Jump to content

User talk:Liz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Feeline (talk | contribs) at 13:09, 16 August 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page was last edited or modified by Feeline (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.
Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
The Signpost
6 November 2024
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.



While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Recommended reading for editors who are upset RIGHT NOW!:
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Staying cool when the editing gets hot!

If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply.
And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lmatt

Hello Liz,

I noticed that you informed Lmatt that a category they had created was up for speedy deletion. I have blocked this editor several times and since being unblocked, they have gone on a spree of Hotcat editing. There is a discussion on my talk page about this matter. I am rarely involved in category discussions and have no experience with Hotcat. Would you be willing to look into these recent edits and express your opinion? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, I'll visit your talk page when I get back to my computer tonight. It's not unusual for relatively new editors to go overboard creating categories. It's a problem when it interferes with the existing category structure which, after 18 years, is pretty set at this point. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They registered in 2005 and have edited heavily although sporadically since 2011, logging close to 10,000 edits. I had warned them to steer clear of controversial editing at the time of their last block. Since their block expired about a week ago, they have made roughly 750 edits. Most were to controversial categories, but others were to highly controversial topics such as transgender and TERF issues, assault rifles, serial rape, prostitution and pornography. I am very concerned about this editor but want other administrators to take a close look, because the editor has criticized me forcefully several times, accusing me of bias. I do not consider myself involved because all of my interactions with this editor have been as an administrator. But I want to be cautious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstart for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
For your help cleaning up the fallout from the Portal:Contents move. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be the third half of the half barnstar I gave El C and JJMC89. Since 3 halves is improper I hope you don't mind a teamwork barnstar. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! Liz Read! Talk! 16:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manika Kaur

Hi, have moved this article back to mainspace because it passes WP:GNG and was approved by an admin (David Gerard) who unsalted the title, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Atlantic306. I was just fixing the broken redirects. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of East Bengal the Real Power

Hi, The article East Bengal the Real Power was an informative article about the very first fan group in Indian football and only showed how the fan culture grew in India through the various activities of the fan group. The article was not at all promotional and I strongly disagree to the deletion. Kindly restore and suggest if anything should be changed in order for it to be more neutral and informative. Regards, --SabyaC (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unusual that a fan group would receive enough mainstream media coverage to be seen as notable enough for their own article. This article had already been deleted twice and if I didn't delete it, another admin would have. Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was an article about the very first fan group in Indian football. It was only informative and not at all promotional. There are articles about revolutionary fan groups like UltrAslan, West Block Blues. This article too was of similar kind and also with proper references and citations included. Please suggest how to create this article so that it is not taken down. --SabyaC (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Liz, as time permits, would you look back to the publication history of the Jeff Vintar article, who is much more accomplished than the stub leads one to believer? It appears that at times the article has had much more content, and oddly, the additions and deletions in the edit history appear with strikethroughs, and so the material is not easily viewable. IMDB indicates further productivity, including as a producer. A deleted, referenced source (which cites an earlier version of Wikipedia!) indicates substantial further creative work, and collaborative associations. It would be nice, for the sake of the article, its subject, and the quality of the encyclopedia, if the reliable of this deleted information could be reclaimed (with sourcing). Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:989C:8C2B:3054:F2E2 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the edits are stricken is because (a) they were promotional but primarily (b) they were copy-pasted from a copyrighted website. We can't restore or publish copyrighted information on Wikipedia. So it will stay gone. If you want to write about the subject of the article, do it in your own words, neutrally, and that will have a better chance of surviving the cuts. Elizium23 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

I'm guessing this one may also be similar to the ones already been deleted by the administrators due to similar IP addresses editing and the amount of bytes added to the page. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Iggy. It was the exact same offensive content, over and over again. I've rev-deleted it. Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy Deletion of Category:Reader's Digest compilation albums

Liz, nice to meet you. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, at least the editing part, and am not entirely sure how this works. I got your message today about the deletion. I appreciate the email. If I understand correctly, a Category must be empty for 7 days or more. I created this Category less than half a week ago, four days at most, and there was an album listed in the category. One of several I had intended to submit over time. The album I included first in this Category was "Her Greatest Hits and Finest Performances" by Anne Murray. I went to her discography page to check this album after receiving your notice and the link to this album has been removed. I have not received any notification about the status of the album's article. This is not the first time an article of mine has been removed without me being notified. I complained about this one other time and was told by someone from Wikipedia that I was mistaken, that none of my submissions had been deleted. I don't think so. If that were the case, I would be able to find these articles. If I can't find them, where are they if not deleted or removed. I put several hours into creating this particular article as it was a three disc box set. If it's being removed, I would like, at the very least, for the person who removed it to provide me with an explanation. That's just common courtesy and the decent thing to do. Regarding the removed articles; Maybe I made a mistake and they should be removed. I get that. Maybe I can fix the articles and they can stay up. This would be my preference. If someone would explain to me why my articles are deleted, at the very least, I would learn what not to do in the future. I don't create any articles for profit. I'm retired with time on my hands. I actually enjoy creating them and feel like I'm making a contribution and giving back as I use Wikipedia quite a bit myself. I'm frustrated and disappointed that anyone's hard work, not just mine, would be summarily destroyed without a how-do-you-do. Thanks for reading this.HowlinMadMan (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HowlinMadMan,
First, I regularly tag empty categories. After categories are tagged as empty, they sit in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for 7 days. If, after 7 days, the categories are still empty, they are deleted. If during that 7 days someone assigns an appropriate page to the category, the tag is removed and it is not deleted. This happens all of the time because categories are often created before someone has figured out which articles to put in them. I'm sorry if the message you received from Twinkle implied that this is a "speedy deletion" because, unless something has gone wrong, empty categories are never immediately deleted after being tagged. There is this 7 day waiting period. But the 7 days can only start after the category has been tagged so that is done first.
Second, unlike categories that have been deleted through a Categories for discussion decision, categories that are deleted for being empty can always be recreated should they be needed. So, even if you created an empty category that was deleted after 7 days, you can always recreate it when you have a use for it.
Finally, your bigger question is what happened to the articles you assigned to the category that were reassigned and removed. We don't have static lists of category contents, they are dynamic, and the only way to discover this is to check the articles that you believe were originally in the category and see which editor reassigned them. If they reassigned one article, it is likely they reassigned others. Once you know who did the reassignment, there needs to be a discussion about this. There can be valid reasons for reassigning pages if there is an existing category that is a better fit and typically other editors are not told about editing changes, that is why we use Watchlists so you can keep an eye on articles and pages that you have been working on, to see when changes have been made.
If it is a matter of articles that have been deleted, and you do not remember what the article or category titles were, as an admin, I can look at your deleted contributions and figure out what they were and, from there, we can go to the pages and find out why they were deleted. Some deletions, like for empty categories, can be undone very simply, for pages that have had a deletion discussion, it can take a deletion review to undelete a page. Let me know if I can help with this. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think I'm done with it. It's too much work and raises my blood pressure too high to continue. I just went to my watchlist and read about all the cover art images that are up for deletion and it's discouraging. For each image, it means an article has already been removed. I thought I was doing something others would find useful. Because I went looking for these albums and couldn't find reliable sources to fill my needs, I thought I would put them there for the next person. I'm not spending that much time just so someone who thinks the article isn't "notable" enough can wipe out all my hard work with a click of a mouse button. I've submitted a lot of articles over the past few months and I felt each one deserved a page. I'm sure you hear that all the time and I'm not fooling myself into thinking I'm always right. I would expect to have to redo some articles but I can't because they're simple not there any more. Something you might want to propose to your fellow administrators is to critique an article and give the submitter a chance to correct it. That one thing would reduce the frustration levels immensely. To be fair, that has happened once or twice for one of my articles, but not for the majority. It would also make contributors feel like they're getting some small level of respect. I'm sure that's already been considered and discarded because it just makes too much sense to do that. "Notability" is a tricky thing. Nobody's going to the library and digging up book references or dusting off the microfiche unless they get paid to do that. For a lot of articles there will never be enough sources on the web. Especially older items. In my case, music. I think some Wikipedia administrators get hung up on the "notability" factor too much and I'm sure nearly 100% of them will tell me I don't know diddly squat. One already has and maybe they were right. The readers, such as myself, lose out because of this strict adherence policy. Again, I can play Devil's advocate and say policies are necessary. They can also put you in a strangle hold. Things I/we want to read about is not always on Wikipedia because there are not enough sources to get them there. I can read all I ever want to know about Taylor Swift, but I can't find out much about someone who might have only put out a couple of albums in the 70s and didn't quite make the top 10 or maybe was just a one hit wonder. Maybe it's just me, but I find that person much more interesting than the latest boy band or the next Britney Spears. If you're not careful, "notability" can turn into "popularity" real quick, or at least give that impression. Sorry for the ramble and it's not necessary to tell me I should write a blog. One of your fellow admins already did that. Thanks and have a good day. HowlinMadMan (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

editToken

Hello Liz,

Your script User:Liz/spihelper.js is no longer functional because it attempts to get an editToken from mw.user.tokens. The script should instead get a csrfToken. editTokens were removed from mw.user.tokens on October 3, 2019 at Phabricator during this edit as they were redundant to csrfTokens.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wavelet Packet Filter Banks (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
You really need to provide footnotes to show where each bit of info came from. Take a look at WP:CIT and WP:CITE.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Onel5969 TT me 21:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Liz! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 21:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Daily Journal

Hi Liz. I noticed you deleted The Los Angeles Daily Journal under G8 as "Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page". When I linked to that page here, I remember The Los Angeles Daily Journal being an article. Would you provide more information about the page's deletion? What was it a redirect to? Was it converted to a redirect recently? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are related pages you deleted around that time:
  1. Talk:Los Angeles Daily Journal and San Francisco Daily Journal
  2. Los Angeles Daily Journal and San Francisco Daily Journal - California Legal News
  3. Talk:San Francisco Daily Journal - San Francisco Legal News
  4. San Francisco Daily Journal - San Francisco Legal News
I think The Los Angeles Daily Journal must have been a redirect to San Francisco Daily Journal – San Francisco Legal News, which was deleted as an expired prod. Also pinging deleting admin Muboshgu (talk · contribs). Would you restore these pages and redirect them to parent company Daily Journal Corporation instead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, done. One talk page had no edits to restore. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Muboshgu (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January.

Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself!

September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles.

October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests.

November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog.

Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now!

Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles.

Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates.

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

>>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<<
>>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for speedy deletion C1

Hi, I see my nomination of Category:Palacký University Rector elections was incorrect. The reason was that I checked the criteria in Template:Db-catempty (Template:Db-c1) rather than the main guidance.

What do you think of the following update to the template?

Replace "as a category that is empty, is not currently in a deletion discussion (or was emptied outside of that process), and is not a category redirect, a disambiguation category, a featured topics category, or a project category that by its nature becomes empty on occasion." with "as a category that is empty, is not currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), and is not a disambiguation category, category redirect, featured topics category, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion." Reason: to bring current wording into line with Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Categories. The current wording suggests that being in a "Categories for Renaming" discussion would not make a category ineligible for C1 deletion. TSventon (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a category is being discussed for deletion, merging or renaming, it is not deleted as an empty category. After the decision has been made, it can be tagged for deletion if it is still empty. This has just been common practice. Alternatively, you could go to the rename nominator and ask them to withdraw their speedy rename request.
Bottom line is that empty categories are an extremely low priority for deletion considerations. They can always be recreated if needed, unlike categories deleted through CFD discussions. They are not an urgent issue like copyright, vandalism or BLP violations. Wait until the speedy rename discussion is over or withdrawn and then tag it again if the category is still empty.
Often categories that are tagged as empty are not empty after a few days and we remove the tag. Happens all the time. If you look at my CSD log, you'll see plenty of blue links for categories that had been CSD C1 tagged that later turned out not to be empty any more so they were untagged & not deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I want your opinion on the wording of the Template:Db-catempty, not the deletion policy, but perhaps I did not make that clear in my post.
The deletion policy excludes categories "currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions)", whereas the wording in Template:Db-catempty is "currently in a deletion discussion (or was emptied outside of that process)".
I think that the difference in wording is unhelpful (and that it confused me in this case) so I have produced a request for an update to the wording of the template (my final paragraph above). The template is protected, so I can't boldly update it. Please could you have a look at my final paragraph above and let me know if you disagree with any of my new wording. TSventon (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reinstating the speedy deletion nomination. I have just submitted a request to change the wording of the Template:Db-catempty to bring it into line with the guidance. TSventon (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikia

I'm really lazy, and I don't want to try to figure out what the contents of that page were. Could you please restore it and just move its contents to Category:Fandom (website)? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft : Zendyll Production

Hi Liz, I noticed that you deleted my draft article for Zendyll Production due to G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. While I agree that this article wasn't ready for the mainspace, I intended to improve and fix the problems. I would really appreciate if you could reinstate the article to draft space as I've spent over 30 hours researching on the company. Thank you. :)--Chlchqy (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

73.101.113.182

Could you please handle user:73.101.113.182 ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you help Tashi?

Hi Liz. I saw you're an ArbCom clerk. User:Tashi is trying to appeal his ArbCom block but he has problems contacting ArbCom as his emails are not getting through. Here is the link to what he wrote. Would you be able to guide him through the appeal process? Thanks Liz :) starship.paint (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starship.paint,
<arbcom-en@wikimedia.org> is the correct email address to use so I don't know why their emails are not getting through. According to a message you left on their user talk page, they previously emailed the committee successfully. Tashi is not restricted from email use so they can also follow instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee and email the committee directly from their user page, User:Arbitration Committee.
Emailing the committee directly is the way to reach the committee so my only thought is that Tashi could use an alternative email address if their primary one doesn't seem to be working. I will cross-post this to their Polish user page. Liz Read! Talk! 15:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! :) starship.paint (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

Hi. East Bengal the Real Power this article was deleted last month. Is it possible to get a copy of the article, so that I can modify it and make it suitable to re-publish?  S A H A  09:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Liz!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Liz

Hi Liz, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,
   –Davey2010talk 00:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backatcha

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Consider this a very slow motion snowball fight. And thanks for support comments. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはLizたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

offensive lang in edit summary

Hi. Where would I report offensive language in an edit summary. See this edit. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, onel5969,
Any admin can take care of this kind of thing. It's better to contact an admin directly rather than posting this to a noticeboard, as long as the admin is currently active. Thanks for alerting me. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion

Hi. Since you responded so quickly last time, thought I might try you again. Please take a look at User:Elisabete A Silva. Haven't really dealt much with self-promotion, and don't know where the line is between simply telling others about yourself, and self-promotion is. What do you feel about this user page? Onel5969 TT me 15:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, onel5969,
Yes, that is bad! But this situation usually happens because new editors misunderstand the purpose of a user page and think it is for their personal biography. It is inappropriate but understandable given how other websites work. Since this editor is currently active, I posted a notice on her user talk page and will delete the page in a bit. It is not urgent and she might like to remove the material herself. Again, thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I also left her message on her talk page, as she was making some problematic edits. Hopefully, she'll reach out if she has any questions. Onel5969 TT me 16:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Fastily has now deleted this page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. Funny thing is, that with her citation count, she might pass notability criteria for her own article. Onel5969 TT me 21:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maharshi Santsewi Paramhans CSD tag removal

Hello Liz, this is Utopes, the editor who placed a speedy deletion tag on Maharshi Santsewi Paramhans. Currently, this is a redirect that does not have a valid target, as the location that this redirect points is an article that does not exist. The article that used to be in this position had been draftified to allow time for the article to incubate. My question to you is: why was the CSD tag removed? I labeled the redirect as WP:G8, as a page dependent on a nonexistent page or deleted page. You stated in the edit summary that the criteria was not valid. Could you elaborate? Thanks, Utopes (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Utopes,
When I removed the tag 6 1/2 hours ago, the target article existed. Bbb23 deleted Maharshi Santsevi Paramhans less than 2 hours ago. So, now that Maharshi Santsewi Paramhans is a broken redirect, I will delete it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sorry for the misunderstanding. when I tagged the article, the target of the redirect had been moved to draft space, and the redirect was broken. However, before it could be deleted, it appears the author of the original article copied and pasted the contents into mainspace, which is where it existed when you came across the redirect. So, to summarize, it appears that we both were right. When I tagged the article, the redirect was broken. However, it remained undeleted when the target was re-created by the author, and you justly removed the tag, as there WAS in fact a target. However, that target was then deleted when I looked at my CSD log and wondered why 2 out of the 3 redirects I tagged for the same reason were deleted (which struck me as odd, as 2 of the redirects were deleted in time, but the one in question wasn't). Anyway, thanks for reading my re-hash of events. Hopefully everything worked out. Cheers, Utopes (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you for bringing it to my attention, Utopes. The page needed to be deleted now. I patrol Anomie3 bot's report of broken redirects, usually daily, so the page would have been deleted some time today by a bot or admin. The bot does a good job detecting broken redirects but it only updates its report about every 7 or 8 hours. Editors like you often respond faster. Have a good weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Campbell (darts player)

Hi, I'm sorry about the AFD nomination earlier, i didn't think it had any references etc, and I couldn't find a "reliable" subject to nominate it for deletion. (I've never used that feature before). I didn't realise I had requested it as an attack page. As I say I didn't know which subjects to put it under. Really sorry about that. L1amw90 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, L1amw90. If you edit, you make occasional mistakes. I know I do! Have a great new year! Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: social media traffic reports for patrollers

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.

Hope we can find a time to talk! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to. Thanks for alerting me, Jmorgan (WMF)). Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 1 January 2020 (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.

TL;DR: let me know if you have time in the next couple weeks for a meeting, and/or just want to coordinate via email or talkpage. Happy new year! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jmorgan (WMF), I haven't checked my email in a while due to the holidays and other stuff. I'll get back to you today. My apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Liz, and no rush! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2020 (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.

Cheers, Liz! J-Mo 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-deleted category

Hi. I'm RoadTyper, and I recently noticed that you have nominated the category Category:Articles with Mi'kmaq-language external links for speedy deletion, because it is empty. However, I disagree with this nomination, because there are plenty of articles, including the one about the language itself, that could be part of this category. I edited that article and added the category, but for some reason, it didn't show up at the bottom.

Is this because the category is currently tagged for speedy deletion, or what? I have had (and still have) my categories of my own nominated for deletion, but it wasn't speedy deletion, and the pages remained in the category until you had manually removed them. Would you mind filling me in on the major differences between regular deletion and speedy deletion? I'm kind of new here, so I could really use a lot of help. HighwayTyper (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HighwayTyper,
Empty categories are tagged for deletion unless they fall under a limited number of exceptions (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. Unpopulated categories for details). They sit in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for 7 days. If, after 7 days, the category is still empty, it is deleted. If it no longer is empty, the tag is removed. So, it is not "speedy" like most of the other kinds of speedy deletion which can face immediate deletion.
If the category is deleted because it is empty, it can be recreated at any time if there are pages that would be appropriate for it. This is not the case if a category has been nominated for deletion via Categories for discussion. If a category is deleted via CfD, it is normally not allowed to be recreated.
In the case of Category:Articles with Mi'kmaq-language external links, it is no longer empty so the CSD C1 tag has been removed. I hope this explains the situation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent user talk page moves

Hi Liz, sorry for the mess and thanks for the deletions. I was planning to clean it up myself, but was trying to figure out how to restore my talk page archives first (the first 40 are now red links). I will work on that. Apologies and thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, Ruhrfisch. Sorry for my message, I've been having a bad day and just got a bit irritated. If I can help you recover your archived talk pages, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and I am sorry for the mess. I figured out where the archives are and am moving them back to the links from the archivebox. WIll stop soon and will finish the moves tomorrow. I've not done much on WP for well over a year and am sorry I messed up. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magne Furuholmen albums (category)

Hi, I added the whole of Magne Furuholmen discography to Wiki so I was wondering if it is possible to add the category back. In the coming weeks it is my intention to improve the existing newly created articles. Thanks in advance Cat italia (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, Cat italia,
If a category has been deleted simply because it was empty, it can be recreated when it IS needed. If it was deleted due to a Categories for discussion discussion, it should not be recreated without a good justification. So, if it is the former, go ahead and recreate the category. I hope I've cleared this up. Let me know if you have more questions. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. The category is no longer empty since more articles can be added. Thank you for your help! Cat italia (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13

Hey Liz, saw you removed the CSD from User:Yonanale/sandbox. Just a note that the latest edit was from a bot, and bot edits do not reset the G13 clock, so the page is eligible. Best, (and thanks as always for all your good work), UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnitedStatesian
I wasn't aware that there were exceptions to the G13 rule and I don't see this information on the CSD G13 guidelines. All I could see was a warning notice that these two pages were not eligible for a G13 deletion.
If there is an exception to the G13 guidelines, the bots should be programmed to ignore bot edits and not to post notices that the pages are ineligible, I would think. Thanks for alerting me, I'll look into this. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant text from the CSD G13 guidelines is "have not been edited by a human in six months." Thanks for looking into it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, that qualification didn't stand out to me, I was looking at the list. I appreciate you pointing it out, UnitedStatesian, and I'll delete those two pages now. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest

I have written an article Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest which was accepted for article for creation on 27 December 2019 but some users copied text from references and links that's why this page was deleted due to copy right issue. I request you to undo the deletion and restoration the page. I'll remove all the copied text from the article and will write in my own words. It took almost 3 months to collect all the information and references to write this article. As Wikipedia plays a vital role in letting world know about the important things across the globe. Hope you'd love to help us in inclusion of one of the India's largest public universities protest to the Wikipedia so that whole world may know about it. Therefore, you are requested to think once more to undo the deletion and restoration the page. I'll try my level best to improve this article day by day and will be writing in my own words. Thanking you.--Rohitmishra111 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rohitmishra111
I recommend that you ask the administrator who deleted the article, 331dot, to consider undeleting the article. That's typically how things work here. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

@Liz: The article Davido was under severe attack by more then one vandal today, can you put some protection on this article. And also can you block User:Ibwizzy, this person did much of the vandalism to this article.Catfurball (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: Protection – OK. IMHO blocking would be prematurely severe; that user's first edit to the article was highly destructive, but in their next edits they did then start to put right part of the damage they had done. Clearly they did not realise how easy it would be to simply WP:UNDO. Talking of which, please would you also take a look at Help:Reverting, as it would be better if you would revert pages to the last good version, rather than undoing each vandal edit one at a time. – (WP:TPS) Fayenatic London 22:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic is correct (as usual), Catfurball. Ibwizzy is a brand new account and Fayaenatic posted a warning which is what we do for beginners who make questionable edits. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020(s) cats

Hi. I appreciate all the good work that you and User:UnitedStatesian do but can you just go a bit easy on deleting 2020(s) categories for a bit? We are bound to need things like Category:2020s in Philippine cinema that are part of a well-established series, and in fact it was filled with a subcat just three hours after you deleted it. We're seeing a lot of 2020(s) categories over at Special:WantedCategories at the moment because of the new year and new decade (I know myself how easy it is to miss that a new 2020 category needs a decade cat), and it's frustrating to see "obvious" categories like that getting deleted only for us to recreate them very soon after. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Le Deluge,
This happens every year. The problem is is that some editors start creating these categories very early, like in October of the previous year, when it is unlikely that they will be filled for months.
It's difficult to predict which of these categories will be filled imminently and which could be empty for months. But I get your point and will try to be more judicious in my deletion. It would also be good to notify UnitedStatesian about this as they do most of the empty category tagging these days. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me notified (via your ping, thanks); my only comment is that categories appearing on Special:WantedCategories are not an issue, since by definition they cannot appear on that list unless at least one page is in the category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

96.233.204.98

May I please request immediate intervention with user:96.233.204.98. She clearly won't stop vandalizing until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Widr has already blocked this editor. Thanks for the notice. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PDBe-KB

Hi Liz - I've recently come across this (former) article, which you nominated for speedy deletion last year. The grounds for deletion were: A7 - not important enough, and G11 - blatant advertising. I find these hard to understand as (a) this article is wikilinked in hundreds of biochemistry articles, and (b) it describes a community-driven reference resource (see Welcome to PDBe-KB). Can it be restored, or at least the original text made available somewhere for editing with a view to restoration? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colonies Chris,
I've been out of commission for the past week due to illness and am just now reading on my phone which is very clumsy. As soon as I'm back on my laptop, I'll check out the deleted page later today. I'll see if it is possible to give you the deleted content on one of your user pages. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Colonies Chris,
I have restored the article to keep the edit history and moved it to User:Colonies Chris/Sandbox so you can work on it. I'm glad you brought the request to me and I had the chance to revisit this decision because I think it was questionable on my part. In general, I think A7 and G11 are frequently judgment calls and I have removed my share of CSD tags when I think the article didn't meet the criteria.
I hope you can improve upon the article, maybe with the help of a WikiProject like WikiProject Molecular Biology. I wouldn't recommend just moving the page back into article main space because it could very well be tagged again. Thanks again for your inquiry. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz - It obviously needs work. I'll try to knock it into an acceptable form. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page appears to have been copy and pasted back into mainspace, rather than moved back from the sandbox, which is unfortunate as that means history is lost (may also have copyright implications). --kingboyk (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: welcome back

Thank you :-) I'd gotten into some stressful situations on-wiki, and I couldn't think of a good way to avoid conflict...I figured the best way was just to log out and return after a few months. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how you feel, Nyttend. When I first started editing regularly in 2013, I wandered into a dispute that I had no business weighing in on that quickly got me labeled as troublesome when I came to an editor's defense (which was a noble but, in hindsight, foolish decision). That editor got ended up getting blocked and I couldn't shake the association with them. So, I ended up taking a 6 month break and when I returned, everyone involved had either left, had also been blocked or had moved on to other subjects.
My recent break had to do with my health but I also found after returning that I had renewed energy for the project. So, I'm all for taking time off and then deciding whether or not you want to recommit. It's much better to take a break than get frustrated and act out. So, welcome back and I hope your stress levels will be much lower this time around. Remember that this is all voluntary and you can choose where you want to spend your time. If there is a certain area of admin work that you found tiresome or stressful, then work on articles or templates or do something more enjoyable. That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletion

Hi Liz. You recently G7-deleted F1 Manager (2010 Video Game) and then G8-deleted Talk:F1 Manager (2000 Video Game). I'm wondering if you meant to G8-delete Talk:F1 Manager (2010 Video Game), i.e. the talk page of the article you G7-deleted, instead. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Talk:F1 Manager (2010 Video Game) has now been deleted by someone else (and the incorrectly capitalised Talk:F1 Manager (2000 Video Game) doesn't need to be reinstated). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DH85868993,
If you say this is straightened out, I'll take your word for it. Let me know if there are any problems. Liz Read! Talk! 15:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, not empty

Hi Liz,

I kind of randomly came upon Category:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry - Gemstones today, which you speedied back in August as empty. However, there are over 300 pages in it currently. Since it's populated by a Wikiproject banner, it's certainly possible that a parameter was changed at some point (and maybe changed back). Normally, I'd just recreate the category, but I figured an undelete would be preferable in case there was any actual content on the category page (I can't really check, so have no idea). Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for letting me know! There was no talk page to restore so you can make one if you care to. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving at AE

Hi Liz. Per this edit I have tried to restore the archiving instructions at AE which got clobbered (inadvertently) by this edit of 21:47, 30 January 2020 by MyMoloboaccount. I had noticed that the One-click Archiver was sending archived threads off into an unfamiliar place. For example, your recent one-click archive sent the thread to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Archive 260, a target I had never heard of. In my opinion, all of the AE one-clicks since 21:47 on 30 January ought to be undone. The usual location for archived threads is WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive. During this period the normal archiving bot User:Lowercase sigmabot III did not do anything at AE so in my view only the one-clicks need to be fixed.

As to how to do it: the simplest might be to to through the history of AE, undo all the one-click archiving edits since 21:47 on 30 January, delete the page at WP:Arbitration/Archive 260 and just wait for the bot. Future one-clicks ought to work correctly since the instructions have been fixed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man, Ed. I meant to clean up the page, not send discussions off into the ether. I'm glad you noticed. I have a little time now to sort out the archiving pages and the current discussions will not be closed and archived any time soon. Thanks again for noticing this and bringing it to my attention.
By the way, I discovered the archiving tool on my talk page was automatically archiving discussion threads to the archive which was the most empty and had the most free space, not the most recent archive page chronologically. So, I have ceased the automatically archiving of this page and still need to go through my talk page archives and sort through the discussions, putting them on the correct page. I guess sometimes these tools are a little wonky. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well, that was simpler than I expected. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But in terms of the bot doing the wrong thing on your page, do you mean this bot edit of 5 January? The bot archives into a numbered file as designated in your current talk page header. Whenever the bot considers an archive to be full, it updates the number and saves it back to your talk page. Back on 4 January your talk page had 'counter = 23' in the header. When you do manual archiving you might consider updating the counter value each time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What, you mean this is my mistake and not something I can blame on a wayward bot? I can see that there are things I forgot when I was gone for a year. Thanks, Ed. Liz Read! Talk! 16:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being away from Wikipedia a year might help to improve your mood, when you are a person who spends much time in the admin spaces. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories used by Template:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry

Please restore these 6 category pages:

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for letting me know, davidwr. Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report
Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!);
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • Automated archiving of requests;
  • Membership news and results of elections;
  • Annual leaderboard;
  • Plans for 2020.
– Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doveman (Thomas Bartlett)

Hi there,

I'm looking for a missing article and your name is the most recent trace I can find of it so perhaps you can help. I've just noticed that the article about the American musician Thomas Bartlett, also known as Doveman, has disappeared. There are lots of redlinks to it as he's mentioned in a lot of articles, including Nico Muhly and The Gloaming (album). All I can find is a record that you deleted (G8) what seems to have been a redirect page to a nonexistent page Doveman on Jan 10 2020. And that the Doveman page itself was deleted in 2007! I know there was an article about this person, Thomas Bartlett, within the last year, but can't find it by any kind of search. The Thomas Bartlett disambiguation page has the redlink to Doveman. I don't remember the exact name of the article, unfortunately. Any help finding it would be much appreciated. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HazelAB,
This is actually the second inquiry I've gotten about restoring this article since I deleted the redirect so I'm going to ping everyone involved and see if we can recover a version of the content that doesn't violate copyright. Here's the timeline of what happened that I can piece together from the contribution histories:
  • Jan. 2nd - Justlettersandnumbers changed Doveman article to a redirect to The Gloaming article
  • Jan. 2nd - Justlettersandnumbers tagged The Gloaming article for copyright problems
  • Jan. 9th - MER-C deleted the The Gloaming article for having unaddressed copyright problems
  • Jan. 10th - I deleted the broken redirect from the Doveman redirect to the now deleted The Gloaming article.
Justlettersandnumbers, would you object if I restored the Doveman article to before you changed it to a redirect? Two people have contacted me about restoring it in the past few weeks. We can tag it for its deficiencies so that editors can improve it. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz! I am of course completely happy for you to do whatever you think best here. I had not remembered why I redirected it, but now I see that I wrote "swathes of unsourced content, no sources to indicate independent notability". If HazelAB is confident that there are enough sources to support a page then all good; otherwise an alternative might be to restore a bare-bones version of The Gloaming (which did have some sources and is probably more notable), and recreate Doveman as a redirect. Over to you! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liz and Justlettersandnumbers! I am confident that there are enough sources to support a Doveman or Thomas Bartlett page and will undertake to provide them if the page is restored. I would also like to see a bare bones version of The Gloaming (group) restored as they are indeed notable. I will undertake to improve their article too if this can be done. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HazelAB,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've decided to restore Doveman and entrust you to look over the "unsourced content" and see if there are references available to support the claims in the article. As for The Gloaming, there were copyright concerns and I decided to restore that article and move it into your user space so you can find it at User:HazelAB/The Gloaming. I have deleted the bulk of the content so it is pretty "bare bones". I see you've been editing for 9 years and I hope you will look at the edit summaries and see the comments about questionable content. Good luck with your efforts to improve the articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Liz! I'll get right to work on them today. HazelAB (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and question

Comment: Thank you for your recent advice. I have restored the Twinkle notify defaults. I thought it was optional.

Question: I've started studying AfD, PROD, CSD and the associated guidelines. I nominated my first PROD and was hoping you could comment on whether it is good, questionable or bad. Page is Tilak Raj. The article changed recently from one about a cricketer to a performer [2]. They might be the same person, but I think the page might have been hijacked. I think both "versions" fail GNG, and I believe both fail WP:BLPPROD, but due to the past version having references (none really meet RS), I tagged it as PROD due to the Scope section of BLPPROD.

Comment: It looks like my PROD from the question above created some activity on that page. Eventually, the page has been changed back to a cricketer and refs have been added (or restored).

I understand the constraints on your time and I appreciate any feedback you can provide.

Hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk 

Hi, Timothy,
I understand your mistaken impression that notifications are optional. I once considered CSD notices optional for empty category speedy deletions because I thought editors were not invested in their category creations like they would be if an article they created was tagged for deletion. And then, an upset editor brought a complaint against me to ANI because they were angry they had not been notified about an empty category deletion. So, since then, I consider all deletion processes to require a notification.
And, from their point-of-view, an editor has no access to see their deleted contributions so if an article/template/redirect/category they created is deleted, they would have no record of it at all if they aren't notified it's been tagged. They can't go through their contributions to see what they've worked on because deleted contributions are only visible to admins. So, it's important to let them know what happened to pages they've created.
As for PRODs, my general advice is not to PROD articles that are currently in the process of being created and edited because the article likely will be changing soon, improving, and the criteria you cited for your PROD might no longer apply. I don't use PROD a lot but when I do, it is usually if I come across an older, obscure article from back in the day (2000s) when sourcing requirements weren't enforced and the subject of the article doesn't seem notable. Remember, PRODs are for "uncontroversial deletion" so if an article is currently being worked on by an editor, deleting it will not be uncontroversial, it will be actively contested! I hope that answers your questions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upage

You still using that dell laptop? Or were you the one that said they dropped their laptop in water or something? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can you remember that comment?! Yes, I work on an 8 year old Dell laptop. I did drop it but not in water. It just made the internal clock wonky. What, may I ask, made you remember that random remark? Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We were talking about, or you joined in on Don't Stuff Beans Up your nose, I think I pinged you on that comment on something, then you said your laptop has a wonky clock. If you Laptop's clock is still wonky I think it might be a dead CMOS battery... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could be. But I'm getting error messages because my Windows version is no longer supported and there is no way I'm purchasing a new version of Windows for a laptop from 2012! Time for a new computer. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try Linux, at least it does not force updates on you while you work, and it's free, it's also system friendly and does not take much ram, I use Ubuntu, it's free! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down!

Please read the notices I left in regards to speedy deletions you been making. I'm almost certain somebody has messed up a template. Categories and disestablishments by decade are being both lumped into a establishments category....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BHG has it back under control[3]. All the speedy deletion nominations need to be withdrawn. We can now return to our regularly scheduled program irregularly scheduled editing.......William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, William! Thanks for tracking down the issue that was causing them to be empty.
Just FYI, speedy deleted-tagged empty categories sit for 7 days just to look into any problems that might be causing them to mistakenly be empty. Thanks for letting me know. It looks like UnitedStatesian has gotten to some of these categories and I'll get to the rest. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Could you please block user:47.15.238.55. AIV will delete my report because she is already blocked, yet the block is only for certain pages. CLCStudent (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, CLCStudent, I've issued a short block for the vandalism, I hope it won't interfere with the range block that already exists. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It won't interfere with the other block. as the other block is for a range. Thank you! CLCStudent (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My awkward move attempt regarding Amish Acres / The Barns at Nappanee

I'm only contacting you and not posting this to a centralized community area because you blanked the The Barns at Nappanee talk page and happen to be an admin.

In my attempt to move the Amish Acres article to The Barns at Nappanee, I accidentally moved the former to Talk:The Barns at Nappanee because I was looking at the options in the dropdown menu (it had been so long since I had done a move that I don't even remember a dropdown menu) and accidentally left the menu option as "talk" without noticing. Instead of just undoing the move, since somehow, probably in a state of mild panic, I misremembered that moves couldn't simply be undone, I then moved Talk:The Barns at Nappanee to The Barns at Nappanee. Because of the initial weird cross-space move, Talk:Amish Acres still exists in the same place, and I can't move that to Talk:The Barns at Nappanee because of course the redirect page is in the way, which is why it needs to be deleted. I realize that putting a speedy delete template on there probably wasn't the best choice but I couldn't think of anything better. If I understand correctly, if Talk:The Barns at Nappanee gets deleted and then Talk:Amish Acres is moved to Talk:The Barns at Nappanee, the end result will be the same as if I hadn't made my initial mistake, including the retained page histories, it's just that the move history will be goofy. Any help is appreciated. Mapsax (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mapsax, but I can't follow your narrative. Right now, I can't tell what page is supposed to go where. Could you simplify it to something like this?
Page A needs to go to Page B (A>B)
Page X needs to go to Talk page Q (X>Q)
Talk page T (which has been deleted) needs be restored and to go to Page V (T>V)
Page H needs to be deleted
Something like that. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk: The Barns at Nappanee needs to be deleted
Talk: Amish Acres needs to be moved to Talk: The Barns at Nappanee
Obviously the actions must be taken in the order listed. Mapsax (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mapsax,
Right now, both Amish Acres and Talk:Amish Acres are proper redirects to The Barns at Nappanee and Talk:The Barns at Nappanee. It could be that this edit by EdJohnston already achieved what you were looking to do with your suggested deletion and move. Liz Read! Talk! 17:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really – even though the respective redirects are now correct, Talk:The Barns at Nappanee doesn't have the talk page history of Talk:Amish Acres, even if the former looks the same now on the surface as the latter did. Mapsax (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has benn no genuine content addition in the edit history of either Talk:Amish Acres or Talk:The Barns at Nappanee. (For example, no actual talk discussions). The only edits are maintenance edits. Moreover, no pages were deleted so all the original history is still preserved. I would be tempted to call this issue resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I still would feel better if there were some kind of reference on the current talk page, like "this page used to be located at Talk:Amish Acres?redirect=no, its history differs slightly from this page's"; I seem to remember a template for this usage, but it could be my mind playing tricks on me...again, sorry about all of the confusion. Mapsax (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put a note at the top of Talk:The Barns at Nappanee. I decided against the "Split article" and "Copied" templates, and the "hatnote" template wouldn't work because of the "=" in the URL. Mapsax (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Hindi Khabar

Hello Liz, I noticed that you recently deleted the article for Hindi Khabar. Can you please consider recovering it? In the talk page of the article I also mentioned why this article should exist since it's one of the leading channels in some states of India and has the most viewership in Uttar Pradesh therefore it should have an article of its own where people can get the proper information about it. Thanks Axeals (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Axeals,
This article was deleted previously through a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindi Khabar, which I think you would know about because you've created this article twice. Plus, you have a copy of this article already at Draft:Hindi Khabar where you can continue to work on it. I recommend submitting it to Articles for Creation once you have better sources. But it must greatly improve from its current state or it will be deleted as the recreation of the originally deleted article. Please do not move your draft directly into the main space as it is now or it will be deleted again. Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about draft deletion

I have a question about the draft, Donga Science, which have been deleted. I think that I wouldn't do much edit for few years, but maybe later, can I restore the page? Is it possible? Thanks, Sincerely, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luke Kern Choi 5,
 Done Draft:Donga Science is restored! Happy that you are going to be working on it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I have a page deleted, can it be still restored after few years?Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. There are different types of deletion (read over Wikipedia:Deletion process for details). In your case, it was a draft of an article that wasn't actively being worked on which are deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Those pages can be restored at any time upon request. If the page was deleted after a deletion discussion (like at Articles for deletion), restoration is less likely to happen. Then there are PRODs and speedy deletion, too.
Do you remember the name of the page? I can look into it for you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Articles

Hey, liz.

You recently deleted two of the articles I created Bharatiya Kisan Union and Ima Market and three redirects to the latter; Ima Keithel, Nupi Keithel and Khwairamband Bazar under WP:G5. I had appealed the block for a review and have been unblocked since on grounds of it being inconclusive (or so I'm assuming). Would it be possible for you to restore the pages? Hope it is not a bother.

Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think that was every page that was mistakenly deleted, Tayi Arajakate. I'm sorry that you were misidentified as a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 2020 England police, fire and crime commissioner elections

Can you please provide a reason as to why this was deleted. I provided a detailed explanation of why when contesting the speedy deletion of the article and why the 4 police, fire and crime commissioner elections should have a separate article to the 36 2020 England and Wales police, and crime commissioner elections. These are two similar but legally distinct types of elections with the offices having different powers and covering different legal jurisdictions. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sparkle1,
2020 England police, fire and crime commissioner elections had essentially the same content as 2020 England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections. Please add information to the existing article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That defies logic. The elections are different. They are for different bodies. The article was a split from the other as covering Police and crime commissioners and police, fire and crime commissioners in the same article is confusing. the title is not reflective of the two distinct roles and powers and this cannot be rectified. There was not duplication, there was splitting. The information on police fire and crime commissioners had been removed from the page on police and crime commissioners, in particular, the four areas with police, fire and crime commissioners. Why do mayors for a place have separate articles from the elections of members of the body? by the logic used to remove this article, there should not be separate articles yet that consensus on Wikipedia for English elections is clearly to do so.Sparkle1 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkle1,
I am not going to argue with you about how elections for fire commissioners are different from those for crime commissioners. The articles looked identical to the editor who tagged the page and also to me. But I have restored the article with edit history at User:Sparkle1/Sandbox where you can continue to work on this page and try to make any distinctions that exist more obvious that they appear to be.
I'm warning you though that if you move this page right back into the main space of the encyclopedia without significant changes, it will be again tagged and deleted, by a different administrator who will probably not be willing to give you another chance at it. I encourage you, when you think the article is ready, to submit it to Articles for Creation where it can be reviewed by experienced editors and approved. It is much less likely to be deleted if you send it through the AfC process. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive response to this. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ysilv008 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, I am a student and am doing an article on Alfred "Bo" Lomahquahu. Would you please re upload my article so I could fix any mistakes I had on it? I didnt intentionally mean to copy information. Thank you

Hello, Ysilv008,
What do you mean by "re upload"? Liz Read! Talk! 15:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again, by that I mean like if you can make it to where I can work on it still and the article be live again, because I was notified that you deleted it? I am not sure if it is correct but I was instructed to contact you because my article was deleted by you. Sorry for any confusion and inconvenience. I just hope I can get my article back so I can continue working on it because it is an assignment for one of my classes in college. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysilv008 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ysilv008,
I just deleted the redirect from User:Ysilv008/sandbox to Alfred "Bo" Lomahquah. According the tagging, admin ReaderofthePack deleted your article Alfred "Bo" Lomahquah on March 4th because it was a copyright violation of this website. There is no point in restoring a broken redirect as long as the article is deleted.
You can try contacting ReaderofthePack to see if they will restore the original article but this is typically not done if there was copyrighted material used. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't restore the article but I could email you the content. Then you could remove the copyright-violating material. However, should you cut and paste the exact same material into an article on Wikipedia, it will be deleted again. Let me know if you want the article emailed to you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PD Greece

Category:PD Greece is no longer empty. Please re-create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration evidence

Thank you for helping me out with the length of my evidence concerning Jytdog! I really appreciate the heads up. I was still a newbie when I ran screaming off of Wikipedia, and since it's been almost two years, I find I have forgotten most of what little I knew. Another editor says I might have made an error in putting my analysis of evidence on the workspace page--should it be rebuttal in my evidence section instead or what? Thank you! I genuinely appreciate the help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jenhawk777,
Glad you returned to editing Wikipedia except getting into an arbitration case isn't the easiest reintroduction. I'm not sure why you are posting in the Workshop section as discussion usually moves there after the Evidence phase is over which isn't for another 10 days. And I'm not sure who you are rebutting as Jytdog hasn't posted yet.
But I'll check over your contributions in the case in the next day. It's late here & I'm about to turn in. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for such a quick response! I have now moved my response off the analysis page and into rebuttal in my own section. I am so grateful for your help! But I haven't really returned. I got notified about this through my email and couldn't breathe for awhile realizing Jytdog was trying to come back. I felt obligated to all the unsuspecting newbies out there not to say something. That's all I'm doing. Then I will ghost off quietly into the night once again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In re Draft:Saucer Tennis

The creator and pretty-much sole contributor is, at present, blocked, and has demanded that everything about the subject be removed. Given the circumstances, I thus interpret it as a G7 request from him. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you

You seem to be patrolling in several places which I am watching also, and have beaten me to welcoming a contributor. Thanks for the good work. ↠Pine (✉) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pine! I'm pleased to say that I'm not having to make many reverts on the coronavirus articles I check out. More solid editing than I expected with such a fast-moving subject. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Bond moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dinesh Bond, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AngusWOOF, but I just fixed a broken redirect on the page. I expect this draft will be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you so much & Best wishes. Arenasky (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Arenasky. I'm taking a self-imposed Wikipedia break. Too much time at home on the computer. Be back later. Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

Does A3 apply only to articles?--Launchballer 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Launchballer,
Yes. In general, I wouldn't tag any empty talk page for deletion unless the article/category/template/project page has been deleted or tagged for deletion and then it would be a G8. Many talk pages have been created that are blank and haven't been utilized yet and we don't go around and delete them all. Of course, this could change in the future but this is current practice. Liz Read! Talk! 14:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate.

January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here.

March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now!

Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone!

Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Dear Liz, the user is globally locked, because they spammed cross-wiki. The content of this sandbox was deleted from various project (such as pt, it, fa, etc. or Wikidata). Please delete the page here too. Bencemac (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Liz Read! Talk! 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 186.96.116.138

Hi, this is a follow-up message in regards to my ANI post about anonymous user 186.96.116.138. They are continuing their unsourced changes despite the warning you gave them a few days ago. See also this diff, which I just reverted. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave them a short block since they haven't engaged on their talk page and all of their edits are being reverted. Thanks for alerting me, JalenFolf. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bartko

This is just a heads up.

I saw your edit to the article here[4]. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I removed the tributes section in its entirety. I have also put the page on my watchlist....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question- The article makes mention of a book Bartko self-published. It's only source- The book's Amazon page. Do you think this is book spam?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you, WilliamJE, for following our guidelines. Regarding this source, the Amazon page is unreliable for information about Jim Bartko and it looks like you removed it as well. A mention of the book itself is okay and several of the newspaper sources mention it and the circumstances that led it to be written. Liz Read! Talk! 14:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting categories

Why did you delete category Category:2020 disasters in the United Kingdom and left four articles without parents? I had to recreate the category just to avoid red-linked categories. Dimadick (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dimadick,
If you look at the log of Category:2020 disasters in the United Kingdom, you'll see it was deleted by Bbb23 because it was created by a blocked or banned editor, in this case, Netgg68. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


response to drt1245's report of disruptive editing by user domskitect


Dear Liz, you also had deleted my earlier contribution to the page panic buying earlier today, no doubt for your own good reasons. drt1245 subsequently reported me for disruptive editing. I have posted my responses to that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Domskitect#Response_to_Notice_of_edit_warring_and_disruptive_editing

Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz&action=edit

Domskitect, it is best if you respond to this complaint at the Edit warring noticeboard, not on user talk pages.
Also, please sign all of your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 14:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Could you please possibly chime in here[5] and here[6] on whether it was right to depopulate a category at CFD? Thank you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It's not right to depopulate categories under deletion discussions and, unfortunately, it is not uncommon. It's good to warn editors when you can find out who has emptied them out of process. Liz Read! Talk! 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I saw this edit of yours[7]. That category can be deleted per this CFD[8]. In fact this is the second time this same editor created a COVID people or survivors category in the last few days. I suggest any of these pages be SALTED....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin deleted that page and I have protected it from recreation. Liz Read! Talk! 13:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty "Chile" categories

Hi Liz, you nominated a number of empty categories for deletion, e.g. Category:1810s establishments in the Captaincy General of Chile. These categories were only created (moved) recently, after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 2#Captaincy General of Chile, but the underlying cats on the articles weren't moved with them. I don't know if the bot moved too many categories or didn't change enough articles or what, but instead of deleting these categories they should be either populated at the new name, or moved back to the old name. Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, Fram. It looks like most of the Captaincy General of Chile categories were handled properly but not all. With CSD C1 tagged categories, they sit for a week before deletion so we do have some time to figure out what the problem is. I'll ping JJMC89 whose bot handles category changes and see if he knows what happened. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 13:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the nomination only covered part of the hierarchy; I have updated the templates on part of the contents, but others remain inconsistent, see Category:Establishments in Chile by year. @BrownHairedGirl: what's best to do here? Move the remainder summarily under WP:G6? – Fayenatic London 18:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Fram, Fayenatic london, Liz, and Fayenatic london. I will sort this out now. I was notified yesterday on my talk, but most of my day has been wasted in a storm created by two drama-mongers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Fayenatic and BrownHairedGirl! I bow to your expertise in categories. Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot cannot change the categories when they are populated by a template like this. BHG, why is this one (plus two others) back at the title that the CFD moved it away from? (The category page also wasn't moved properly.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: this one? Which one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​Category:1810s establishments in Chile → Category:1810s establishments in the Captaincy General of Chile — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, JJMC89. It's because I screwed up the 1810s in the nom, and it was better to just fix it than to go through another nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ Ok, I just wanted to make sure everything ended up in the right place. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, JJMC89. It's good to check. Sorry if my prev reply was a bit terse; it reads a little snippy, which wasn't my intention.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, Fayenatic london, Liz, and JJMC89: I think it's all done now. Sorry that it all turned out to be so complex. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I welcome your expertise, BHG. Thanks for fixing it. It looks like all the categories have been removed from Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all of you, for sorting this out! Fram (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Well done, I checked a few and they look neat. How about a few more redirects to help navigate back from e.g. Category:1810s_in_Chile? Also, the split between that and the preceding 1810s in CGC doesn't look right. – Fayenatic London 08:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I implemented it as a new country rather than as a rename, so that means we have Category:1810s in the Captaincy General of Chile for up 1810–17, and Category:1810s in Chile for 1818 onwards.
OK, so I moved some of the contents accordingly.[9]
Yes, more redirects will help. Hows about for every existing "Captaincy General of Chile" chronology cat, I create a redirect from the same period in Chile? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's more work than I had in mind, but it would probably avoid future work as it would safeguard editors from using "in Chile" for the old periods that do have a category. – Fayenatic London 10:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, BHG, if you look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, you'll see that there are still some Captaincy General of Chile & Chile categories listed as empty. Some actually have contents, but others are empty. Liz Read! Talk! 13:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's sorted now. Please ping me if there are any moe issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for answering my questions for the WikiProject Report! I really appreciate it, and I hope you also had a good time answering. Happy editing! Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 23:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your article, Puddleglum2.0. If I could just repeat myself, you should not encourage brand new editors to be editing COVID-19 articles. It's not a good place to learn, it is very unforgiving. Edits have to be completely accurate, it's not an area where we can tolerate mistakes. Editors that are completely new to Wikipedia are not likely to have a positive experience. They should learn the practices and guidelines in quieter areas of the project where they can make mistakes and learn from them. That's my parting thought. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC),[reply]
Thanks. I hope I didn't come of as encouraging newer editors to edit COVID articles, more just advice for those who do (as I'm sure there are some.) I can make that more clear in the intro perhaps. Do you mind if I quote part of the above (It's not a good place to learn, it is very unforgiving. Edits have to be completely accurate, it's not an area where we can tolerate mistakes. Editors that are completely new to Wikipedia are not likely to have a positive experience. They should learn the practices and guidelines in quieter areas of the project where they can make mistakes and learn from them.)?
Thanks again! Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 00:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Puddleglum2.0. It sounds like you have a good perspective on this. You can use my words but I do hope in your article you highlight editors who are part of WikiProject Medicine because they are the experts here. We are really following their lead and helping where we can. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee and a thank you

Here's a digital cup of coffee for you! Thank you for believing in me and for your help!
StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, StrangeloveFan101! I hope this can be a new beginning for you. I'd advise you to edit in a completely different area than you did before, at least right now. Avoid conflicts from the past. I'm sure you have a lot of different interests you can pursue...dive in! Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly a new beginning for me. Even though I'm gonna move past the situation, I'm still gonna keep it as a learning experience so I don't make the same or similar mistakes. So, I'm definitely gonna stay away from the cesspool that is the Infobox Wars. What would be kinda funny (for me at least) is if their was a WP article on the Infobox Wars. Honestly, I'd pay to read it if it were a book. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

Hello Liz. I see that you removed some of the more egregious article text at Joe Biden. I don't recall having seen you at that article previously. The content about recently publicized allegations has been under discussion on talk and there are several editors, including myself, who believe that it is premature to add any of this to the article given currently availalbe sources. I have recently reverted this and I don't want to risk a 1RR violation (given that it's unclear whether this is a BLP violation for this famoous politician). I hope you'll consider removing the recently added text and encouraging editors to continue on talk or other venues to resolve the content dispute. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SPECIFICO,
I haven't edited Joe Biden although I have removed inappropriate content at Biden family and Hunter Biden. I think these allegations have sufficient news coverage to be included in this article, like other similar allegations, but they don't need to be needless sensationalistic. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. And I think there is momentum behind the recent allegations and they could be a factor in the political race. It might not be a story that has been covered by the New York Times or Washington Post yet but I think that is because of the overwhelming focus on COVID-19. I think these allegations will eventually be covered by sources you respect. I will keep an eye on the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think my removal of some of the information posted would count as a revert. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I was looking at this on the Joe Biden page. I think time will tell, so I think we agree on that. There's no question the allegations are being made and are being made to the press, so it's a matter of time. I just think it's leading to trouble when we have obstinate editing of the article during the talk page discussion that clearly has no current consensus for it. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately, the talk page discussion is very confusing. I didn't know where to put my comment and so just plopped it down at the end of a section. I wish it was more organized. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't a big deal

but I wanted to point out that imo Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/WHO situation reports does not qualify for WP:R2 since it is not a redirect from the main namespace. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like a cross-namespace redirect, from Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/WHO situation reports to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic cases/WHO situation reports but I guess R2 doesn't apply. I'll restore it. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we could definitely be better about making the documentation more user-friendly. Sorry about being a pain about this; CSD is something I personally try to construe narrowly and I happened across this only by chance. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best that you err on caution. Liz Read! Talk! 13:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for closing this and related discussions. I have not always had the best experiences with ANI, so I am pleased that this was resolved quickly. Hopefully, that'll be the end of it. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Josh Milburn. He had concerns, he aired them, the discussion was over. Let me know if it goes any farther than it did. :And probably the majority of editors here have had negative experiences at ANI. I know I spend less time there than I once did even though it is much less mob-like than it was, say, 5 years ago. Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Manchester Free Library Building, Home to the Spanish Instituto Cervantes"

How can you say this duplicates "Manchester Free Library"? The latter is very short, incomplete, and does not discuss the subsequent complicated history of both the building and the institution, as my article points out at the beginning. Ahmago (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ahmago,
I have restored your article at Draft:Manchester Free Library Building so you can improve it and cut it down to a reasonable size. Please submit it for review at Articles for Creation before moving it to the encyclopedia. If you move it directly into the project, I think it will be tagged again for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes barnstar

The Recent Changes Barnstar
For someone who appears to be keeping busy with patrolling. This is perhaps more appropriate for your volume of activity than my previous offer of coffee, although I hope that the coffee will fuel you for more patrolling. ↠Pine (✉) 06:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Shankos14 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you

Hello Liz. Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse! I was not aware of its existence. Statistologist (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Statistologist,
If it wasn't for the Teahouse, I wouldn't be an editor on Wikipedia. I was very frustrated with Wikipedia when I started editing regularly back in 2013 and I went to the Teahouse with my questions. I got sensible, patient answers which helped me not take setbacks personally. It takes quite a while to get used to working on this project, there are a lot of guidelines and policies that other editors assume you know (which you won't know). Just take it slow and stay away from "controversial" subjects until you get more experience...they are a minefield. Find some topic of interest, like a hobby or favorite TV show or movie, and see if you can improve the article. Start with small changes, like fixing typos. Soon, you can work up to writing new articles. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice! I truly appreciate it, and will try to put it into practice. Statistologist (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock confirmation

Hi Liz,

under the condition that a renamer implements the request before the unblock, would you be fine with me asking a renamer to rename and unblock this user per WP:ROPE?

Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, ~ ToBeFree. It was just a username block. For a TERRIBLE username! If I was a renamer, I would change the name myself and lift the block.
Sorry to be inattentive to my notifications, my mind has been elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, agreed. Thanks and no worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page - Request for reinstating page

Hi Liz, I'm very new to using Wikipedia and currently only use it to ensure work accounts are updated properly. My page on [[10]] was recently deleted. Would it be possible to have this reinstated to draft status so I can work on the content once more for review? Many thanks and much appreciated, Emma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma.smithWTH (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Emma.smithWTH, Draft:SixStarCruises is restored. Liz Read! Talk! 15:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma.smithWTH (talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

132.145.94.169

user:132.145.94.169 is now making death threats on her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already notified WP:EMERGENCY about her. CLCStudent (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, CLCStudent, and I'm sorry you had to put up with that abuse. Liz Read! Talk! 15:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. I am more concerned about the threats they made towards the Wikipedia office. CLCStudent (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtydog

Could you notify me when the Jtydog decision is made? Thanks. Eschoryii (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the decision. Please disregard my request. Eschoryii (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category Talk:People from Palu

Hi Liz, I'm a bit confused why Category talk:People from Palu was deleted, Category:People from Palu clearly exists but in the edit summary it was said that it was the talk page of a nonexistent category. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inter&anthro,
Here's what happened. Category talk:People from Palu, Indonesia was the talk page that should have been deleted. But it was a redirect to Category talk:People from Palu. After I deleted Category:People from Palu, Indonesia, because of a CfD decision, I clicked on the talk page to delete it as well but it took me to the redirected talk page and I deleted that by mistake. I usually catch these redirects but I slipped this time.
Thank you for pointing out my error. I have restored the right talk page and deleted the one that should have been deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiganophyton deletion

H Hi, Liz. Id like to ask why you deleted the page Tiganophyton? Did you go through and understand the Criteria for speedy deletion? I created the redirect to the page I was currently working on. I know that you are an educated person(or probably not?), you COULD HAVE ASKED OTHER USERS FIRST to create the redirect-to page, or just NOMINATED/TAGGED the page first for deletion so that the it could still be contended. Or delicadeza says, you could have messaged first the user who created the page.. I believe that there is a talk page even on redirect pages(or you didnt know?).. Please be careful next time you delete pages. Just saying.. Jp2593 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jp2593,
It was a broken redirect to Tiganophyton karasense. Do not create redirects to blank pages (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page). Broken redirects are deleted, they do not need to be nominated.
Create the target page first, and then create a redirect to it. Do not create a redirect to a nonexistent page. Feel free to create a new redirect once the target page is created. Liz Read! Talk! 17:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat heads up

Hey Liz, as a heads up you'll see a whole bunch more empty Muay Thai cats on today's report; in case you weren't already aware, as spelled out at Talk:Muay Thai#Muay Thai or muay Thai, this is a result of a misguided user attempting a manual mass category tree rename without discussion, and many of the empty ones will eventually be repopulated, so I would hod off on any CSD C1 nominations for those cats for now until the mess is cleaned up. Best as always, UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UnitedStatesian. All I've been doing this morning has been addressing this spelling dispute. I have tagged a lot of empty muay thai categories which I did before seeing your message. It looks like other editors & admins have been reverting some of the category changes, too. I'm just trying to set everything back before this mass change. I believe there is a script that would revert all of an editor's edits but that is too blunt of an instrument for this case.
You're right, this needed to go through CFD, probably speedy rename. I don't know which spelling is correct but I do know this is not how to make these changes across hundreds of articles. Liz Read! Talk! 17:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you went a little overboard with the reversions. Some of Natboss's edits, like Special:Diff/952212240, also worked to subcategorise the articles by gender. I think it would have been better to leave the newly created categories and rename them later according to consensus. The subcategorisation is lost through the reversion. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Väsby IK

Hello!

You deleted this draft. I didn't really create the draft, I just moved its content to Väsby IK HK and since I moved it I stand as the creator in the "View history" tab. After I moved it I changed the redirect to a disambiguation page. After that another uses chose to pursue a real article, and it was then it was moved to draft. After that the user abandoned it and you deleted it. Instead of deletion can you perhaps restore the latest version before the disambiguation was removed?Jonteemil (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And when I mean restoring it I mean at Väsby IK of course. I don't think a disambiguation page will do good in the draft namespace.Jonteemil (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jonteemil,
There is a page at Väsby IK HK. Is that the same subject? A lot of these drafts get moved around a lot. Liz Read! Talk! 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Väsby IK HK was originally at Väsby IK, then I moved it. Väsby IK is the club and Väsby IK HK and Väsby IK FK are two of its sections. Someone tried to make an article of the club and it was then it was moved to draft, and then deleted as an abandoned draft. Please restore my latest version where it was still a disambiguation page.Jonteemil (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored Draft:Väsby IK. This looks like the page you were working on that I deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it wasn't I that was working on it. I just moved the page to Väsby IK HK. Anyhow, I restored the disambiguation page and moved it to mainspace. You may delete the redirect at Draft:Väsby IK. Thanks for the restoring!Jonteemil (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hesse

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 have been busy at work and haven't had time to do anything with the Bert Hesse page. You restored it for me in my sandbox and then deleted it again. Is there a time limit on fixing it in the sandbox? Can you restore it and let me have a week to fix it? Thank you.. I have so much to learn about Wikipedia but I am determined to become better at it.

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.

My page about Bert Hesse was deleted. I am new to Wikipedia. I know there was an old article that was deleted previously deleted however, mine had many references. I would like to have a chance to learn what I did wrong and resubmit it. Can you give me a copy of the page so I can put it in the place where I get feedback/help before posting it live?

Thanks for your patience with me. I want to learn how to use Wikipedia. Michelle2w (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Michelle2w[reply]

I've replied to a similar query here. ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle2w, it looks like Iridescent gave you a very complete response. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Liz, if you are willing to wait till this evening Sydney time, I'll fix all the categories back to the way they were. The time estimate that BHG gave was vastly overinflated. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all the 20th-century articles with surname beginning with "A" and "B". Took me about 20 minutes, once I get going I can probably go faster. I can do this tonight. Please let me know if this is OK. Rolling back for now actually will slow me down (though not by much to be honest). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I'll hold off reverting these if that would be easier for you. It seems like you have an awful lot going on in your life to be concerned about category changes on Wikipedia but if you'd prefer to make these changes, that's fine with me. I'll check back at this time tomorrow and take care of any ones that need to be undone. Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I’m really sorry. I got through a number of article before my head nearly hit the keyboard. It was an emotional day yesterday and I was exhausted. I had to get some sleep. I’m about to recommence the reverts. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, there really isn't an urgency to do this today. It is simpler to revert edits, in part or full, if there haven't been subsequent edits, that's the main reason to get to it soon. But this can get done in the next day or so. It's been a hard week. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I've finished fixing the categories now. It's all done. Just thought you should know. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, Chris. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

User Havsjö still vandalism on article Nguyễn dynasty and also Empire of Vietnam. Please check it and limit this user. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. Please start a discussion on the article talk page, 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Book Without Chapters, can it be undeleted, please guide.

I, Rohitisofalmighty created the above page based on my original work (a novel). You deleted it, stating g8 violation, and I respect your action, as I saw your long esteemed experience in this field (I must be wrong somewhere, I guess). Please tell, how to rectify my mistake (I am willing to make any changes you suggest) and try to be back on Wikipedia. Thanks and regards, Rohit Sharma. Rohitisofalmighty (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rohit,
Actually, I didn't delete your article. I deleted the redirect from your sandbox to the article which, for some reason, you moved into the Wikipedia project space at Wikipedia:A Book Without Chapters. Admin CambridgeBayWeather deleted the article, seeing it as a "test page".
But I have restored the page and moved it to User:Rohitisofalmighty/sandbox. Please submit it through Articles for Creation for evaluation by an experienced editor rather than moving it into the encyclopedia as, in its present state, it will be deleted again if you do so. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp Donkey

Hello Liz. Thank you for the welcome and the helpful links. I see you killed my Swamp Donkey page. It was the first of many that was going to be part of a new topic I was going to author. Possible title would have been "The toxicity of American politics and the impact of polorizing propaganda". It was going to consist of a section on Democrats. A section on Republicans. A section on Liberals. My intention was not to attack anyone. My intention was to provide factual information for future generations. Something you are not going to find in today's media and their archives. It's understandable that a person could think this was a partisan attack being that it's incomplete. Sadly, I have to sleep, articles I am obligated to write and publish, eat, etc. The simple fact is that it is not a attack. I'm taking a honest look at all three, equally. I don't expect people to "enjoy" the information. Knowledge doews not always bring joy. Knowledge and truth has no bias when it comes to emotions. If you dislike something does that make it untrue? I don't like the information anyomre than you or any other. If Wikipedia is to be unbiased and accurate all factual information should be allowed. I could argue that your removal of the page is an attack on Wikipedia You have taken a partisan stance and put your personal view before the actual truth. It's a diservice to the world and an insult to the academica community. Who put you in charge of what knowledge is or is not? Curious to how many actual peer reviewed papers you have written and published. There are 2 types of truths. First is actual proven solid facts. For example, "a tree is called a tree because it is a tree","Trump is president", "I did support Obama", "America used a nuke on Japan", "we live on the planet earth", "when I was a kid, we had a party at my house. a friend of my brother used to pick on me so when he drank too much and passed out on the lawn, I urinated on his head". Second type of truth are what you feel to be true . It's based on youe emotions, feelings, opinions, faith, desires. For example. "I believe in god", "I believe in satan", " the democrats are the best party", "this president sucks". Your decisions fall under the second type. Quit working with your feelings. You won't hear from me on this again. It's included in a book I'm writing and other publications. Just thought I'd help out at Wikipedia. Turns out this place is just a bunch of political hacks putting out half truths. Have a good day and thank you foir your time.Deplorableme (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deplorableme,
I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. It is not for you to post your point of view & ideas of "truth", every claim has to be reliably sourced to academic or mainstream newspapers, books, journals, etc. This isn't about feelings, it's about Wikipedia policy which everyone has to follow, regardless of their personal political viewpoints. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

G8 deletion of Cleantechnica.com ?

Hello Liz, Yesterday I created a stub for a news outlet CleanTechnica and along with it a redirect to it from its Internet domain name, Cleantechnica.com. Such a redirect is handy for other articles that use source citations in the form of the Internet domain name. Some hours later the redirect was deleted (by you) as G8. But as far as I can see, the redirect was pointing to the intended page (and had itself a number of uses). I am always interested in improving my editing skills, so if you could take a moment to explain if I did anything wrong, then I would appreciate it - and if not then all the best. Kind regards, Lklundin (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I went ahead a re-created the redirect, making sure that its pointing is as intended. Lklundin (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lklundin,
The page was a broken redirect, it was pointing to a nonexistent page and was listed on the Broken redirect page. As such, since it couldn't be redirected to a suitable page, it was deleted.
There is no problem with recreating deleted redirects if they now point to a suitable page (one that exists and is appropriate). Also, redirects that have been deleted via deletion discussions at RfD shouldn't be recreated but that wasn't the case here. It now looks like the recreated redirect is fine. I hope that answers your questions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for getting back to me. What maybe happened is that I created the article itself from a redlink and then also created the redirect at that time, so not from a redlink. I will pay better attention next time. Thank you! Lklundin (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem, these things happen all of the time. I work a lot with categories and editors are always creating categories before they need to use them. Like broken redirects, empty categories can always be recreated when they do end up needing them. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back and apology (Category:Academics from Quebec category dispute)

Hello Liz, I am back from a 72 hour absence while I'm blocked. Now I would like to say I am extremely sorry and I was extremely panicking regarding the Category:Academics from Quebec and I was caught disruptive editing by another administrator. But I was very angry on a category dispute regarding Category:Academics from Quebec which is a confused duplicate of another original category titled Category:Academics in Quebec which was originally created. Before I continue speaking from the category dispute. I have avoided a block evasion myself by not getting caught with another IP name 2001 by me, so once again I avoid the block evasion successfully. Now regarding the category dispute and I was very angry regarding Category:Academics from Quebec because it was a confused category from another category was originally created called Category:Academics in Quebec. If it doesn't solve the problem take the category Category:Academics from Quebec to be added at the "Categories for discussion" to downmerge to Category:Academics in Quebec. The Category:Academics in Quebec has the most articles and the disputed category Category:Academics from Quebec only has a few articles but needs downmerge to Category:Academics in Quebec at the Categories for discussion. If it doesn't resolve the category dispute between Category:Academics from Quebec and Category:Academics in Quebec, take the Category:Academics from Quebec to be nominated and downmerge the category at Categories for discussion as my special request. Note most IP cannot nominate categories and put them for discussion. So I once again I am here to say I am sorry I was caught disruptive editing while panicking. Liz, if you read my good comment I hope you will accept my apology and maybe for my request put the Category:Academics from Quebec to be nominated at the Categories for discussion and finally nominate Category:Enteratiners from Montreal to nominated to downmerge to Category:People from Montreal because there is no category containing the Category:Entertainers from (Canadian city). The Entertainers from category is only found on 50 American states including Washington, D.C., for an example Category:Entertainers from Massachusetts, Category:Entertainers from Texas or Category:Entertainers from Florida etc. can be found. Category:Enteratiners from Montreal will be nominated to be downmerged to Category:People from Montreal at the Categories for discussion because there is no Canadian city that has the Entertainers from. So, thank you and I am back from editing Wikipedia from editing from my abscence to avoid a block evasion by myself and I hope you will accept my apology. Also for my request could you nominate the confused category dispute Category:Academics from Quebec to be downmerged to Category:Academics in Quebec at the Categories for discussion and also nominate Category:Enteratiners from Montreal to downmerge to Category:People from Montreal at the Categories for discussion. I will be happy for your reply. I thank you and all the best to you! Sleep well! 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't discern your comment. Could you boil your request down to two sentences, with no bolding? Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try again, for my request could you nominate and add the Category:Academics from Quebec to downmerge to the Category:Academics in Quebec at the Categories for discussion? The disputed confused Category:Academics from Quebec only has one article to be downmerging to Category:Academics in Quebec, and nominate the Category:Entertainers from Montreal to be downmerge to "Category:People from Montreal" at the CFD? Both categroies will be nominated per my request at the CFD. I hope CFD will be solved. Thanks Liz! 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your conciseness. Looking at Category:Canadian academics by province or territory, it seems like both "in" and "from" are used even though they have different meanings. So, a merger could be proposed although there might be objections and a preference expressed for "from" over "in". But I will propose a merger in the morning.
Regarding Category:Entertainers from Montreal, it's a subcategory of Category:People from Montreal by occupation. It's a common occupational category and I don't see the logic in having it merged away into a generic People category. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz for your reply I shortened my comments as many as I can. Did you accept my apology on panic editing while I was caught disruptive editing lead to my block? If so, I don't want to be caught disruptive editing again and I have successfully avoid a block evasion while I'm gone from Wikipedia. I am here to say thank you for assisting me and I will continuously look forward if there is problems with you. Sleep well Liz! 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academics from Ontario category dispute (forgot one more subject)

For my next request please Category:Academics from Ontario to downmerge to Category:Academics in Ontario at the Categories for discussion. This is also another confused disputed category from the original Category:Academics in Ontario. Category:Academics from Ontario only has one article too, but needs downmerge to Category:Academics in Ontario per my request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLAIM

Information icon Hello, I'm MehmetFarukSahin. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I've reverted an edit of yours [11] that changed a neutral tone to the word "claim". Which among the words to be avoided per WP:CLAIM. Thank you and have a nice day. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, MehmetFarukSahin. It's odd you know about Wikipedia policy as a brand-new account. This is your second edit! Liz Read! Talk! 16:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation: Tara Reade

Hi Liz,

I'm not the perfect editor to bring this to you, I have only a few minutes so please bear with me. At the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page, Reade has been disallowed any mention of "corroborating" accounts even though they are well covered by the top sources, such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/29/sexual-allegations-against-joe-biden-corroborators/.

Just as with the Biden page and addition of the allegation there in late March, the material was removed, and an RfC started within minutes. The removal does not appear to have had consensus, as most editors find the sourcing valid and the material DUE. Per BLP, this material is required, and from what I understand, the material should be returned and treated as an emergency, overriding any attempt to postpone it by an RfC. Right now there is only rebuttal from one side. I'm at work and cannot babysit this, but I know from WP:BLP that this requires special attention. I am also pinging Slim Virgin in case you are busy. I'm hoping someone can please look into this ASAP. Today is the very day most people will be looking at the page, which is due to Biden's appearance on MSNBC this morning. It is an outrage that our coverage right now excludes all mention of the corroboration, but covers Biden's in full. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan47, there is an RfC going on right now about including this material in the article. I'm not going to go in and unilaterally overrule an ongoing RfC (which seems to be leaning in support of your stance). I don't believe this is an emergency and, on Wikipedia, we err on the side of caution when editing BLPs.
Also, this is the only subject you've been editing for over 3 weeks now. I encourage you to spend your time editing other subjects so you don't lose perspective. When one becomes overly invested in a dispute, one can make mistakes that get one in trouble. Take a step back, realize that this article is not going to disappear and collaborate with others to improve it over time. As long as Biden is a candidate in an upcoming election, readers will be interested in this article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Liz. Helpful input. petrarchan47คุก 21:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ckuhlmanns (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of problematic BLP ?

Hello Liz,

Some days ago you kindly provided me with help regarding a deletion of a redirect.

I was wondering if you could also help with the following.

A couple of weeks ago I became aware of a BLP that I considered to be entirely inappropriate.

In spite of the article having mostly (or entirely) to do with real-life crime accusations, it did not seem to fit our (narrow) criteria for speedy deletion.

So I brought it up on the notice board where another editor made an agreeing albeit surprising argument and nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive301#Martin_Tripp

However, around the time when the waiting period had lapsed, another editor removed the nomination (without otherwise changing the article or explaining why it should stay): [12].

The user who first nominated the article for deletion then brought it up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Tripp

To the surprise of myself and several others who supported the deletion, the nominator, the editor who took down the original nomination and a third, apparent SPA are arguing that the article should be merged into another article.

Since then nothing is happening - meaning that the problem with the crime accusations continues to appear on the BLP article.

I feel that this is inappropriate, but have far more experience in creating than deleting articles.

Since you seem to be both helpful and knowledgeable on the topic of article deletion, I take the liberty of suggesting that you have a look at this and make your voice heard.

Thank you for your time. Lklundin (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lklundin,
Thanks for the compliment but I actually don't participate much in AfD discussions although I do frequently delete pages tagged for speedy deletion, especially categories and redirects.
But I looked at the AfD discussion and I don't see any editor arguing that this page should be kept. The AfD should be closed in the next day or so, either as Delete or Merge and if it is Merge, you should have the ability to influence what information is included. Most of the unsourced allegations, here and here, have been removed. I can see why you objected to the original article.
I am concerned though that the page creator, who hasn't been active for months, was never notified of the AfD discussion by Springee who nominated the article for deletion. The page creator should always be invited to participate in a deletion discussion, even if they are apparently absent. Liz Read! Talk! 14:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, under normal circumstances I would notify editors about a AfD (not that I've done many). However, in this case the original editor looks way to much like a paid or otherwise NOTHERE editor [[13]]. Since they were apparently gone I didn't bother. That said, absent proof of my suspicious I guess I should have. If they are really gone then nothing will come of the notice. Springee (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a formality if the editor is no longer editing, but it's just good practice. Thanks for the explanation, Springee! Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Category:Black elite

Hello, @Liz:...

I've been working on the abovementioned page since you nominated it for a speedy deletion. I thought that perhaps you could look at it and see if you thought that it was alright now. I would've removed your notice myself, but I thought that that would be presumptuous of me.

Here's hoping that you're well.

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.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, O.ominirabluejack,
The category was tagged simply because it was empty. It is no longer empty so the tag has been removed. You were smart not to remove the tag, page creators are not supposed to remove speedy deletion tags. Good luck with your editing! Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for telling me, and for nominating it to begin with. I made it and promptly forgot about it, and probably wouldn't have gotten back to completing it if you hadn't.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Liz, hope you’re having a great day, I have a question. So for a while now I have been updating popular singers discography pages, I have been updating the number of amount of “Singles” being released under the artists. All of a sudden I am getting a message on my talk page saying I’m being suspected of vandalism. Now all I’ve been doing is just updating the numbers for some odd reason other users are reverting the edits. I’m getting a bit confused because all I’ve been doing is updating the number of the correct “lead singles” released under the artists name... other users have been combining “lead singles” with “featured singles“... now I’m not sure if that’s the correct way the discography page template is supposed to be set up (categorically by lead singles only or lead singles plus featured singles combined) I had just assumed lead singles only in the template since it’s specifically the artists singles being released under their name/label, and featured singles are just singles that aren’t technically being released under their name or label since they are just a feature on a song. I also do include the featured singles number in the description. Hopefully all of this makes sense, please feel free to take a look at my edit history and see for yourself. Hopefully you’ll be able to give me answer to this since it’s a bit frustrating. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pillowdelight,
First, the editor you should be discussing these problems with is the editor who posted the warning on your user talk page. Clearly, your edits have aroused some suspicion and it's the editors who are posting the warnings who would know what behavior of yours this was. I know it's natural to get defensive when criticized but direct communication is always the quickest way to find out what the problem is. You are a relatively new editor and while it may at first be uncomfortable, collaboration on Wikipedia typically involves working with other editors who might have a different understanding than your own of best practices. If you don't work out these misunderstandings, you could end up in an edit war that can easily lead to a block on your editing which is what you want to avoid. And if the editor is more experienced than you, which is the case here, this is an opportunity to correct any mistakes you might be making.
I'm not an expert in this field and the only guidance I could find is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Discography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discographies which are not very detailed. If you have general questions about editing biographies of singers, I'd ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies but it doesn't seem to be a very active project.
I hope this helps. In general, it always helps to ask advice from an editor who is experienced in the field you are working in. That's how we all learn best practices here on the project. And please know that even editors who have been editing for decades still get users who come to talk pages with questions about their edits. Liz Read! Talk! 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS FOR YOUR CONCERN

Hey Liz, thank you for your concern in my talk page, actually I have done broad research on Wikipedia and read a lot about the encyclopedia hence I have a broad knowledge on it. Concerning the article about Kipchumba Murkomen it is clear that the article is posing personal threat to the subject calling him a thief. The article also does not reliable independent sources. Thats why I nominated it. I don’t have another account, in fact if I had one I would have cited it or else I would be accused of using multiple accounts. Please consider those since I believe you are an experienced Wikipedian December200 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't need to be deleted, it has existed in one form or another for two years. The vandalism just needed to be reverted. There's no reason to delete an article along with its history if you can just remove the damage that has been done. And yes, the article needs to some work to get in better shape.
Thanks for the response. Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID

By following a "thank" notification today, that lead me to Natureium and then eventually Chris' page, I noticed Special:Diff/952733693. I wanted to let you know that I'm sorry for your loss. This also gives more context to your recent query about my mother's status. Thanks again for your concerns, —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

If I was running a RfA, and I said, categorically, that blocked editors couldn't remove their block notices, it would go south quicker that Kid Sisco  :) all the best, serial # 17:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Why don't you go for that RfA? Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My union don't approve the pay scale  :) anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Take care! serial # 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Marchjuly#Edits to Charles Hazlewood's page

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Marchjuly#Edits to Charles Hazlewood's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi Liz. Perhaps you or one of your talk page watchers can help out Henri of Wells. She tried to update Charles Hazelwood, an article written about her husband, but was reverted by another editor; I've tried to advise her about COI, etc., but she seems want fast results or to have the article deleted. She seems to have the best intentions, but just doesn't quite understand how Wikipedia works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it, Marchjuly. Liz Read! Talk! 15:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liz. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mysticism

Thank you for commenting on my proposal for a WikiProject Mysticism at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council. I suggested we leave a template at the top of articles informing Wikipedians of proposals for new WikiProjects, but I was told that information about WikiProjects should go on the talk pages. I have left information on the talk pages of articles relevant to mysticism, as well as on the talk pages of related WikiProjects, about my proposal. Before I go I have one question - how many members do you think a WikiProject needs to stay active? Thank you for your interest in my proposal. Vorbee (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee, I don't think you should put templates on articles or articles' talk page with this type of request. The type of WikiProject templates that are put on article talk pages are assessments, not invitations. I think the written invitations that you put on, like at Talk:Kabbalah, are okay. But know that unless an article is heavily edited, these talk page notices might not be seen very soon. It might be better to survey the article's edit history and see if there are some primary editors (who have recently edited) and invite them to your WikiProject on their user talk page. And when you see the WikiProjects associated with an article like this, you post an invitation on those WikiProject's talk page.
There isn't a set number of editors for a WikiProject but I think 6-8 editors would be ideal. This number would allow for editor's changing schedules and fluctuating levels of interest. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Vorbee (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Just wanted to drop a note that the bot is now approved and functional (and works as expected). Since you are one of the primary admins dealing with empty categories, you can choose to patrol Category:Empty categories with no backlinks to find categories that are not used in any manner and might be appropriate for G6/C1/CfD, feel free to drop a note to anyone else who might want to patrol the category. If you'd like to see some more features relating to the bot, do let me know. Good luck! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up, QEDK. It's appreciated. I hope any feedback I offer is helpful.
It looks like Category:Empty categories with no backlinks are all category redirects and there must be tens of thousands more of them. I guess they will eventually be tagged? Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer it to be all categories? I am running it for now with redirect categories for now because I want to exhaust one type of category first and then skip it next (and because the template asks admins to delete them if they don't have any use). After the first run tomorrow (which will take a while due to the sheer number of categories), if you want we can move on to tagging more categories after dropping a note at WP:BOTN. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QEDK, I don't really understand how it works or how to answer your question. I'm used to tagging the empty categories on the Database list every day and deleting them if they are empty 7 days later. It's one of my daily tasks I try to keep up with. I don't know if the bot will now replace that database list & my work or if it's just another assist in the process on top of our existing efforts.
I just know that your bot should not tag redirect categories or those that are the subject of a CfD discussion and I hope you have built that into the bot. It also needs to notify the page creator that the empty category has been tagged (but not yet deleted). Those are the three steps I'm concerned about. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot deletes categories that meet C1 criteria automatically, so tagged > 7 days, not a category redirect and the rest of the criteria. The bot does not replace the list, it will still be there. It won't tag any category redirects, or CfD-ed categories, only the ones that explicitly meet the C1 criteria. However, the bot does not inform category creators of the deletion because 1) it's not compulsory 2) no one raised it during the approval process and I did not make the feature. It's certainly a possible feature but it will require modification to the current mandate so it would need a WP:BOTN discussion. If you think that the bot should do this, I'll start a new discussion but until then it won't inform any editors. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of User:Liz/Whiteboard8

JFYI, your sandbox page User:Liz/Whiteboard8 is in following non-hidden categories:

which may be unintentional. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure that is because of the templates I posted there, andrybak. Thanks for the notice, I'll see if I can remove them. Liz Read! Talk! 13:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Liz! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

  1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
  2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
  3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
  4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curse language

Hey Liz, hope you’re doing well. I wanted to reach out to you and ask about the policies of curse language on Wikipedia? I have seen several occasions of a certain user who I have seen more than once now use curse words when editing on here. Their username is Livelikemusic, please see Chromatica as they refer to as saying their or another users visual editor is a “b****”. Several months ago I had also noticed this same user had also referred to other users editing as “s*** editing” when the user was insisting they were correct. This type of behavior should not be used on here whatsoever, Other users and myself should not be seeing this at all on here. I am a Christian and I would like something done about this. I do believe maybe a block would be suitable, as I have stated before this behavior seems to be very common with this user. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pillowdelight,
Regarding this editor and this article, I could only find one edit where they refer to the editing software, Visual Editor, not an user, as a bitch (meaning, it's a problem). If it had been directed at a person, I could have warned them about personal attacks but it wasn't directed at any individual. I do not think this is egregious misconduct and doesn't qualify as a personal attack. This is usually required to block an editor for incivility, they have to be incivil to or attacking another editor.
If you have ever had any "curse words" directed at you, please let me know along with a link to the specific edit. I have to be able to look at the individual edit to see what the problem is. I'm sorry you are offended by the occasional use of coarse language and I hope it doesn't keep you from participating on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP is repeating attacks on same page, so more may need deleting, if you can help. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Never mind, Ponyo got it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospitality companies of South America question about deletion

Hi, just wanted to know what the reasons are to deleting the categories. Were they empty, or only a few entries in each? Or is there a better category tree that you are recommending? What is happening to the articles that were in the hospitality categories? Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Funandtrvl,
Category:Hospitality companies of South America was just tagged as an empty category (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. Unpopulated categories). If it is still empty in 7 days, it will be deleted. If any appropriate pages are put in the category over the next week, the tag will be removed. I'm not recommending an alternative category, just informing you that this one is empty. I don't know what has happened to any articles that were in this category as Wikipedia doesn't maintain that kind of record...category changes are in an article's history, not the category history.
It looks like the parent category Category:Hospitality industry in South America isn't really being utilized but Category:Hotels in South America by country is active. You can compare how the South American Hospitality category is being used by looking at Category:Hospitality companies by continent for comparison. Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I thought it was because it's empty. Just trying not to create categories outside of the normal tree. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSP Inc.

1) Read the WP:ROLLBACK policy. You are an administrator so I would assume that you know when to use this tool and when not to use it. Misusing this tool instead of manually writing an edit summary is unacceptable especially on the part of an administrator who is supposed to set the example.

2) RSP Inc has no connection with Running with Scissors (company). This is a redirect that should have never been created in the first place. The least you can do is deleting the redirect page altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.253.101 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~). I would assume you'd know this.
Second, Riedel Software Productions (RSP) is mentioned throughout the Running with Scissors (company) article. It is a logical redirect.
I encounter people that randomly change redirects to blank pages almost daily. It is inappropriate to change a valid redirect to direct to a blank page. If you disagree with a redirect nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, do not change the redirect to a blank page as its target. I would assume you would know this, too. Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC.

Current events

Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests.

Drive and blitz reports

March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020.

Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

g13

I restored Draft:Mark G. Lawrence. After a little fixing , it would surely have passed afd as wp:prof;also Draft:Romano Pirola .who ,though the article is very sketchy, is OA. ; alo, Klaus-Dieter Liss:


and Adobe Capativate prime LMS as a product of a major company would surely be worth a redirect.


DGG' ( talk ) 06:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)and[reply]

Augustinian categories

Hello,

Although I agree with you that emptying categories was a mistake (because I was not familiar with the Categories for Discussion), I think your reversions of my edits are unconstructive and did more harm than good.

Categories that have been untouched for 14 years does not necessarily mean that they had "stood the test of time", it may only mean that nobody has looked at them as well.

You have reverted to, for example, having churches (buildings) in a category that is meant for organizations.

You should take a closer look at what you are reverting and check if it is necessary. As you like to stress "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." Right? Kaklen (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== == This is about a page i made i need help?

This is about a page i made i need help?
I created a page called "ZVZ" and it got removed,
I don`t understand the reason:
Deletion log 04:02 Liz talk contribs deleted page Category:ZVZ ‎(G6: Obviously created in error)
Where did i create an error?

--Boss GamerYT (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boss GamerYT,
You put article content on a Category page. That is not what categories are for. They are navigational tools to organize pages and do not have content on them. It looks like you are at work at Draft:ZVZ so you do not any deleted content restored. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vidgo Deletion

Hello, Liz!

Four years ago, the Vidgo page was deleted for being introduced "too soon," which is clearly the case and was rightfully deleted. This time around, I planned on making a full Wikipedia entry with all of the appropriate information; however, when I returned the next day (today), it was already deleted. What I posted yesterday was very bare-bones and had little content but I was hoping to add much of that content today and over the next few days. How can I get this entry reinstated? Do I need to add some sort of "Draft" tag to keep it from getting deleted until I've had the chance to make a complete entry?

Thanks,

John

Hello, Jharris327,
I have moved your draft to User:Jharris327/sandbox. When you think it is in decent shape, please submit it to Articles for Creation to get it reviewed. If you move it directly into the encyclopedia, it will likely get deleted again. If you have questions, please visit the the Teahouse. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, Liz! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jharris327 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection help

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.

Thank you for fixing the broken link in my article contribution. However, I would like to apprise you of the fact that the person about whom I contributed the article about is named Anuj Khanna Sohum, which I have mistakenly mentioned as Anuj Kumar Sohum in the draft header initially. I have also included several citations that support this fact. Since I am not so sure about editing the header, I put a redirect so as to provide the name match for the person. --Anthony. William.Hyde (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disambiguation-stop

Hello! I saw that you removed my CSD tag from Category:Disambiguation-stop and I'm wondering why. From my investigation everything points towards this being a category that has only ever been used by the now deleted template {{Disambiguation-stop}} where someone simply forgot to delete this category when implementing Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_10#Template:Disambiguation-stop. I've reread the category page, the TfD, as well as looked through all links to the page and a source search to pick up if there is some other mention/use of the category and found nothing. Just because the TfD is old doesn't mean that we shouldn't finish the cleanup. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trialpears,
A couple of points. First, the category has an Empty Category tag on it that asks for the category to not be deleted even if it is empty. And there are only 2 options for speedy deletion of categories, the primary one being CSD C1, which is for empty categories. This category has a tag that prevents deletion on that basis. The only other option is for speedy renames and you are not looking to rename or merge this category.
The way categories typically get deleted is by proposing it for deletion at Categories for Discussion. You have some good reasons on your side so post your proposal at CFD and the category will likely be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that it was not eligible for C1, but I tried to delete it under G8 which includes the following sentence categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. The category in question has only been added using the Template {{Disambiguation-stop}} and said template was deleted at TfD. I've used {{db-templatecat}} many times before to delete categories associated with templates deleted at TfD and have never had any problem. If you still don't think it satisfy G8 I guess I'll take it to CfD. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the C* options, all of the G* options apply to categories as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

(Following discussion here.) So, I just nominated you for the Strategy transition process Design Group, per Iridescent's recommendation. I hope that's okay. (I would have asked first, but there's less than 20 minutes remaining in the nominations period, and I'm hoping that at least some people in the group will be from the community's side of things. If you don't want to do it, you can always just not accept the nomination.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Richard_J._Eden

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.

From: BernardUK 10:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have now had a new version of the article reviewed by User:Sulfurboy and I am taking my questions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.

Bernardboase 17:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleting maintenance categories generated by temples

See also this posting to your talk page on the same subject on 16 April 2017 -- to which you did not reply before the end of June 2017 (diff)

I have ask you twice now on two different category talk pages. See

The first one on 18 May 2020 and the second one on 22 June 2020‎.

Why have you not replied to either request explaining why you put the categories up for deletion? -- PBS (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, Liz - I realize the notice is automatic and doesn't distinguish between site banned sock accounts or users, but what do you think about adding an instruction in the code to not add the notice "if"? We have the same issue in AfC and NPP as well. Maybe it would be easier if CU/admins added a hidden site-ban notice at the top of the UTP page (like what archive bot uses) when they close an investigation or community discussion? Atsme Talk 📧 16:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who have reduced their editing levels due to WP:FRAM has been nominated for discussion

Category:Users who have reduced their editing levels due to WP:FRAM has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. No offense intended, but I think its usefulness has subsided. BD2412 T 02:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request Undelete/Restoration of "Steve Perillo" Article

The following action was taken: 15:37, 19 February 2016 Liz talk contribs deleted page Steve Perillo (Expired PROD, concern was: No real assertion of notability; business owner of non-notable company with a few passing mentions in media articles not actually about him) (thank)

In terms of notability:

Parodied on Saturday Night Live by Adam Sandler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbwlC2B-BIg

General Press mention: https://njmonthly.com/articles/jersey-travel/perillo-tours-steve-perillo-tour-de-force/

PGME1 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2020 (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.

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Aberdeen

Could you please undelete this category, although it was empty for over 7 days there is discussion at Talk:Cults, Aberdeen#Village or Suburb about this. Given that the person who objected hasn't replied for over a week now I think I should re add the categories and if they think the category/classification as being inappropriate they can file a CFD, see also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like?, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report.

Bri is pretty much away now.

I'd just like a 2nd opinion on whether

  • we really just missed something big, and i need to spend lots of time on it.
  • we didn't miss much of anything, but it's worth keeping, or
  • we didn't really miss much, but it's not worth keeping.

Sincerely, Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!


RevDel request

Hello, I am messaging you because you appear in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. I would like to request revdel of two offensive edits on Agnes Chow ([14], [15]) and also suggest the IP user be blocked. Thank you, Citobun (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion for advertising

HI MA'AM so you deleted my article because it was tagged for speedy deletion but i made the necessary changes to make it not seem like an advertisement and added that i was not paid to do it maam please make it come back i worked hard to make its and i researched well about writing a wiki page before making it please tell me the changes i need to make — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavyachaudhary555 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of World Award for Sustainability page

Hi Liz,

Why did you delete this page? [16]

There's another page linking to it, and the link is broken. That's what got me wondering what happened to the page. I am further puzzled by the lack of entry in the log. According to the above page, the deletion happened 15:57, 5 December 2019, and there is no entry at that time.

See [17]

I hope you can shed some light on this situation. Thanks.

Feeline (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz&oldid=973297905"