was just running through the daily log page and because something was breaking the shading of the discussion, the daily log was a mess. I've also found that the relist function sometimes fails, I've now started checking to make sure it edits the new log to paste it on to avoid having debates end up in the void. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. It sure looks like the same editor. They maintain a high level of activity when they do edit. Unfortunately, they seem persistent so they might frequently create new accounts. You have become very skilled at filing SPI cases which makes things easier for checkusers and SPI clerks. LizRead!Talk!00:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering why you deleted my page on William Macintyre, and wasn’t just left as a draft so I could improve it. Is there something that I have done wrong? If so, how can I retrieve information to improve the page whilst it still being a draft?
As pages created before the earliest block/ban on any account are ineligible for WP:CSD#G5, I ask that you revert your recent G5 deletions of pages created by the Miyera20 sockfarm. I'm unware of any more significant abuse and those pages are mostly sitting around harmlessly. Cheers, Complex/Rational00:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the SPI case but it looks like I made a major mistake here. I replied to you on the user talk page of the editor who tagged all of those pages. It looks like I'll be spending a good amount of time tonight restoring pages and reverting tagging. I'm sorry for this inconvenience and I'm grateful that you are holding me accountable to be more careful in my admin responsiblities. LizRead!Talk!00:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've done the same thing before. (And we were typing our respective messages at the same time, so I didn't see the ping until I finished writing here.) Complex/Rational00:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, remember when I told you how much time Twinkle's batch-undelete feature can save? Now you can see for yourself! I put the list of deleted userboxes at User:Extraordinary Writ/sandbox7, so if you go to that page, choose "Und-batch" from the Twinkle menu, and enter your reason, it should undelete all 92 pages for you in short order. It unfortunately doesn't remove the deletion tags, but you should be able to do that fairly quickly by just rollbacking the relevant edits. Let me know if you run into any issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, Extraordinary Writ, I have never done a batch undelete before. Thanks for showing me how. I'm working on another task right now and I hope those pages do not get re-deleted before I can remove the CSD tags.
By the way, is it possible to use Twinkle to tag a list of pages? I see some editors/admins to mass tagging of pages, all occurring at the same minute, and the only way I can guess that they are able to do this is by using Twinkle. Or is it AWB? Thanks again so much for creating this list for me. Much appreciated. LizRead!Talk!01:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. I don't think Twinkle can mass-tag pages. AWB is definitely a possibility, or they could just be opening pages in multiple tabs and tagging them all at once, or there could be some other script I'm not familiar with. If there's a particular example you're thinking of, let me know and I can try to figure it out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are instances like the one here that I responded to incorrectly, editors/admins mass-tagging pages CSD G5 or mass-tagging empty categories CSD C1. I am intimidated by AWB and afraid to doing any mass-editing projects just in case another mistake like this one happens. But I know there are plenty of editors like BD2412 or BrownHairedGirl who used AWB without problems. LizRead!Talk!01:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the userboxes were all tagged manually. Usually the diff will tell you if Twinkle, AWB, JWB, etc. were used, although that isn't foolproof. I certainly understand the hesitancy to use AWB; I've had my share of problems with it and try not to use it unless I have to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know AWB wasn't used this time but I've seen a mass page tagging in the past. Always wondered how this was done. Maybe if I get some free time (hah!) I'll look into AWB and give it another try. I don't take on mass-editing projects like moving commas or fixing references so I'm not sure how useful it would be for the regular tasks I take on. LizRead!Talk!02:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used massRollback to undo some of the CSD taggings from the user contributions page. I found it very effective (though it does carry a risk of misfiring) – maybe you'd like to use it as well. Complex/Rational03:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never tried that, thanks for the suggestion. Is there a way to "Mass roll forward" an edit and mass tag, just like mass rollback only in reverse? I'm almost done with reverting these CSD G5 edits. But I got halfway through doing it and thought, why isn't the editor who placed the CSD tags reverting themselves? Why am I doing this?! But it needs to be done and I'm online so be it. LizRead!Talk!04:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I had someone message me on instagram and say they will publish my site for 200. They published it and deleted it. Can you help me? Thanks! Ravenhockey10 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the article? Do you know the editor's name? You shouldn't pay for Wikipedia services, no one can guarantee that an article won't be deleted. LizRead!Talk!22:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AlexHardy20 was the user who edited my original submission to publish it and deleted it. I thought I did everything correct that’s why I agreed to talk with him. Very convincing! Ravenhockey10 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked User:Alexhardy20 because they violated Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure guidelines. I believe your article is still available in Draft space at Draft:Henry Gendus. You can always go to your User page and look at your Contributions (in the left-hand column of the page). For your information, an editor, especially a very new editor, can not get a page deleted. They can "tag" a page to be considered for deletion but all tagged pages are reviewed by an administrator first. I'm not sure how they even came across your draft and tracked you down. It might be because you use the same username across platforms. Any way, all they did was move your unapproved draft article to main space, they didn't edit it so it's still in the state that you left it.
I was mistaken! This draft has never been reviewed before so I submitted it for you, I hope that is okay. These days, drafts are often reviewed quickly so hopefully you will hear something back in the near future. LizRead!Talk!01:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the important thing to know is that there are resources (some much much better than me!) that you can go to for help. Wikipedia has an awful lot of pages about policies and guidelines, plus a Manual of Style and it is a lot to absorb for new editors. What you don't want to do is to move a draft to the main space of the project too soon, that is what Alexhardy20 did and that can result in an article deletion. Draft space is a safe space you can work in to improve the article. The only reason it would be deleted is if it is seen as advertising or too promotional. LizRead!Talk!02:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Vital shortcuts
Hello! Just noticed you deleted the shortcuts of the WikiProject Vital articles of the level 5 subpages, I had just created them, not sure I follow the reasoning provided that they didn't exist. Cheers. The Blue Rider22:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were orphaned talk pages which are deleted according to CSD G8 guidelines. Unless they are exempt from deletion because the page itself contains content that we want to keep, we delete orphaned talk page (with no accompanying article or project page). If there was a project page redirect, then there can be a talk page redirect. LizRead!Talk!22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I'm giving Drmies the evening off--maybe you can help. This is in awful shape since being commandeered by an editor with WP:COI: [1]. Claims like this are just bizarre [2]. My take is that the article can revert to its last stable version [3], but someone will have a fit, and it may be construed as vandalism if I do it. Perhaps there's something salvageable in that mess, but is it worth picking through? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:FC5D:2927:11BD:DF5 (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the page 'Sadaqah Jariyah' deleted, and how can it be restored? It is a crucial page in 'Islam,' providing a neutral explanation of the topic supported by appropriate references. Why was it removed? مستر (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@مستر: It was not deleted, but it was sent to draft space for further improvements. I will suggest you replace blogs with WP:RS. If you don't have it already, here is your link to your draft. Thanks. Maliner (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for guidance and possibly your action
Hi liz Let me thank you again for reviving the draft Draft:Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani for me. I updated the draft a lot and consulted with experienced editors and some managers.see this: here and here Currently, there are two detailed comments above the draft. I would be very happy and honored if you have time or if you would like to take a look at this draft. Assuming good faith, I'll make it clear that I don't want to take up your valuable time, but I'd greatly appreciate your guidance and possibly your action. —Patricia (Talk) 14:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maliner (I apologize to liz the owner of the page) Sources that appear to be interviews are independently subjected to an unbiased review of the subject's work. They are in English. You definitely didn't feel like reading. I had explained in detail in the comment above the draft. You deleted it. I strongly object to the rejection of the draft. —Patricia (Talk) 15:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I didn't notice that the two most recently expressed opinions occurred right before my closure. So, I restored the article and relisted the AFD discussion. I will let another administrator close this discussion. LizRead!Talk!00:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created the "User mns" categories for people who speak the Mansi language per request of another user. The reason the categories might be empty is because I created the pages six hours before you marked them empty. I think this may have been a misunderstanding on my part, and I'm not sure if I was even supposed to create those categories and rather only the ones that were currently in use. Thanks, UrbanVersis32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs)14:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have a policy about not retaining empty categories, ones that are not being used, on the project. There are a few exceptions to this policy guideline including category redirects, category disambiguation pages and categories associated with WikiProjects that are empty at some times but might be used in the future. Those WikiProject categories are tagged {{emptycat}} to mark that the categories might be occasionally empty.
I have seen some User language categories that have the "empty cat" tag on them but please only use it for categories that realistically will be occupied by a User page. Not every level of language proficiency for every obscure language should have its own category page if it's unlikely that we will see new editors coming in with that specific language fluency. So, it's a judgement call and I ask that you not overuse the tag and to be realistic. I hope this helps explain how we handle empty categories on the project. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!00:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are right, I don't know why I didn't recognize it was a bot. I'll cease notifications but we have gotten two recent floods of empty categories and I doubt we'll have another one in this same subject area. Any way, thanks for bringing this oversight to my attention. LizRead!Talk!00:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz, any chance you can drafity the page Mahmoud Al Aswad that I believe was deleted per consensus? The player is in a major tournament right now, and I think I found enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Let me know. Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back, I lose track of my user talk page messages regularly, it's terrible, I know. I can restore Mahmoud Al Aswad to Draft space but you need to submit it to WP:AFC for review and, hopefully, acceptance. If it gets moved right back to main space, it likely will be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. This is standard practice when restoring articles that have been deleted through AFD and this was an easy Delete decision based on the participation.
Okay, no problem Liz I've recreated the above with more references. However, may I request the draft article for Samer Jundi? Same situation as the above, was called up to a major tournament so now has significant coverage. Thanks!--Ortizesp (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been taking a brief break from PRODPATROL but noticed the effects of this deletion in my watchlist. I've requested a refund. I see that you've deleted incoming links to this. If I find a more productive solution to this, we're going to want to undo all that. Non-trivial incoming links are a flag indicating a poor PROD candidate. ~Kvng (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you refuse to delete a page in my personal domain, knowing that it does not contain many links and is more than two years old? مستر (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:مستر The term you are looking for is userspace, and it is within your, now former, userspace, but WP:U1 contains an exception for user talk pages. Please read WP:CSD before tagging any additional pages for deletion, especially WP:U1 and WP:U2. If you still find yourself confused afterword then start a thread at the WP:TEAHOUSE asking for additional explanation with a link back to this discussion, thank you. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:7186:1FB7:1CA:90A5 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:WPWX's consensus to deprecate the A-class rating invalidated as a result of a move to push ratings away from wikiprojects? We had deprecated A-class last year since there wasnt a working, consistent review process for it. Noah, AATalk22:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I closed that discussion as merge, then I listed it on WT:CFD/W for the bot to take care of. Processing times there are 1-2 days usually as only a few admins process requests there. It would have been merged, eventually. Seawolf35T--C22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @BeanieFan11, I forgot about this. I've draftified the one that's closed since it was a soft delete.
Since the latter was just relisted, I'm not going to close it but if it doesn't close as draft feel free to ping me and I'm happy to provide as it's a sensible outcome StarMississippi13:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it over the next day. I might "hat" some parts of the discussion if it doesn't look productive. I was also thinking, you could choose to withdraw this AFD nomination and redo it at a later date. It's hard to predict how many editors are going to come and participate in a deletion discussion. LizRead!Talk!02:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good on the "hat" of some parts of the discussion.
It appears your relisting the AfD got other editors involved in the AFD nomination process, so I don't believe I need to withdrawal it now. Though, I did not realize one could withdrawal an AFD, unless it is a speedy keep, so what is the process for other reasons? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is more complicated than you might realize. When an admin deletes an article through an AFD discussion, XFDCloser removes links and sometimes the entire mention of the deleted article subject. It's possible to go mention by mention through a list and make individual choices. But admins don't actually go to each article where there is a mention, we are working through the editing tools that were developed to do acts like close deletion discussions and this is how XFDCloser works.
If however, the article was deleted through Proposed deletion or tagged for a CSD criteria, most often Twinkle is used for those deletion. With Twinkle, there is an option to remove red links but not the mentions of the article subject. When I was a new administrator, I was told that I was always supposed to remove red links for deleted articles but it's that's not policy, it's just a practice I was told to do. But other admins do not use the option to remove red links. Or they use the Drop Down menu to select Page>Delete and fill in the reason for deletion and delete a page that way. This old-fashioned method doesn't do anything with broken red links or mentions unless the admin chooses to take the time to see "What links here" but I don't know how often that is done with admins who handle a lot of page deletions.
So, that's the backside of deleting a page. And when your workload invoves deleting dozens or even hundreds of pages each day, it becomes more and more unfeasible to visit each article that has a mention of a deleted article subject. The only realistic change I can imagine is asking do we leave the red links and mentions, or do we remove the red links? LizRead!Talk!01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the situation might be different and we would be handling things the old-fashioned way if we had more admins each helping out a little bit in deletions instead of a smaller number of admins who handle the bulk of them. But given the smaller number of active admins and the tendency of many of us to specialize in certain areas, this is the system that has evolved. I don't think it is optimal but I guess we need to persuade newly minted admins to help out with tasks in the deletion areas, too. LizRead!Talk!02:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind my .02 here @Liz. @Clarityfiend in addition to what Liz says, I don't think the issue is super settled among the community. As you can see at User_talk:Liz#Deleting_info_from_lists, @FkpCascais sees it differently than you do re: retention. I don't think there's an easy/clear way to act on these. When I close an AfD I try to judge whether it makes sense to retain, but if it's not a subject area I know it's a toss up StarMississippi14:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My logic is that if you make a list about "People who climbed Everest" you may not find every single entry valid for having an article, but if you make a list, you certainly must include them all, weather deserving a wikipedia article, or not. See my point? This player may not deserve an article by himself, but he played in the mentioned league so he should not be erased from the list. He must be listed, without link then, rather than missinforming reasers ignoring him and not listing him at all. FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No we dont. If the list says "All X people who menaged X" we DO NOT include only the ones with wiki article. We include them all that fit the inclusion criterium and link the ones having articles and leave unlinked the ones that dont. This is not about Wikipedia articles list, this is an online encyclopedia that provides complete information. FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About to step offline for a few hours but just pointing a pointer here back to the discussion on my Talk. Not sure Liz wants us camped out here, but I'm not sure the best noticeboard for this conversation either. It should be somewhere central as I imagine far more than each of you disagree on what we do/don't do. StarMississippi19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Unlinking is optimal, imo. Redlinks are for subjects that deserve an article. The fact that it just got deleted shows that's not the case just then, so it needs to be unlinked. Whether to remove entirely is an editorial decision (either could be correct depending on the inclusion criteria being used) that an admin need not get involved in while performing an administrative task. Or you may get yourself involved in hundreds or thousands of content disputes in topics you don't even care about and couldn't possibly handle. Usedtobecool☎️02:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi, the deletion instructions for AFD come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Analogous instructions are also at WP:CSD and WP:PROD, both of which happen to be policy, making those instructions policy also. AFD instructions page does not have a PAG status. However, I am confident that despite their policy status, CSD and PROD pages inherit those instructions simply from WP:Deletion process which has guideline status. It also happens to have a decent number of watchers. As such, the first discussions should probably be had there. Discussions would only make sense if anybody disagrees with the policies and instructions as they are, or thinks them unclear. Since it would affect established deletion processes, multiple policy pages and presumably multiple automated tools, any change would require a WP:CENT RFC. Usedtobecool☎️06:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get these messages from you about the Mass Media by town categories every couple of weeks, it seems. It looks like someone has been going through them and systematically emptying them. I've no problem with them being deleted - I've been here long enough to know which battles are worth fighting and which aren't - but I'd like to know who has emptied them all and why. At the time I made them, they each had a minimum of six articles. Grutness...wha?02:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case, Drmies removed the solitary content of this category which then caused it to become empty. We have a script you can use to see any recent additions or removals from a category but it only goes back about a week or about 20-25 items. As for a concerted effort to empty categories on a particular subject, that actually happens, usually on a small level (like emptying a category that only hold one article) but I think anything of the scale you're thinking about would probably go through a CFD discussion. I doubt that Drmies had anything to do with the other categories that were deleted as empty categories. But you can either install the script yourself so you can see who is emptying these categories or you can bring them to me and I can see if there are any editors are trying to eliminate "Mass Media" categories. LizRead!Talk!02:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Need Guidance on Handling a Sensitive AfC Submission
I am writing to seek your advice on a delicate matter I encountered in my role as an AfC reviewer. Recently, I reviewed a submission that was deeply personal and concerning. The submitter, apparently a teenager, expressed feelings of distress and thoughts of self-harm. This submission, while heartfelt, clearly does not meet Wikipedia’s content guidelines as it is a personal essay and not encyclopedic material. - [[4]]
Given the sensitive nature of the content, I am unsure about the best course of action. While the submission should not be accepted(I mean kept even as a draft and I don't know if it qualifies for CSD) on Wikipedia, I am concerned about the well-being of the individual. I understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for personal support, but I feel a responsibility to handle this situation with care and sensitivity. QuantumRealm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 05:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Primefac has already responded to this situation. I could only recommend that you report cases like this to Trust and Safety, I'll look for the link. LizRead!Talk!06:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek your advice and guidance regarding the draft article on Vxtreme. As I am still learning the intricacies of Wikipedia editing and the process of moving drafts to the main space, I would greatly appreciate your expertise in this area.
I noticed that you have been involved in the discussion page of the Vxtreme draft, and your insights were invaluable. I am keen to understand what steps are necessary to ensure that the draft meets Wikipedia's standards and can be successfully moved out of draft mode. Specifically, I am looking for advice on aspects such as sourcing, neutrality, and any other key elements that are essential for the draft to be considered ready for the main encyclopedia.
As an enthusiast eager to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, I am committed to learning and adhering to the best practices of Wikipedia editing. Your guidance on how to improve the Vxtreme draft and what criteria it needs to meet for moving it to the main space would be of great help.
Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to any advice or suggestions you might have.
It's so embarrassing when this happens, Star Mississippi. But considering the hundreds of main space, Draft space, project space and User space, pages I look at every day (between CSDs, PRODs and AFDs), it's almost inevitable that there will be mistakes. I have to do what I tell new editors: "Slow down!". LizRead!Talk!02:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're all human. And we're not paid unlike NFL refs who seem to take pride in blown calls (Says she, watching NFL playoffs!). You said oops, we saved seven days of bureaucracy and got the right outcome, which is what we all want. I just bombed an AfD nom entirely that I could only explain as "do I know how to read google?". Close and no harm no foul. Don't stress it. StarMississippi02:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting my edits on categories
Hi Liz,
I see you are undoing the edits where I removed the merge tags from categories. Sorry about that, it is fine that you are reverting them. v/r - Seawolf35T--C18:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuvolo (Software Company)
Hi Liz!
I saw your message on my talk page about Nuvolo. I probably shouldn't have moved it back to mainspace, but they only moved it back to draftspace after I AfDed it. They originally moved it to mainspace themselves because it kept getting rejected at AfC (once by me, and also 3 other reviewers). Obviously page creators are allowed to not go through AfC so that's fine. If a page creator moves a page back to draftspace during an AfD, should I close the AfD as draftified or withdraw the nom since it's no longer relevant? BuySomeApples (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at User talk:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft. Message added 05:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You threatened me on my own talk page with this message: "This behavior, coming from a less experienced editor, makes me think that a block is called for."
I don't consider that an "attack", it was a warning that your behavior needed some improvement. Your user talk page is FULL of editors who take issue with your editing and have reverted your edits. You even received a block recently so it's not like I'm alone in noticing your "hostile" behavior as another editor put it. You even complained last month about editors threatening you so you seem to see threats on the part of others but not bad behavior when it comes from you.
I saw the page before it was deleted and have asked the admin who deleted the article and talk page if further action should be taken. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. LizRead!Talk!23:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz! Hope you're doing well, and thank you again for everything. I'm popping by because I wasn't expecting to be hit with ten C1 notices for categories I just created? Apparently per WP:C1 it's only for categories unpopulated after 7 days of emptiness. I just wanted to ask and make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong, or if the cats were otherwise grouped in during maintenance, or etc. It's no worries either way, all of these cats came about from fulfilling AFC/R requests, and I didn't realize it'd take more than 30 minutes to populate them... 🫠 Ah well, quite a bit to get through. Thanks again, Utopes(talk / cont)03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Several times I day, I run a query to find empty categories and then I tag them CSD C1. I didn't really notice when they were created, all I knew is that they became empty since I last ran the query a few hours ago. If you expect them to not be empty, please revert all of my talk page notices and I'll untag the categories as they no longer are empty. Usually when we have a lot of suddenly empty categories, it's because some articles, categories or templates have been deleted in AFD/CFD/TFD discussions. But it happens all of the time so that didn't seem unusual to me.
I apologize if I overwhelmed your User talk page. It's just a coincidence that you created a whole bunch of categories right before I ran the empty category query and they all got listed. Just undo my notifications or I can take care of that step. LizRead!Talk!03:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do know, I hope, that empty categories are tagged for 7 days so there is no urgency to fill them. This form of deletion is really not "speedy". LizRead!Talk!04:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fair; while that may be true about C1, it does feel different seeing the notice posted in bold with multiple red exclamations. Certainly put some pep in my step to get it filled ASAP, regardless if there wasn't a time crunch! 😆 Utopes(talk / cont)04:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)All good, I was just startled a bit haha. Starting going double-time to fill in the cats because I wasn't sure whether they'd be gone by the hour 😅. I've removed the tags and notifs now that the cats are populated, but I appreciate the offer; I think everything seems to be in order :) Cheers, Utopes(talk / cont)04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, both PRODs and CSD C1 empty categories are tagged for 7 days just in case things like this happen. Many categories are only temporarily empty and then the tag is removed. We really shouldn't even call it "speedy" deletion. Really, don't feel any pressure, nothing is going to happen for a week and I'm sure they won't be empty that long. LizRead!Talk!04:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me for this? I believe the topic is fairly notable, and supporting reliable sources have not emerged during the discussion, what should I do in this case? Surə🗯14:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attention: Help please Liz G Cleary re: Dalai lama wikki page.
hi Liz maybe, you're just the right person:
Dear FMPT member. Please read understand this important message. If I can be of any further assistance, please e-mail.
250124. if you type Dalai Lama age 23 -in search engine Bing MS 10/11. The page that appears is, a different page to the page you open if, you type Dalai lama age (prompt/link - popup window - Dalai lama age. 23) if you click prompt you get:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama
The 1st listing too appear - wiki. Dalai Lama. Has a bi-op paragraph that reads:
A February 2023 video shows the Dalai Lama in the city of Dharamshala, India, asking a boy for a kiss on the lips, and then to suck his tongue…. (sic.) 250124
As not using the link/prompt takes you to normal page -no probs.
Though factual, this Wikki post is malicious and, intended to be derogatory. The level of subterfuge involved has me concerned. As a practitioner I was grossly offended and still am.
Further research:
MS 11 Bing search: Dalia lama (prompt) 23 – prompt/ link - once again brings you through to this page.
Google chrome is clean – go figure.
Please comrade, we owe his HH a great debt and the dissemination of such obvious and offensive Hasbara I find concerning.
With a wish that FMPT will act promptly to address this issue please.
Sincerely. Graham RA Cleary.
gclearyoutlookcom
Melbourne. Aus.
Hi Liz - I notice that you have recently tagged around a hundred pages for speedy deletion. As you may be aware, the new Category page recently had a lengthy backlog (I think it was around 300-400, which took several weeks to clear). Tagging a category for speedy deletion within an hour of it being created isn't helpful - by definition there are at least 3 pages that can be added to the category, per the nomination. it could also be that the person nominating the category was away from Wikipedia for a few days, and it would be easy for them to come back and miss the whole thing, so that it's already deleted before they can start work. Please could you consider waiting a while longer before doing this in the future. 92.71.60.62 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've Got Mail! Request for Revision Deletion
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Request for Revision Deletion. 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 don't understand why the article on Robert B. Martin was deleted. You all do not make things easy to look into. I have been editing it but now it is gone. Please help! SouthernDude67 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 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.
==
I really don't understand how to contact you but can you please explain why the article on Robert B Martin Jr casting director was deleted by you? I've edited it a few times and all of the citations were correct. SouthernDude67 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. You deleted it on 1/24 I think. I thought I included the time stamp but doesn't look like I did. I think it was around 22:50 on that date. I'm looking for for the notification I got so maybe I can copy and paste it. It sure is difficult to try to do anything on here! SouthernDude67 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is give me a link to the deleted article. Like this [[Deleted article]]. Once I can get to the page, I can see who deleted it and why. I delete many pages every day, I don't want to scroll through hundreds of pages in my log pages to look for a page that was deleted at a specific time. You must know the name of the page if you are concerned about this. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the name of the page, Robert B. Martin Jr. I'm not sure how to find a link to something that isn't there. I was going to make some edits again and it was gone. It's also not easy to navigate or find information. I'm going am still looking for the date I saw that it was deleted. But, I also resubmitted for review on Friday. SouthernDude67 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that is what I mean. But that is a broken link to a nonexistent page. Go to Robert b Martin Jr and there is no page there so there was never an article here. Go to Robert B. Martin Jr. and you can see in the pink deletion tag that there was an article here that was moved to Draft space and the main space page was deleted. I just realize though that maybe you are seeing this site on a mobile device and you may not be able to see all of this! LizRead!Talk!01:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I'm on a computer. I am a novice at this. I can't find the entire thread I saw on Friday that led me to you, but I see this:
19:20, 25 January 2024 Rosguill talk contribs moved page Robert B. Martin Jr. to Draft:Robert B. Martin Jr. without leaving a redirect (Likely COI, resubmit through AfC Reason/s: possible COI) (revert) Tag: moveToDraft (thank).
I didn't move the page looks like someone else did. I'm not sure why it was tagged COI. A few months ago when it was approved, it was linked to another Robert B Martin ("Robert B. Martin" redirects here. For the American director, see Robert B. Martin (casting director). I sent a request to remove it from that guy so maybe that is what caused the problem? Really sorry if that was the reason. I didn't think it needed a redirect since the names were a different. I thought putting in Robert B. Martin Jr would go to him but it was going to that guy. SouthernDude67 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it comes down to this. I didn't delete any article with this title that I can see. No content has been deleted, you can find it at Draft:Robert B. Martin Jr.. The next step is to work on the draft, submit it to Articles for Creation when you think it is "ready" and, if you have a Conflict-of-interest, you need to declare it on your User page. It's better to be honest about this, it's not bad to have a COI if you disclose it but being a "undisclosed paid editor" can result in an indefinite block.
Now, if you have questions about working on this draft, I encourage you to visit the Teahouse and work with the helpful editors there and AFC has a Help Desk as well where you can get answers about getting a draft review. LizRead!Talk!02:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you for the info. I couldn't find the "trail" that led me to you specifically but it was somewhere so perhaps it wasn't a deletion I saw. There were a lot of entries on it. I just assumed I was qualified to edit a lengthier article because I edited several others per the instructions on how to do that. I feared maybe that was the reason. Thanks again! SouthernDude67 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring newly-deleted Category for re-listing at CFD?
Hi Liz - Could you possibly restore Category:Native American people from the San Francisco Bay Area, which you just deleted a few hours ago, so it can be re-listed at CFD? The reason I'm making this request at all is because I asked the Closing editor (User:Qwerfjkl), a couple of days ago to please re-list the CFD - which had no actual discussion - before it got listed for merging at WP:CFDW. I was dearly hoping to avoid having to go thru Deletion Review.
User:Qwerfjkl was good enough to tell me, "There is no rush; the category can always be restored. I am happy to reopen the discussion if you give a reason why it should be kept." I unfortunately construed that to mean that he/she would hold off putting it into the queue for merging long enough for me to put together a halfway decent explanation/rationale for keeping it. (Which took me longer than expected due to some urgent family issues I needed to attend to.)
Anyhow, I was literally about to share with User:Qwerfjkl the explanatory info that I've put together, when I discovered that, alas! - the category had already/just been deleted. <shakes head in dismay> Is there any way you can reverse this, given the circumstances - or do I have no choice but to go thru the whole bothersome process at Deletion Review??
Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Liz - I suspect you already know that User:Qwerfjkl went ahead and re-listed the category for further discussion. But I thought I should leave you a note, just in case... Best, Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I would like to bring to your attention that I intended for a technical deletion rather than a redirection. To revert the title from 'Boughezoul–Laghouat Railway' to 'Boughezoul–Laghouat Line,' a move request was required. If possible, could you please remove the redirection and retain only 'Boughezoul–Laghouat Line'? Thank you. Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a look at the editing history of this article which you deleted Apr 2023 as an abandoned draft?
It was moved from mainspace without any discussion, IIRC, so there's no trail to follow. I'd like to know the username who moved it, again IIRC, a UK-based editor, and also please check the talk page in case I'm not recalling accurately.
Okay, here's the abbreviated article page history. The draft article was first created in 2018, moved to main space and deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Henry. There was a discussion about a redirect that was deleted via Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Caroline Henry. The last version of an article was created on May 8, 2021 by User:D.j.atherton. It was moved from main space to Draft space on September 18, 2021 by User:Scope creep with the edit summary Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Effectively unsourced for a BLP. The last edit to the draft was on October 24, 2022 by User:Moondragon21 and I deleted this abandoned draft six months later on April 24, 2023 which is speedy deletion policy (CSD G13). I have no idea where any of these editors are based. You can make guesses based on the userboxes they display but many times those are out-of-date or reflect an editing interest and not the places where editors live.
But since this article was deleted as a CSD G13, you can go to WP:REFUND and request that it be restored. If it is, you should submit it to Articles for Creation for review and not simply move it to main space as it can otherwise be deleted, CSD G4, as an article recreated that was deleted through AFD. The AFC review will help guide you on how to avoid this outcome. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk!20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - a bit more involved than I remembered! There is quite an important developing news story in England, and Caroline Henry's involvement (as a publicly-elected official) is just the latest development, so I'll keep an eye on it. There is a mention within an article, you can see it at University of Nottingham#June 2023 stabbings. regards, 82.13.47.210 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Padd13ear
Hi. I am not sure if this is the correct way to respond or not. On 1 November 2023 you edited my talk page and accused me of using multiple accounts. I am not intentionally doing that, but it appears there are two accounts, Padd13ear and Padd13ear (usurped), the latter of which was renamed from a former name. It seems I have unintentionally made some edits from one account and some from the other. I'm not sure how that has happened. Obviously, when I log in I give "Padd13ear" as my user name and not "Padd13ear (usurped)". Is there any way to merge the two accounts? Because that would be more satisfactory for all concerned. Sorry if I have unintentionally violated some policy, but I am doing my best.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Hey there Liz, Hope you're doing great. Lately, I've noticed there are some administrators who are cracking down against editors working for Pakistani television series and films. They are assuming every other editor to be a sock of User:Nauman335 which I feel is quite unfair. Just because certain editors are interested in the similar articles that doesn't makes them sock. There should be clear investigation of the matter as they have blocked multiple users just on the basis of suspect. Kindly look into the matter as I'm concerned about the future edits I'll contribute cause eventually they'll be removed. My account has been blocked too the same way. Please look into this, I'll be grateful to you. Thanks ! 182.182.55.176 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have more than one account that has been blocked? If so, then you ARE a sockpuppet. Maybe not of Nauman335 but you are committing block evasion. Be honest and accept that you are responsible for that. In that case, stop editing and take advantage of the Standard Offer.
If you only have one registered account that is blocked, then please make an unblock request on that account's user talk page. First, read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks which will tell you what is expected and what a reviewing administrator wants to hear and see from you. But it doesn't help if you are editing logged out. If you have lost talk page access, then try Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk!19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Undeletion of Saticöy (Musical Artist)
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! Thanks for reaching out to me last week or so about the concern with some of the CSD nominations of pages with incorrect parentheses. I responded a couple hours later at User talk:Utopes#WP:RFD; I'm not sure if you saw this, it's alright if not, but I was in full agreement with you re: the notion that "G6" should not be used as a "catch-all" criteria. To re-emphasize, I am completely with you that using G6 as a deletion-bypass / "just-delete-this-error button" can be a dangerous practice if due diligence is not maintained.
That all being said, I could very well be misinterpreting / poorly explaining this criterion, so hopefully you can help me out to see where things are going astray 😅. I talked about the exact wording of the G6 error message I've used for tagging, but what I was specifically looking at, from Template:db-error, is: "This may meet [the CSD criteria]... as a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title". For all of the pages I've put up for CSD in this batch (link), these have specifically been redirects that were created by way of page moves from obviously incorrect titles, moved at the same time as creation, and if the page existed at the title for ANY significant period longer than a day or so, I would nominate it for RfD (alongside the rest of the 50 bundled throughout the last few hours).
Thanks again for the heads-up and alerts about a potential awry situation. It's my absolute goal to ensure that the proper venues are used where appropriate, and wanted to ask about these. At the end of the day, it would have technically been a lot easier for me to mass-nominate at the RfD venue (and I would've been able to finish tonight 🫠), but instead I was thoroughly vetting out four different possibilities for every single redirect, which took me 2+ hours to put together the RfD in question. I've been checking for alternatives to deletion via movement at every juncture, been looking into the page histories and checking to see if G6 or G7 were applicable (many were, to my understanding. and tagged as such), confirming that links aren't breaking, that there's no valuable history (if there was history, I would forgo RfD entirely), and if it was a brand new page-creation at the title, I would nominate for RfD due to it being an intentional creation and NOT an error, meaning G6 wouldn't apply.
I thoroughly appreciate your time and energy for answering 🙏. Perhaps there is a silver lining as it'll simplify my workflow, (as I used to have RfD be a one-stop-shop for disambiguation-error cases like these) but I wanted to get your feedback on this (as well as my response to yours on my talk page) as it would have maybe saved a bit of time, haha. Happy editing! Utopes(talk / cont)07:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that they happened at the same moment. I tend to be slow to block editors or, at least, start out with short blocks unless there is just a rampage of vandalism going on. I know many administrators are quicker to block than I am. I'm not going to judge your actions in this case.
But I meant to say "Hello" on your User talk page. I don't think I've run into you on my routine of work tasks on the project. You've been here much longer than I do so I probably have some things I could learn from you. Take care, LizRead!Talk!05:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly stayed out of blocking people so far apart from a bunch of spam/promotional editing (I'm very new to the whole admin thing). I think it's worth considering that this specific case might have been a bit different as it wasn't quite as blatant as a lot of the stuff I was seeing in the CSD queue, it could have been a kid that was just obsessed about their favourite Minecraft channels. Maybe a bit more of a cautious approach would've been warranted, y'know? My concern was just the sheer scale and how they weren't slowing down, and there was another editor before you that tried to give similar advice. But I'm always willing to listen to other viewpoints. :)
I protected this article for 3 days. Unfortunately, this prevents you from editing as well. But maybe a cool-off period will stop the edit-warring. LizRead!Talk!05:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you file a new case at the SPI page? Or it might be helpful to contact a checkuser who might respond more quickly. I'll try to keep an eye on things when I get done with what I'm working on. LizRead!Talk!06:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been pretty good, thank you. My mind has turned to my plans for spring on this warm February day. Hope all is well with you! Thriley (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approval queue procedure?
Hi Liz -
You were so kind to help me figure out why I wasn't able to resubmit my Draft for review after further editing. I'm confident I have resolved all of the issues and properly cited sources and the subject does definitely meet the notability requirements. Thanks to you I was able to then re-submit my draft for review and when I did a few weeks ago it said it was taking 4 weeks because there were a number of submissions requiring review. Last week I checked again and it said 5 weeks. And now it says 6 weeks. But the number of submissions for review has barely changed? My question is, do the drafts get reviewed in the order that they were submitted? And every time I add/change a minor thing it gets bumped to the bottom? Or is it random selection for review and the time could just become longer and longer? Thanks for clarifying! Laynerosen (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're discussing Draft:Romy Fay? I added a category to it that might attract reviewers who work on music articles. That might bring some attention. Unfortunately, there is no way to prompt your draft to the top of any pile because editing is a voluntary action and AFC reviewers pick among drafts they want to review. What interests one reviewer will not be interesting to other reviewers. Any most reviewers will not review drafts upon request.
I have noticed that really bad drafts get reviewed and declined quickly because they are easy to spot and rule on. When a draft has a lot of references that have to be checked, it can take time for a reviewer to get around to it because it will be more time-consuming. But I can say that statement and then come across an AFC reviewer who dives into those drafts. I do know we have a shortage of reviewers which is part of the reason for the long delays. And the fact that your draft has been declined several times already might discourage a reviewer from plunging in.
I don't mean these observations to discourage you. You just need to have some patience. The only action I can think of is to approach past AFC reviewers and DON'T ASK FOR THEM TO REVIEW your draft, just ask if your editing has resolved the problems they saw in their earlier review. They are likely to decline to review it again but they might be able to look it over and offer some helpful advice on whether you have addressed problems they saw. Sorry not to have a "magic pill" that can put your draft at the front of the line but we are all independent editors and to be honest, that line doesn't exist. There are just several dozens of AFC reviewers trying to help when and where they can. Good luck! LizRead!Talk!04:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request at ICTF
@Liz. I replied to your request at WT:ICTF#Request about users adding themselves to film casts. I am unsure if you have pings enabled, so wanted to drop you a note here to refer you to my reply. Thank you. — Archer1234 (t·c) 05:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection is prefered over deletion, so i chose to redurect these articles where I beleived it would be uncontroversial. Did you look at the reasons i cited for redirerction l? It would be interesting to hear your rebuttals. Anyways, as part of the unreferenced articles backdrive, I've cited far more articles then redirected, so your framing of the situation is deceptive. I won't try to change any of your reversion but since you believe the articles deserve to be on their own, you could at least help the drive and look for sources. Tooncool64 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to redirect them again, I'm not going to stop you, but I'm not sure one person should be the judge, jury, and executioner on these 15+ year old articles. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, although Tooncool64 has recently become more active, they are not a brand new editor (if you are talking about what happened with This Is Pop Music). One of my regular tasks is tagging and deleting empty categories and many of them become empty when articles are converted into redirects and the categories are removed. This is despite the fact that redirects can have categories but typically the whole page is blanked. But it happens fairly regularly, especially by a few active editors. The action is called BLARring and you can find some information about the practice on that policy page.
I don't know any specific guideline against making this change but I do know that if BLARring is challenged by another editor, it should be reverted. Aside from becoming familiar with a few of the editors who regularly BLAR articles, I don't know of a way to track when this happens. My only other observation is that frequently, BLARring is done in response to a Proposed deletion tagging, editors who review PRODs find BLARring is preferable to article deletion, as Tooncool64 mentioned.
The good thing about BLARring is that it can easily be undone. Deletion can be undone, too, under certain circumstances, but you need to go to WP:REFUND or ask an admin for help. So, in one sense, it is better to convert an article to a redirect, at least until more sources can be found, rather than tagged for speedy deletion. All I can advise is to keep tabs on your Watchlist so you are aware when this happens to articles you are "following". I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk!05:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I was uncertain about some of these PRODs. Not including page numbers in a reference is not a valid rationale for article deletion. But these articles concerned a specific period of history in an area of the world where we don't have a lot of editors who are knowledgable about the military history to confirm and verify the sources provided, all of which were in old, foreign language books. If the information had been more easily verified, I would have untagged the articles. But, at least with PRODs, we can always restore the articles upon request.
I have wanted to post a notice on the WikiProject Military History talk page to ask about these regional battle articles. We seem to have acquired dozens of them over the past year and we don't have enough editors who can competently review them. This discussion will continue if the few editors who created them return to edit on the project. LizRead!Talk!05:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right about these articles. Just to let you know about the whole process, i was uncertain about at least some of those pages too, that's why i raised my concerns about 4 months ago on my talk page and pinged some knowledgeable editors about that. One of them (HistoryofIran) shared my concerns about these articles. Thus i spent a lot of time in the last 4 months trying to check the sources, their quality, as well as what they say exactly. The lack of page number was not the only issue with those sources, i tried to be concise for the reviewing admin and left a short note in my PROD tag, but as you said, the sources were also exclusively in foreign language (Turkish) and it is a quite well-known fact that Turkish source suffer from some systemic biases, they were old, without page number and, often, misrepresented. That's why, after 4 months, i decided to tag those articles. I have no problem to continue this discussion with the relevant editors. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)07:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MfD:Akhand Bharat
Hello, Liz. I want to ask for your input about the (possible) proper course of action at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Akhand Bharat, since you are completely uninvolved there. I started that MfD nomination on 21 January, and as you can see – the discussion is pretty stalled in recent days. Would it be justifiable to relist it, in order to get clearer consensus and just draw more attention to that discussion? Or maybe you have some other idea? Naturally, being the nominator and therefore an involved party there, I am refraining from taking any action by myself. — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs)08:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its alright, Liz. I totally get that you are quite busy at times, being an admin here. So no wories about a latter reply... Yes, the issue is resolved – in the only appropriate way, IMHO. I am glad that we are on the same page, when it comes to userboxes of this kind (at least the majority of them are indeed controversial). — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs)12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bluechair
Hello, I see that you've deleted the article Bluechair which now redirects to Shen (cartoonist). I see that the reason is that it does not contain encyclopedic content. However, there are many other articles about Webtoons that have not been deleted, so I would like to know how to retrieve it/plead my case to you or an admin. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am an admin. Secondly, Bluechair wasn't an article I deleted, it was a simple redirect from main space to Draft space which we regularly delete as CSD R2s. So, no content was deleted, it was just a page with a link. The draft page it directed to, Draft:Bluechair, was deleted but you will have to talk to the admin who deleted that draft about page restoration. Since it was a CSD G13 deletion, you can also go to WP:REFUND and ask for it to be restored. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk!06:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are requesting for me to do. If you could provide a fuller explanation along with your signature, I'll know how to respond. LizRead!Talk!06:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for all administrators but it is not uncommon for an admin to tag an article for speedy deletion rather than deleting it themselves. I know for CSD A7, I like for another administrators to review the article and see if they agree with my assessment. There are some criteria, like G5, G10, G11, G7 or G12 which are straightforward. The pages ovviously meet the criteria. But assessing whether ot not there is a credible claim of significance to a article subject is a bit subjective so I like to get a second opinion. Personally, I think this is a good thing and I've seen other admins, some more experienced than I am, tag articles rather than deleting them. LizRead!Talk!06:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I don't see any undiscussed move of the article, and the sources support it being at Maria A.... The recent moves were of redirects with the typo "Eleanora". PamD06:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, no, I'm not sure. It's just that yesterday I encountered a new editor who was moving a lot of articles to page titles that were shorter versions of the original page name. So, if the individual was named Susannah Abbott Cooper, they'd move it to Susannah Cooper just because it was shorter, not because that's the name that was used in the sources. And when they moved all of these articles, they wouldn't change the content of the article to indicate that a different name was being used. So, I've been looking at some of their many article page moves and if, in the article, the individual is identified as Susannah Abbott Cooper, I've moved it back from Susannah Cooper. But I'm not looking into every single source so there might be a lack of agreement on the subject's name. If you disagree, feel free to move it back. But when I looked over this editor's page moves, it looks like they were just moving articles to eliminate middle names or initials or maiden names when this might be how the subject was identified.
Does this make sense? I watch the Move log a lot and I've found that many new editors are emboldened by the ability to move articles/pages and go a little overboard without due consideration of whether or not an article should actually be moved. I then see a lot of veterans doing "Revert undiscussed moves" in response. LizRead!Talk!06:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case I can't see any move, undiscussed or other, before yours. The redirects were moved because they used a typo of "Eleonara". PamD06:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But also, someone will always be identified in the lead by their fullest name and there is nothing in an article to indicate which version they commonly used, so the choice of article title isn't obvious from the content but will usually be shorter than what is in the lead. PamD06:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to the shorter title, but I'm still puzzled because I can't see the move you say you were reverting. PamD07:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, PamD, there is some information on the page history of a different redirect Eleonara Amalia Maria Adelborg about that page being moved but it turns out I thought I was reverting a move that actually didn't happen! I know that I was looking at the Move log and saw a new editor moving a lot of articles with moves that didn't seem based in naming guidelines. So, I reverted some of the bad page moves and I guess I mistakenly thought this one was part of that moving binge. I see that you had some history with this article subject so I guess it is one your Watchlist. Thank you for catching my error. LizRead!Talk!01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I was watching this Afd but forgot to vote. I think the subject meets notability as an author. Could you put the now deleted article into draft so I can improve it? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd have some success if you approached the admin who closed the AFD discussion. I don't feel comfortable restoring the article without you asking them first. See what they say and come back to me if they decline your request. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!01:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat puzzled about long-standing articles being re-named by a fairly new editor
Title says it all. Some of their renaming might be "according to Hoyle" (and maybe even Wikipedia lol) but some...well, two specifically that I have noticed - the Eliza Park Custis Law article being changed to Eliza Law and Loris Ohannes Chobanian's article being changed to Loris Chobanian...that's a Nope from me, but maybe I'm wrong. I had noticed you recently posted on their user talk about some previous renaming (when I posted on their user talk about Eliza after I posted on the now Talk:Eliza Law). Would welcome your thoughts. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by Chobanian change 100% but possibly Eliza Parke Law ([5]) would be better in the other case. In any event, shouldn't this go to ANI if there is a serious question, not a forum-shopped tete-a-tete? Nirva20 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for advice on how to handle something that I was puzzled about. I reserve ANI for serious situations where an editorial consensus seems improbable and working together has come to a standstill. I posted on the article talk and also posted my concerns to your user talk. Sorry you feel that asking here on how to best proceed is forum-shopping. I thought maybe I was missing something and that I could be wrong that's all. Shearonink (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be tricky to reconstruct. I just deleted a whole lot of circular redirects from all of these page moves. It's a bit late here so give me some time to track down the final destination of the page involved in the AFD. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!06:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz - hope you are well. My name is Natalie from Analiize agency and I am representing the Northern Reflections clothing brand. We noticed the brand page was shut down by yourself. I understand your reasoning. The brand has a rich history in the Canadian retail landscape. To avoid further issues with the page, we would like to incorporate the full legal business name which is Northern Reflections Ltd. Would it be possible to restore the page with the legal business name? Please let me know. Thank you in advance. Analiize (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Miss Caraïbes Hibiscus, which you proposed for deletion. (some coverage found in brief search; maybe more available; perhaps notable - needs further checking). If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Rupples (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for letting me know. I really didn't think there was much supporting this article but I guess you found some sources establishing notability. And, I know not to replace a PROD tag. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!06:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course. Guess I should have tailored a personal message, given your experience. Poor form on my part. Haven't noticed you closing so many AfDs recently, well at least the few I contribute to. In the early days of my looking at AfDs you were (and still are) an inspiration in helping me to consider and look for alternatives to deletion> Thank you for that. Rupples (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 January 2023, you deleted Draft:Warren C. Trenchard. I would like to resume working on this draft. Please restore the draft. Thank you.Wctrenchard (talk) 06:28, 15 February 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.
I'm only able to see a single revision in the history from you (which has caused the article to be autopatrolled), but I believe the page was draftified at the same time by Pppery, which somehow caused the revision history to split? Anyways, I believe the mainspace page should probably now be deleted under CSD G6. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that does look confusing. Going into the page log, I can see that you are right, at the same time I was removing a CSD tag from the page, Pppery was moving the article to Draft space. I guess because I edited and removed the tag, when I saved the page, it resaved the old version of the article that Pppery had moved. This has happened to me a couple of times, where I have edited an article at the same time that another editor/admin had deleted, moved or edited the page. It's confusing when it happens.
I removed the CSD tag because the editor who tagged it was asking for it to be draftified, not deleted, so I advised them to draftify the article which apparently Pppery did for them. I hope these explains things. I often thought if I had a magic power to grant all editors a privilege, it would be to see deleted edits, it would help explain a lot of edits that are made. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk!06:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly unprotect Bahari Ibaadat
HI @Liz, hope this message finds you well. I have noticed that an article I created few years ago has been deleted and protected by you for repeatedly recreated of the article. I kindly need your help to unprotect the article so that I recreate the article based on the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. FYI I am not sure who and why someone repeatedly tried to recreated the article.
Another administrator, Materialscientist, protected Bahari Ibaadat after the article was recreated again so you'd have to ask them about this. I'd advise you to create a draft article at Draft:Bahari Ibaadat and submit it for AFC review. You will need to do this any way as the article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahari Ibaadat (2nd nomination). If you had a main space article that resembled the previous article, it would be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. The only way I know of overcome an AFD deletion decision is to work on a draft and submit it to AFC. The AFC reviewer will make sure it doesn't have the same problems as the article that was deleted through the AFD.
The only other approach you could take if you don't want to go ask Materialscientist, is to go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for the page protection to be reduced. While it is a lot more work to craft an excellent draft article, I don't think you wil have success asking for a reduction in page protection unless you have a very good reason for why this should be done. And the admin responding there will probably tell you exactly what I've just told you.
Hello @Liz, Thank you so much for the quick reply and very helpful information and guidance. I will take the first approach and will create a draft article and will submit it for AFC. Kind Regards @ahmadi.afgahmadi.afg (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor wording on my part on my ANI case
Sorry about that, and (genuinely) thank you for pointing it out so I could correct it. I didn't think it would be interpreted like that, as I'm not acquainted with any admins personally. It wasn't meant to be read as "I don't know any (admins I can trust)", but rather, "I don't consider myself acquainted with any admins, and therefore I don't know who to go to who would be willing to act." DarmaniLink (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry about that comment, I clearly took the remark personally which was not very helpful for you and your problem. That is why I removed it immediately so I don't know how you tracked it down in the page edit history.
Regarding your opinion, I don't know if there are any admins you can be sure will act on your complaint. They try to see the big picture and it could be that you are partially responsible for the situation that has developed. There are a few exceptions to this, there are some editors who are experts at spotting sockpupets and they work more closely with admins who are checkusers because their observations have proven to be helpful. But I don't think there are any editors or admins who could come to me and say, 100%, "Block this editor" or "Delete this page" and I would follow their request without investigating it. And, to be honest, I think that is the way things should work. We are, after all, volunteers just like you and work on tasks that appeal to us. When I started editing 10 years ago, there were a lot more admins visiting ANI and responding to problems but things were an absolute zoo back then and while it might take longer for an admin to come by and address your concern, I don't think we should ever go back to the days when a mob of ANI regulars determined what should happen to an editor(s). Things were brutal and cliquish and I'm glad the noticeboards have calmed down enough that we are seeking more participation. When I have a moment, I'll revisit your case and see if there is anything I can do to actually help. LizRead!Talk!05:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I got a notification for it since I subscribed to the thread.) Really, no big deal at all. I don't hold it against you at all, and given the implication, you had every right to take it how you did.
I asked in the wiki discord for a lighter option, and got told to go to ANI or AE by an on-site admin there and that those were basically my options if I didn't know an admin outright. Basically, the lighter options were there but are long gone, so, that may have contributed. Thank you, as well :) DarmaniLink (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for help
After this discussion with Nirva20 about their recent renaming of Elizabeth Parke Custis Law to Eliza Law - we've reached a consensus about moving the title back. I would like to move ahead and revert this article back to its original title for the reasons I have stated at Nirva20's user talk and also my post at the article talk: Renaming this article. I almost never move articles so this is the thing...is it too much for me to ask you to do all the moves? If you'd rather not, I'll go ahead and perform the moves myself but then I would also ask you to please check my work - Because of my "un-expertise" I am concerned that I will probably miss associated Wiki-bits & pieces. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of this article. However, the AFD shows that the author (who I've indeffed for creating another hoax) posted about his hoaxes on a magic forum. Do you mind if this page gets deleted? Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article has been deleted so the question is moot. Regarding MY handling of this article, it was confusing because it had both a PROD and a CSD tag on the page and I was trying to respond to both. I didn't know anything about other forums. I think there are some problems with analyzing an "obvious hoax", I didn't think it was obvious but clearly another administrator did so they carried out the deletion.
I'm sure it is not comforting to regular editors to know this (if they haven't already observed it), but carrying out or declining CSD requests has an element of subjectivity. I usually don't feel strongly about having a difference of opinion from another administrator but occasionally I challenge a decision that is opposed to what I would do. There is clearly more to this article and situation than I was aware of when I reviewed it so I'm happy to defer to another admin. LizRead!Talk!01:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a bit of a problem here. It is against policy to empty categories "out of process" but it happens all of the time, every day. Editors who work with categories do it regularly even though it is discouraged. If it's part of a "recategorization", and articles are being resorted, it's understandable but if it's just an editor emptying a category because it's a small category (which is usually the situation), just approach them and challenge their editing decision. If challenged, they should back down, if they don't, then get a third party like me to intervene.
So, there is "policy" and "practice" and they do not always coincide, unfortunately. It's discouraging for me in the past to post warning notices on the user talk page of experienced editors who should know better, knowing that they probably won't change but it takes an awful lot of incontrovertible evidence to warrant a visit to WP:ANI. I've found rather than trying to change the behavior of veteran editors, it's easier to handle each situation as it arises. Are you still getting pushback about Category:Noah Kahan albums? LizRead!Talk!01:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz,
I began a draft in 2019 without the full understanding that it could be deleted over the years to free up server space. I recently asked to have it undeleted and the content is no longer there in a draft. Are you at all able to see if Mike Roche TSOl (Musician) has any content left? I'm devasted that everything is lost. Please help in any way you can. Kindly, Tracy TVaughanSoCal (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Liz. Before I get banned, can I know why those two articles were removed? I know about Draft: The Battle of Kradnohorivka, but why was the article "Alley of Angels" removed, which is why I rained a barrage of insults on this site and all the administrators on the page, and therefore I expect a new ban? — Baba Mica (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that this is a matter that is very important to you but I'm coming from a place of not knowing anything about your situation. First, can you provide me with links to the article pages of the articles you are concerned about? Don't just give me their name but a link to the page would be helpful. Then I can see why they were deleted and be able to respond to you.
I don't know anything about you being banned but just know that editors can get their share of template messages or warning messages to alert them to problems without being on the verge of actually being blocked. More specifics would help here. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!00:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Hope you had a great day and weekend if you had a long one. I know you declined this speedy since the CU can't tie the IP to the blocked account. In an effort to stop the incessant disruption and save @CNMall41:'s sanity, I've move protected it. That way if there is a non sock who establishes notability, an AfC or other established editor can process it. Does this work for you? CNM, you'll see I speedied a couple of others that weren't declined and took care of one. Let me know if you think move protection is needed for Draft:Khaie (TV series)? Liz, I temporarily "solved" the latter with rev del. Thanks both! StarMississippi00:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Star Mississippi:. I believe Liz made the right call on a technical basis. It worked out as the edit history shows some more experienced users invovled which I emailed CU main email about (I am sure it hasn't been checked yet as they seem super busy). I am also not sure if protecting the titles will help as they simply recreate under disambiguations. They also know the "technical" decline of G5 so are creating pages through IP addresses. I am just thankful to stop the flow when we can and put a dent in their business. Appreciate you both and will follow whatever lead you all take in the matter. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's why I'm just move protecting. Less whack a sock. I think I'm watching enough of the recent targets I should catch them early.
Was about to drop a note on your talk, but since we're here @CNMall41, try G6 for the Talk pages. I think the IP reverting you was a sock anyway, but since Talk pages aren't DABs, I think it's simpler for reviewing admins to use G6/8. That's just my .02, you can of course handle however you please as you're not wrong. I think the SPI backlog hit the US long weekend but should be sorted soon. StarMississippi01:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll do whatever is easiest for an admin to see and take action on. I was also thinking of throwing myself on the clerk sword if you think it would help out at SPI but not sure if you are full up or not. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a CU or clerk, but from what I understand they definitely need more help.
I just followed the SPI when you flagged it somewhere last week and I had a feeling we'd find friends. I'll duck block at times, but that one needed CU eyes. I'm always happy to do the cleanup. I think I got it all and am about to log off for the evening but if you see any lingering feel free to drop a list on my Talk and I'll get them if my fellow TPSers don't by morning. Thanks as always for the eyes on NPP/AfC. StarMississippi02:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I dragged you down the hole. lol. You did great and I appreciate your eyes on it. I will reach out with any DUCKS but I do think the private evidence I emailed will need a CU as it is likely going to yield a ton of accounts, some of which are active AfC reviewers which is quite sad.--CNMall41 (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Sometimes they are category redirects of category redirects and I don't correct them like I do other types of broken redirects that are the result of a page move. The other editor I know who also checks for broken category redirects is Explicit so you might share this warning with them as well. I'll try to do better. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!01:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Liz. Redirects of redirects should also be updated rather than deleted for former names e.g. players by team /alumni by college, since we anachronistically merge /rename these to the current name rather than keep all the historically accurate categories. – FayenaticLondon09:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz
I'm sorry about that request I made. I'm not trying to change the genres as a jerk, I'm just trying to change them with help. I've been on Wikipedia for months and I'm still a little confused. The reason why I put sourced genres over the category that doesn't have is because there's no source for the category. Like in my Russians by Sting edit. I'm not trying to disruptive, I'm just trying to be helpful. Sorry about saying that you can't do this to me. Iamthegoat524 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. I think what most new editors don't realize is that communicating and working with your fellow editors is almost as important as the edits you are making. Most editors (most but not all!) come to your User talk page to point out problems that need to be addressed, not to just be jerks. And what all longtimers here know is what Wikipedia requires the most is enthusiastic, competent editors. Since there are always editors who decide to move on or get busy with offline life, we have an ongoing need for new editors every year to keep the project going. So, if you are making a mistake, the typical solution is for a more experieced editor is to say, "Please don't do X, we need you to start doing Y and Z". They point out the problem and, hopefully, the policy or guidelines that describes the correct approach. Because what we want is not to block editors but to help editors improve their skills. But if an editor isn't paying attention, sometimes a brief block is imposed just to draw their attention to the problem.
So, it's important to pay attention to User talk page messages even if they are critical. Heck, I've been editing regularly for over 10 years now and I still get editors coming to MY user talk page indicating some mistake I've made or a problem I've overlooked. And you might spot an error that another editor has made! It's not always pleasant to hear but it's how we all improve our skills and make the project better. But it's also why "Civility" is one of the Five Pillars on Wikipedia, when you have so much critique going on, kindness, patience and being articulate is required, not to drop a hammer on an editor...this is a writing project, not law enforcement.
As far as musical genres, there is a long-standing history for years of "genre warriors" arguing about the correct genre a song or artist should be classified as which have resulted in endless edit-warring. So, there is more policy surrounding this style guideline than other stylistic issues. It's an aspect of musical articles that some longtime editors keep tabs on so you kind of wandered into a minefield. I hope the editors who approached you have properly explained the problem to you and how genres work on this project. If you have any questions about editing on Wikipedia or interpersonal problems arise, I recommend taking them to the Teahouse as your first step. Thanks again for the apology. LizRead!Talk!01:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I've left them a note saying that if this didn't stop, they'd receive another block for a week or longer. Consider that a final warning. LizRead!Talk!19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I created Draft:Sara Fishko a while ago and it was deleted. A COI editor has recently created a draft for the same subject. Could you restore my old draft so I can consult it for content? Thanks, Thriley (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and I have protected it since I'm pretty sure this is the same editor who was previously editing as an IP and doesn't quite understand notability. StarMississippi16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About Poland settlement AfDs
Hi Liz, I failed to give consideration to deletion alternatives for a series of AfDs. I highly doubt that any significant discussion will result from them, and I think straightforward redirects would be more productive (given the lack of any sourceable information or data to add to the pages that a simple list wouldn't resolve). The AfDs without any votes are:
I'll get to it. I try to stay on top of archiving but this User talk page sees more traffic than you might expect. By the way, where can you see that my talk page is over 400K bytes? Can you provide me with a link? Thank you. LizRead!Talk!05:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I noticed that you removed my CSD tags from Draft:Anders Holmer & Draft:SM Culture Partners, as they are redirects. However, my understanding was that WP:G3 includes redirects created as a result of cleaning up page-move vandalism. For context, these draftspace redirects were created as a result of improper draftifications of established articles ([12], [13]) by an editor who was also creating baseless AfDs at breakneck speed (all of which have since been nuked - see ANI thread for reference). These articles have never been in draft-space, so I believed it would be in keeping with WP:DENY to tag the redirects created by reverting their moves for deletion.
Hello Liz, that redirect has now been deleted by JBW. Because of this, I was wondering if you would mind if I retagged the remaining two redirects for speedy deletion. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, The deleted draft article was formerly included as a section of the Datalog article. It was deleted on 2 March 2023, and started as a separate draft article. I would like to restore the section, but including and changes made by the author of the draft. If you can restore the draft, I will copy it and add it back to the main Datalog article, where it can be further improved. Many thanks. Robert Kowalski (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back into the history of edits to the Datalog article, and restored the deleted material, without the edits in the separate, deleted draft article. Robert Kowalski (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had seen it, and felt that the requestor's of course. settled the issue. I thought the G4 was not warranted, but I agree with your point about article and draft duplication. Jay 💬06:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced page in mainspace
Hey there, Liz. The page which you moved to draftspace, Draft:Chung Shu-ming, had no sources. Apparently, the user who created that page decided to add another one, Chung Shu-ming, to the article mainspace, which I feel is technically a cut-and-paste since they decided to add the page there. Can you delete that page on the mainspace? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education (OJMCHE), in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host an International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Sunday, March 10 from 11am-3pm PDT. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter Jewish women artists into the canon. An experienced regional Wikipedian will provided will be on site to teach, support, and guide the process. Participants can select artists ahead of time or on site.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 24th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 24 December 2021. Uh-huh, we're finally covering the good ones among the rest! Aren't you excited? Remember to include a link in double brackets to the script's .js page when you install the script, so that we can see who uses the script in WhatLinksHere! The ScriptInstaller gadget automatically does this. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Making user scripts load faster by SD0001 is this month's featured script, which caches userscripts every day to eliminate the overhead caused by force-downloading the newest version of scripts every time you open a Wikipedia page. Despite being released in April 2021, our best script scouters have failed to locate it due to its omission from the US of L. For security reasons, the script only supports loading JavaScript pages.
Newly maintained scripts
After earthly attempts at improving the original have failed...
Ahecht has created a fork of SiBr4/TemplateSearch, which adds the "TP:" shortcut for "Template:" in the search box, and updated it to be compatible with Vector 2022.
AquilaFasciata/goToTopFast is a much faster fork of the classic goToTop script that also adds compatibility for Minerva and Vector 2022.
Without caching. Each script takes 400–500ms. A particularly large script takes 1.11 s! Internet download speed is 50 Mbps.With caching enabled. Each script takes just 1-2 ms to load.
Improve a script
Unfortunately, this section has remained nearly identical. Help us out 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.
Dragoniez/SuppressEnterInForm stops you from accidentally submitting anything due to pressing enter while in the smaller box, and works on almost anything... except the InputBox element itself, used in subscription lists and the Signpost Crossword! Oh, the humanity!
Doǵu/Adiutor(pictured) provides a nice, integrated interface to do some twinkley tasks such as copyvio detection, CSD tagging, and viewing the most recent diff.
Eejit43 has quite the aesthetically pleasing scripts, all made in TypeScript.
/afcrc-helper is a replacement for the unmaintained Enterprisey/AFCRHS and processes Redirects for Creation and Categories for Creation requests.
/ajax-undo stops the "undo" button from taking you to another page while providing a text box to provide a reason for the revert.
/redirect-helper(pictured) adds a much better interface for editing and redirects, including categorization, for which valid categories are dictated by /redirect-helper.json.
/rmtr-helper helps process technical requested moves without being able to actually move them.
Guycn2/UserInfoPopup(pictured) adds a flyout after the watchlist star on userspace pages that displays the common information you might use about a user.
Jeeputer/editCounter, under userspace, adds a portlet link to count your edits by namespace, put them in a table, and put that table in a hardcoded subpage, all in the background.
Hilst/Scripts/sectionLinks converts all section links to use the § sign, which are known to be preferred over the ugly # by 99% of the devils I've met.
PrimeHunter/Category source.js adds portlet links to tell you where a category for an article comes from and supports those from template transclusions.
Sophivorus's MiniEdit adds some nice, li'l buttons next to paragraphs to edit their wikitext with a minimal interface.
Edit-listings
Dragoniez/ToollinkTweaks adds more and customizable links next to users in page history, logs, watchlist, recent changes, etc.
Firefly/more-block-info optimizes the display of rangeblocks in contribution pages. Doesn't work outside the English locale of any wiki, unfortunately.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader makes paging links (e.g. older 50, 500, newest) load without refreshing and makes you realize how slow your internet actually is.
Appearance-ricing
Ahecht/RedirectID adds the redirect target to all redirects. For all the WP:NAVPOPS haters. (Do these exist?)
Dragoniez/MarkBLockedGlobal: Remember the "strike blocked usernames" gadget? Now you can use a red, dotted line to highlight rangeblocks and global locks!
Jonesey/common(pictured) has some styles to overhaul your Vector 2022 experience. It reduces padding everywhere, and makes the top bar animation faster.
Aaron Liu/V22 is a fork that narrows the sidebars instead of upheaving them, reverts the January 2024 dropdown changes, and restores the old page-link color for links that don't go outside the current wiki.
Nardog: SmartDiff is a spiritual successor to Enterprisey/fancy-diffs. It makes the page title part of links in diffs clickable, along with template and parser function calls. Unnamed parameters can be configured per template to also be linked. All links are styled based on the normal CSS classes of rendered links.
For the paranoid: Rublov/anonymize replaces your username at the top of the screen with the generic "User page" text. Remember, it is your duty to persuade everyone that editing is an honor.
/AjaxBlock provides a dialog box for easy input of reasons while blocking users.
/Selective Rollback(pictured) provides a dialog box to customize rollback edit summaries and does them without reloading the page. Seriously, why doesn't MediaWiki already do this?
/flickrsearch adds a portlet link to search for uploadable flickr images about the subject.
/randomincategory adds a portlet link when on Category pages to go to a random page in the current category.
Vghfr/EasyTemplates adds a portlet link to automatically insert some of the most common inline {{fix}} templates.
Yes, we're just doing 'em as we go now. Thanks for reading through this looong issue, if you did! I'm sure this'll send a record for the longest issue ev-ah. You may need to wait even longer for the last issue, as our reserve of old-y and goodie scripts have ran out... We encourage you to try and do some of the requests or improvement tasks. See you in Summer, hopefully!
Hi Liz, the issue is not that a page needs to be moved to that title, but rather that the article space page should be deleted because a much more developed draft already exists here. I tried to draftify the existing one-line stub but it wouldn't let me because of the other draft. The only other option would be to perform a round-Robbin move but when one version is clearly far superior like here I thought it would just be easier to delete the one-liner (and merge it into the preexisting draft if applicable/appropriate). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the belated response. Admins differ on how they handle these situations but, for me, I won't delete a main space article for the reasons of CSD G6 until I view the page an editor wants to move to that article title and see that it is an improvement over the existing article. That's why I untagged the page which looks like it has now been deleted. However, as I think I said in my edit summary, just use Twinkle and select CSD>G6 Move and put the article/draft title you want moved in the field for that criteria. Then, an admin can quickly view both pages and act on the request or decline it with an explanation. I have seen instances where a draft creator requested CSD G6 page deletion of a main space page for a draft that has only received AFC declines and in that case, deletion would not be appropriate until the draft has been acceptance or approval. LizRead!Talk!01:14, 2 March 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 ([[14]]), 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 [15] 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. [16]
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]
Airlines established in 2024
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 [17] 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 [18], calling other people idiot which is prohibited by rules and utter the racist sentence "Die, irrelevant Indonesian people articles" in here [19]. He even put speedy deletion tags on several articles without understanding terms like here [20], here [21], here [22], [23], and here [24], here [25], 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 [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. 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. [34]). I then started looking at Wikipedia services. They banned offering Wikipedia services back in 2020 [35] but in August last year started allowing it again on a trial basis [36]. Google search "Swapd" "Wikipedia" and you'll see all kinds of stuff. See also these YouTube videos from a SEO expert: [37] and [38] 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]
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"[39] or "Red Jack Bird"[40]. 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]
Closing AfDs
Hi
I have been part of couple of AfDs that I think you have closed incorrectly.
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]
@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]
ooph
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]
Article Draft Removed, but article exists
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,[41] 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 [42]
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 [43] 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.
.jpg)
MMXXIV Lunar Calendar
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Done Restoring a draft deleted by the request of the page creator is an easy thing for an admin to do! But there is an AFC tag from a submission in August 2023 that you might want to remove unless you want it to be reviewed immediately. I hope this helps. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
22:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed. Maliner (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Talk:Latin Crown (Heraldry)
Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 23:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry! Geardona (talk to me?) 23:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth Van Lew § Recent additions of this article to Category:Crime and Punishment in Richmond, Virginia. Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Newly maintained scripts
.png)
.png)
Improve a script
Requested scripts
New scripts
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)
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)
mention me on reply) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
