User talk:Liz

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions: 1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

It's Summer!

This page was last edited or modified by Shrug02 (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!}

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.

Talk pages to archive

How do I move my user talk to archive? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Clariniie! Saw you question. If you look at the top-right of your talk page, you should see a 'More' tab. in there is a 'Move' link. Click that, and a box appears asking you where to move it to; you want to add '/Archive 1' to your user talk page, which is prefilled in. Choose a reason from the drop-down (e.g. 'Archive talk page'). Then, hit the blue button. Th page gets moved to its new title; your actual talk page is now free to be restarted, like driven snow. Or I could do it for you if you want. Hope that helps! SerialNumber54129 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Storm (webzine) (2nd nomination)

I appreciate the advice you have provided at this AfD. I do want to ask though: are there any avenues you'd recommend if I would like to improve sourcing or content on an article but can't find any myself? I'm just wondering, so I know what to do in the future. Thanks. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Want to request copy of deleted article

I wrote the Dale Wood article that was recently deleted and just wanted to request a copy of the deleted article. Starlighsky (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have the same issue for my deleted article for Potech. I also requested this earlier from @Liz. Really hope this is feasible! TechPaths (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Starlighsky (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of article regarding "Prometheus Society"

Hi, I saw you recently deleted the article on the Prometheus ("high-IQ") Society and was wondering if there was a specific reason for the deletion of if there was some sort of copyright issue with the article. Thanks! (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2024 (EST)

ANI comment

I don't know if it's possible to connect a Wikipedia editor with an account on Reddit - no, it should not be done (unless the editor has explicitly made that connection on-wiki). If you see it, you should remove it and email oversight to have it suppressed. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

About this, I considered doing this myself but was unsure partly because Liz didn't do anything but especially since it sounded like User:GorillaWarfare or others had dealt with it last time but that diff was still working although I guess it's probably just because it was missed.

More significantly, if I had done it myself I would have considered that removing the offsite username (especially since the site is mentioned) and post on the named offsite was more important than removing the (indirect) URL to that site. But I see you've left the username and full text of the post but just removed the URL.

I'm a bit surprised by this, were it not for a minor mistake, it would be fairly trivial for someone to find out what was being referred to by the username, is it just because of the mistake that you didn't remove the username or was mentioning it okay? Likewise the post doesn't seem to be indexed by Google at this time but I assume it will be. And once it is, it will be trivial to find what's being referred to by just searching for the text of the post. (Perhaps it's already findable by the site's internal search although when I tried it didn't seem to work.)

I always thought that what mattered was making the connection between a Wikipedia editor and something offsite rather than the URL per se. So accusing the other editor of being that offsite poster was the problem rather than just the URL. And in fact a general URL to the thread would likely be okay provided there was no explicit or implicit accusation that some specific Wikipedian was involved. I can see it's maybe fairly difficult or impossible now given all that's happened to mention that site without linking it to a Wikipedian, so why the URL might need to be scrubbed from Wikipedia.

Just surprised that the username and full text of the post is okay. Even more since the username is different from the wikipedia one. (Although I'd always thought thought that since IIRC I've never made the connection, it's not acceptable for others to mention there is a Nil Einne on any other site or any of their activity even without providing a URL.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually while writing this someone else dealt with the username so guess it's just something you missed or didn't consider. Still wonder about the full text post though. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I just missed the username. The full quote isn't necessarily as useful without the URL or the username (i.e. there's no context to find the original post). Primefac (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Salt Page

Hi, is it possible to request salting for Ruth Pelupessy article, as it has been target of sockpuppets and has been deleted 3 times under G5. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Should've been deleted

Wrestling school and Wrestling School were both supposed to have been deleted when you closed this discussion (the third target was deleted but recreated two days later; now up for speedy). I'm assuming this has to do with me not tagging the redirects properly, though I did do so as soon as I saw your comment and that was four days before closure so I'm not 100% whether that should affect it. So can they be deleted? And is there a speedy criterion for items that should've been deleted by discussion but weren't for some reason? I thought there was something like that, but I couldn't find it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ha Khel Savalyancha deletion

Hello, Liz,

How are you?

Thank you for your constant work and help at AfD.

Sorry to bother but there are a few things I'd like to add about that deletion.

Firstly, and most obviously, I recreated and redirected the page, as I was told many times I could in such cases, and as you indeed mention in your closing statement.

But, secondly, are you sure Delete was the consensus? I see one clear Delete. One non-updated Delete that might be have been considered moot. And, even counting the nominator's default !vote as a Delete, they admit: "No issue with a redirect". Even though I would have thought that to keep the page was the best possible outcome, I would say that a redirect/merge to the article about the director might have been considered, at least to keep the history of the page and allow use of found sources.

Thirdly, I do not mean to re-play the AfD here, but two users (myself included) thought the claims for notability were rather solid: the film was released, involved a notable cast, director, and music director (verified with sources). Received 2 local awards (verified with sources). Was mentioned in various books about the genre, in encyclopaedias, etc. Was a commercial hit (2 sources). Was deemed to have offered a memorable role for one of the actors (one source). Received, although not an English-speaking film, coverage in English. If that is not enough, sure, but then I estimate that more than 2/3 of articles about pre-internet non-English films should be deleted (I obviously don't think they should). In my view, this could establish an unfortunate precedent. A Deletion consensus is, in my view, when !voters agree or prove convincingly that, considering the required standards, the page should be deleted. Was this the case? For me, again (this time, in terms of content), no.

Lastly, the source analysis. You mention "But the source analysis is not successfully rebutted." I stopped replying after the last "source analysis", true, but added a note. I could have challenged the assessment yet another time (as I had explained before its formatting as a list, the idea that nothing in the coverage was significant is for me plainly absurd and exaggerated) but when I did so in similar cases, some relisters/administrators (clearly, not you) accused me of bludgeoning (I obviously disagree that it can be called that way, but that does not incite me to do so). For instance, I am truly puzzled when I read "Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage" when TWO reliable sources precisely state the film was a super-hit and when I just have happened to mention one..... It gives me the impression that words are useless and/or meaningless. Or the self-contradictory statement "passing mention of film critically and commercially acclaimed and one of the actor Jairam played memorable role in highest grossing film of the time. Not significant coverage on the film." (!!!!!) I was flabbergasted to read such a statement. I don't wish to be rude but it's like saying "The accused is found non-guilty of manslaughter, they only did stab 12 times the victim to death ". I mean, I could have said (or SHOUTed), respectively: "BUT YOU HAVE THE SOURCE for that" or "BUT, precisely, THIS IS what is SIGNIFICANT!! " But would that have been heard? I had indicated some sourced claims on the pages were significant per se but apparently that was not taken into account. It's almost a problem of semantics. Significant can but does not necessarily mean two dedicated chapters in a book.....Sorry, I am rambling. To clarify, I am sure the user(s) who wanted this deleted are of good faith but I am wondering if their interpretation of the requirements/words/sources really led us to an improvement in the present case.

As I know that you know and as other contributors regularly mention, It takes a lot of time to look for sources and format and insert them in the pages or even to present them at AfD, much much much more than to dismiss them after having a look at the presented sources and saying "Nothing significant" (with the nice added touch "as expected", that I found rather offensive, by the way), or "not RS", "no SIGCOV"... and when some of the said sources are, in my humble view, obviously and self-evidently significant, it's very discouraging. I am not talking about myself in the present case because User: Morekar did all the work on that page.

Anyway, thank you for your work and patience. If you think a Relist will be helpful and other users will voice their views, or that overturn your own Delete to Merge or Redirect, in order to keep page history, is acceptable, I would obviously support that. But, to clarify, I am not requesting them, really not, and my message is rather to explain why I stopped replying to similar analysis and comments that I found inaccurate at AfD (sometimes even to replies or questions). I don't know if that is possible but would it be inappropriate for the closer or relister to indicate that some of the arguments, in such cases, are self-contradictory? Or at least to ask for a clarification? More specifically, regarding what "significant" means (both in "significant changes" and in "significant coverage"). Thank you again. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC) PS- I realise I recreated the R page with the alt. spell. Ha Khel Savalyancha; apologies, that's confusing and was not on purpose.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

On second thoughts and because I am now trying to relocate the then-identified sources, can I ask you to refund the article where you think best so that I might merge the content into the page about the director? I will recreate the page with the other spelling but I would very much appreciate if that was done trough a restoration of the page (even if that is to immediately redirect it) with the page history restored and the original talk page history. Such a restoration would be helpful both for the merge (as it will provide the content without having to create a new page and transfer the text and sources, etc) and to preserve the history of a page that will be recreated anyway (as a redirect). Thank you again and sorry for the trouble. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

About You

Hello Liz, You are the best to editing. make sure you been in the Wiki since 2013 after 11 years. Right.. 77.77.219.127 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi could you please help me out?

Hi. I'm posting here what I posted on FormalDude's page. Please forgive me for not being super Wiki-literate yet. I was just looking for some help and noticed that FormalDude isn't an admin so I found your page, Liz:

Hi FormalDude. Could you take a look at the NYU Law Review's page? This user "Randykitty" for some reason feels the need to erroneously remove our logo from our page. You reversed him once already last year but he just removed the logo again (for the same reason you'd reversed him) claiming the logo isn't being used by the Law Review. Here is evidence of the Law Review using the logo that's on the Wiki page (that Randykitty will for some reason try to remove again): https://www.instagram.com/nyulawreview/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/nyulr/ https://twitter.com/nyulawreview Nyulrlogo (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Nyulrlogo,

Why aren't you discussing this disagreement with Randykitty? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly extensive plagiarism/copyright problem

Hi, Liz. I already reported this at the copyright problems board, but I wanted to bring it to your attention since it appears this could affect any number of articles (I'd guess anywhere up to 100, but it could be more), and I'd like to discuss possible next steps with an administrator whose experience and judgment I trust. I think I've stumbled upon a huge pool of taxonomic articles which were just completely plagiarized front to back. They were created by FoCuSandLeArN, who was permanently banned in 2017 for paid editing (what a stand-up editor).

So far, I've found Anguillicoloides papernai, Chaceon crosnieri, Chaceon bicolor, and Chaceon atopus, and this is just from maybe 10 minutes of looking. FoCuSandLeArN ostensibly created literal thousands of taxonomic articles, and I don't know how I'm possibly going to sift through all of them. The copyright violations aren't subtle, but for each one, it means I have to go digging around for the full text of the article's source (it's usually just sourced to one journal article but without a link to full text), confirm it's 100% plagiarized, and then nominate it under CSD. They clearly had no hangup with doing this so blatantly, and the only edits to them since tend to be maintenance like categorization, so I'm guessing it's in dozens of other articles if not many more than that. Do you have any advice? (Edit: I know you're out of town right now, by the way; just wanted to put it here because this is likely a medium-term issue). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It would make sense in this instance to file a case at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. The usual guidance there is to have five examples of copyright violations to establish a pattern that justifies filing a case. However, based on your finding of four blatant copyright violations from an undisclosed paid editor, it is highly likely the copying was used for padding edit counts and camouflaging the paid edits and so many more exists. If a pattern is established that this editor's taxonomic articles are all blatant copyright violations, then we can look at presumptive deletion. And thank you for digging into this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Article restored/undeltion

kindly request to restore the article on State Karate Association of Bihar kindly check and request to restore it. Thanks Dbgbr (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Dbgbr,

I don't know what page you are talking about can you give me a link to the deleted page? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Karate_Association_of_Bihar Dbgbr (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dbgbr

Thank you for the link. This article was deleted through an AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Karate Association of Bihar, so I can't restore it as if it was a G13 deleted draft or a PROD'd article. Your best bet to create a new version in Draft space and submit it for review to AFC. If you object to my closure of the discussion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review but I think your time is better spent or writing a better article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank You Dbgbr (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

reliable sources / media

Looking for list of media publications and with rating on its reliability. Want to use to check for wp:rs. Wofgane (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Wofgane,

I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. I won't help you write an article. There are other resources on Wikipedia to help you with that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Liz, do not need to write an article. Need guidance to resources on WP that have list of reliable media publications that to refer and check Wofgane (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a list of sources that have been evaluated for reliability. Take care in using this to read through all of the commentary to understand the context of the evaluation for any particular source. For those not listed there, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or search the archives for previous discussions. -- Whpq (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for this. Appreciate your help. Wofgane (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ha Khel Sawalyancha

Hello Liz,

I was wondering if you had seen my messages above. If you have no time for a refund or, better, for restoring the page as a redirect and its history, would you please consider a relist, then? The page would be thus restored automatically and I could extract the deleted informations and text. After all, the AfD had only 2 resists and only 4 !voters and more users might be interested to express their opinion. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mushy Yank,

I saw you left me a very long message which I haven't sorted through yet. I've been traveling since last Wednesday and am surrounded by relatives so my editing time has shrunk and happens in small bursts of time. But thank you for reminding me, I start replying to messages at the bottom of the page and can miss some messages in the middle. I will respond over the next few days. I'll be back home on the 10th. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Liz, thank you, please take your time, there’s really no rush, at all; enjoy your time with your family. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Professional wrestling school

McPhail has asked for a deletion review of Professional wrestling school. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Cryptic,

Thank you for letting me know. You're so good about these notifications when editors forget to post them, thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hunt Hill

Hallo Liz, Could you let me have a look at this which you recently deleted after it was PRODded? I don't like to see British mountains disappear, and have found a few refs already which might be enough to rescue it. Thanks. PamD 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PamD,

Explicit actually deleted this PROD'd article but I can check it for you. This was actually a hill in New York state, U.S. and the entire content was:

• "Hunt Hill is a mountain located in the Catskill Mountains of New York south of Andes. Hemlock Knoll is located north, and Mary Smith Hill is located southwest of Hunt Hill."

I can restore it for you if you'd like but there might be more than one Hunt Hill out there. We've had a lot of PROD'd articles about geographic features in NY state, apparently years ago, an editor wrote an article on every hill, mountain, lake and stream there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it was one of those links in List of Marilyns in the British Isles which should have been a red link anyway - I do wish people would check their links, realising that just because it goes blue it doesn't mean it's right. Happens a lot with cast lists and sports teams. I might yet put together a stubby little page for the Scottish Hunt Hill, but will take care to avoid confusion with the NY one. Thanks. PamD 19:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Revival of Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18

please revive the page Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 as show has started on television and i would add all necessary references alongside not duplicating any type of same page. Kaustubh42 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Extention of IP block

Hi Liz, You had blocked the 103.38.17.0/24 for a week based on an ANI report I had filed. Though it looks like the user is still actively disrupting pages from IPs within it.

Can the block be extended? I think a more apt period would be about an year or so as the range is exclusively tied to this user and their brand of enwiki disruption/vandalism. Gotitbro (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Copy of Bigg Boss 18 article

Hi ma'am I want you to please give me the copy of Bigg Boss 18 article that you deleted it please can you give me the copy 2000editor (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Revival of Matt Deitsch

Hi Liz, I noticed that you deleted my page and would appreciate your help in restoring it -- I am an international peace activist and organizer and notable alumni of the New School and Santa Monica Community College. I am incredibly active in the international peace sector. I am a coordinator with the Progressive International, co-host and guest on political education podcasts, board member and thought leader with the most successful voter registration group in the country Headcount. The deletion claims that I am not mentioned in any articles since 2018 but that's simply not true -- I had a long form interview published in a popular Substack just the other week. I was a featured talking head in a documentary series "The Battle Of Florida" (translated from Dutch) aired in the Netherlands earlier this year. At one point my page had more references than Kamala Harris' so to be told I didn't have enough sources or reference links feels a bit strange. I am not well versed in wiki and didn't make or (I believe) edit the page but if there are additional sources I should pull and add to the page in order to make it more credible I am available to help. I guest lecture at schools/colleges regularly and usually send my Wiki as a bio/intro. Thank you for all you do to make information more equitable and available -- I appreciate your help and support in order to make this correction. NYG26 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge request

@Liz:,

Hello I would like some advice on a merge request please.

I have made a request to merge on Council of the Nations and Regions but so far only two respondents myself and the article creator have commented. giving there is not consensus between us should I open a RFC or is the current talk discussion and merge template enough?. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello There Liz you got a Message

Reminder that user @Carlo jamid is prevented vandalism on beauty pageant article page Miss Universe 2024, since added Unsourced countries without rediable sources, he is spanish not english. 77.77.219.225 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeking urgent assistance in WP:ANI

Hey there Just wondering if you could help take a look at this case. Said user is persisting with wholesale addition of Tamil scripts without consensus (and displaying identical behaviour to a blocked user) and I feel it best to request urgent intervention on this. Thanks! hundenvonPG (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Pls userfy International Credit Insurance & Surety Association

Dear Liz,

You deleted International Credit Insurance & Surety Association. Editors in the AfD discussion mentioned a variety of reasons: not properly sourced, advertising, etc. A friend of mine who knows the organization has asked me to look into it. Several useful sources were brought to my attention, such as this one, for example. I think the organization is notable and that there are enough sources for a decent article. I have no conflict of interest. Would you please make the article available in my user space for me to work on it? Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Liz, please disregard my request above. I have prepared a new draft from scratch and submitted it for review through AfC, see Draft:International Credit Insurance and Surety Association. Comments very welcome. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Maxwell (businessman) - good faith

Hello Liz (and Kittehmaster,)

As a pretty newbie, I'd love your kind advice on how the Jonathan Maxwell page might be improved. My view of the citations were that they included newspapers of national record, one of the most serious business papers (FT), etc rather than the many primary sources (speeches, panels etc) that also evidence what Maxwell has been doing for a long time. I've avoided copy such as "pioneer", but that is what he has been for 17 years, while environmentalists have focused elsewhere. If a completely independent source names him as one of the most important people in that field, does that not have value. Many thanks in advance, onwards etc, Helith049 Helith049 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Lil Wayne and my personal confession

Hey, Liz. I know you're busy and all, but if you have the time, can you please review my recent edit on Lil Wayne? I think I messed the article up. View here.

Also, I request that you look at my confession on my violence against women here. My violent acts occurred during my childhood and recently past March; I do apologize for it. Thanks. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 05:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Darrion "Beans" Brown,

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is not a platform for you to share about your life experiences. Get yourself a blog or website where you can write what you want and not have to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines which prohibit this kind of content. However, this project is concerned with writing referenced articles on notable subjects, not about personal sharing and expression and that includes your User pages which are for writing drafts of articles, not for hosting personal content.

If you want a second opinion, bring your questions to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Well thanks for the response, Liz. I understand clearly. I know WP is not an expression platform, I just didn't have money for a blog or website creation (I thought of it to be expensive), but I will archive my topic ASAP. Again, my sincere apologies. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 06:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Deleted material

Hi Liz, I can see on his talk page that you have fairly recently criticized User:Allan Nonymous for listing too many articles for deletion. I have written a lot of articles on buildings in Copenhagen (several hundreds, over a period of several years). I have recently received criticism for including excessively detailed information and for incorporating information from census records. No new-page patrollers, page-raters or other editors who have edited the articles have seemed to have any problem with the approach until now, but the point about including too detailed information may well be correct. However, now User:Allan Nonymous has started simply deleting the entire History section of the articles in spite of the fact that they include lots of relevant information and other sources. So what I would really like to no is weather this approach is in accordance with Wikipedia policy? See for instance Nyhavn 17 for an example of an article with a deleted section. Sorry if this question belongs somewhere else. It is just a lot of articles that are involved, so I would really like to be sure that thus is handled in the wright way.89.23.235.183 (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A fox for you!

Liz Can you delete an article I created, but has attracted zero interest and is no longer updated. I am not even sure if the event is still in existence. UK Beatbox Championships Much obliged if you can. Thank you

James Kevin McMahon (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You have said that since the female event was abolished, the article creator refuses to update this article, and it will be deleted if it is not updated by Dec 31st 2023. Are you trying to delete the article because you object to the recent behavior of its subject? jlwoodwa (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eklashpur High School#Contested deletion

Hi! Just a courtesy heads up although I don't think you'll disagree with the solution. (AfD 1 was you, redirect. Afd 2 was me, delete). Redirect was re-created and contested but ultimate outcome was same as your close. Let me know if you have any issues, but otherwise no action needed. Happy Friday! Hope your time offline was restorative. Star Mississippi 14:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Question on deleted drafts

Hello Liz, I was planning to start writing the articles for the 2025 Copa Libertadores and 2025 Copa Sudamericana as drafts given that there is some information that could be backed with references already available and it is very likely that more info will be confirmed within the next months, however I have found out that both articles had been already draftified and were deleted in June per WP:G13 as they became abandoned drafts. Since I don't know the content that both drafts could have had at the time of their deletion and I don't know how similar it could be to what I had planned to start those drafts either, I would like to know if I could create both drafts and start working on them from scratch as originally intended or if the best course of action in this case would be requesting their undeletion instead. Thanks in advance for your help. CodeMars04 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

re: Draft:Japan at the 2022 Asian Para Games

Hi Liz, hope this finds you well.

Just dropping a line because I spent the day editing Draft:Japan at the 2022 Asian Para Games to the point that I think it’s ready to go back on main. I notice that it was you that moved it to draftify after an AfD discussion in late 2023, and thought I had better check with you whether I can just move it back to main myself, or if there is a process to go through because of the AfD?

thanks a lot, Michael Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Michael,

I'd recommend submitting it to AFC for review by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. That is what we recommend for any articles that have been moved to Draft space after an AFD closure although this AFD was almost a year ago and you've done some substantial work. It could be tagged for a CSD G4 by a patroller and it makes things less ambiguous if it has been approved by an AFC reviewer first before being moved to main space. Let me know if there are any problems with the draft review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I’ll do that now 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined CSD G13

Hi Liz, you declined a G13 nom here. @Chewsterchew asked on Discord why it was declined, since it seems to be eligible, but is presumably hesitant to ask you. Since I am also curious to know the answer, I figured I'd bring it to your attention. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 20:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Toadspike,

Well, I might have been mistaken here. If you look at CSD policy, WP:G13, and the three criteria of eligibility for stale drafts, it actually might be eligible because I see in the first edit summary on the page that they used Article Wizard and the third criteria states Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.. We just see this so rarely for User space pages that are eligible for G13s, they are almost always drafts with AFC tags (criteria 2).

For finding drafts that are eligible for CSD G13, we use the User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon list and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, it is really, really unusual for an editor to stumble upon a User page that is eligible for G13 that hasn't already been identified by one of our bots. And it IS common for editors, especially new editors, to think any User page that hasn't been edited in years is eligible for CSD G13 so that's how I identified the page when I came across it. Because the bots are so efficient, almost all User space taggings for G13s by editors that aren't already on the SDZeroBot list or in the AFC G13 category that patrollers come across are mistakes that need to untagged and I'm surprised that this editor is familiar enough with CSD criteria to be able to identify a User page that has used Article Wizard and fits criteria 3. So, give the editor my apologies and tell them that they should feel free to question another editor about a CSD decline because, who knows, they might be right!

I'd say that they can feel free to re-tag this User page but because I already declined it, the next admin might just accept my judgment on this matter rather than re-evaluating it themselves. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick response and thorough explanation! Hopefully Chewsterchew will find the courage to re-tag the draft, and in the meantime I've learned a lot about how G13s are processed. Toadspike [Talk] 21:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Liz;
Thank you for your help in fixing this, by deleting the unwanted ‘Archive 3’. Please keep well.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 00:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Arkansas-Arkansas State Rivalry Deletion/Improper Sourcing

Hello Liz,

I was wondering why the page for the Arkansas-Arkansas State Rivalry (see attached) was deleted when it had some minor improper sourcing (missing games and matches) that would've added to the now deleted article. I would argue that these games add to the near century long clash between the two universities, mainly for men's basketball. Women's basketball, baseball, and women's soccer also had not been updated to reflect the current scores up until November 2023 (?), at least until the article was unceremoniously deleted. I would also argue it best to preserve this article for the ease of viewing the matches Arkansas and Arkansas State have had together in the respective sports mentioned. Lastly, apologies if this does not sound professional, as I am new to Wikipedia and am just wondering why this article deserved deletion when it did not include information it sorely needed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Original Request for undeletion: HHMMJ (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HHMMJ,

So, I gather, this is a request for restoration of the article deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Arkansas State rivalry? THe article was deleted as there was unanimous agreement to delete the article. Read over the AFD to see the reasons offered in this discussion. No one was arguing to Keep this article.

I'm willing to restore the article to Draft space where you can continue to work on it and submit it to WP:AFC for review by an experienced editor. IF they believe a new version has overcome the problems that caused the article's deletion, they can move it to main space. But if you move it directly to main space yourself, it will likely be deleted again via speedy deletion CSD G4. Would that be acceptable? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ivy Wolk

I saw that you speedy deleted Ivy Wolk based on WP:A7 and WP:G4 due to a prior deletion discussion. Since I'm unable to see the deleted version, I can't compare this most recent article to the one that was in contention. However, the recently deleted version of the page has many references, including ones that are exclusively about Wolk, that were published after the deletion discussion took place and, at least based on the points made in the discussion, it seems like there are substantial differences in what I wrote and what was being discussed for deletion.

I think it would make more sense for the page to be restored and, if the editor who placed the speedy deletion notice feels it necessary, that another deletion discussion take place rather than having it just be speedily deleted, but please let me know what you think. Thanks! benǝʇᴉɯ 15:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Benmite,

This article deletion is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Ivy Wolk if you would like to weigh in there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The draft being discussed there is pretty different from and scarcer in sourcing than the version that got speedily deleted. Is there any chance you could restore what was there to my userspace (User:Benmite/Ivy Wolk) so that I can at least take a look back at it and compare? Thanks. benǝʇᴉɯ 15:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Liz, any updates? benǝʇᴉɯ 18:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: If you could update me on your decision on restoring the draft to my userspace, that would be much obliged. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: One more try for good measure. Anything? benǝʇᴉɯ 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Liz sometimes takes a while to check their talk page. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

NinjaOne

I was wondering if you could draft the ninjaOne article so I can add some sources and work on it. I don't understand why this was deleted when a much less notable company was closed as a speedy Keep with the same nominator by alpha3031 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newland_Digital_Technology

Seems odd to be able to argue a speedy Keep one one article while arguing to delete another company at the same time for the same reason. SmileyShogun (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz SmileyShogun (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SmileyShogun,

Can you provide a link to the deleted article or the AFD? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Here it is, thank you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NinjaOne SmileyShogun (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I put the link to the deletion page above thanks for your help. SmileyShogun (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi Liz, I was looking to redirect Kabza to Kabzaa (as an alt spelling). But looks like it has been salted. If unprotecting is a problem, maybe rd with the protection intact. Do let me know, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Gotitbro,\

I have created the redirect upon your request but the page has been reprotected although without full protection. I hope this is what you were asking for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 18 draft to main page

Hi ma'am I want to tell you that I improved the Bigg Boss 18 draft so it's my request to you please check the draft as soon as possible 2000editor (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2000editor - NO! I have rejected the draft because of your repeated demands that it be moved to article space before it is ready. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry sir please i already done it perfectly don't waste my efforts I am really sorry please I beg you don't give me that harsh punishment I beg you sir 2000editor (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz - It appears that User:2000editor doesn't know how to ask you what is needed to unprotect the title in article space. I think that I mostly know why you fully protected it, but would prefer not to explain when they can ask you. So can you please explain to User:2000editor what the next steps can be? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon,

I responded to a later message they posted on my User talk page tonight but when I did so, I hadn't looked into the history of this editor and this article, both in main space and Draft space. They have now been blocked on the project so any explanation I might make is irrelevant. But thank you for your efforts to help this enthusiastic editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

With your long AfD experience, closing and relisting...

...please will you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag (2nd nomination) which has, so far, and in my opinion, too few opinions lodged to give the eventual closer an easy task. If it remains in this state at the end of its first relisting period I doubt I ought to relist it again, the more so since I have offered a (neutral) comment or two in it. I am trying hard to be careful not to influence you to !vote in the discussion, that is your choice. My request is simply for an eye to be kept upon it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent,

Of course I'll do as requested, I review every relisted AFD discussion daily. I'm not sure what you want me to keep an eye on though, there has been a lot of discussion here and our standard problem in AFDLand has been low participation which isn't an issue here. Right now, it looks like the closure might be a Redirection. But I'll review it again tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Discussion was almost absent until yesterday. Whatever the outcome the creating editor has had some difficulties, and deserves a 'real' outcome, rather than lack of consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ivy Wolk

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ivy Wolk. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi Liz, I've started a draft that includes sources published since the AfD. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hameltion,

Thank you for the notification but I wasn't the closer for this AFD. It was another administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, your message states that it was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion (AFD) so that's what I was referring to. I see now that you are actually referring to a CSD speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28 again. —Cryptic 05:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 18 article to unprotected

maam I have a perfect draft of Bigg Boss 18 so I want to please give me the steps to how to unprotected the article I am concerning because this show is most popular in india and this show is now in 18 season and every season has its own wiki page so that's why I created the page and now you deleted it okay so now I have a perfect draft but I can't move it to main space so it's my request to you please tell me the following steps to unprotected the space 2000editor (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 2000editor,

The main space page title will not be unprotected until there is a draft that has been reviewed and approved by an AFC reviewer. Place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft and it will enter the line to be reviewed. After it is reviewed, if you have questions, you can ask the reviewer on their User talk page or go to the AFC Help page at AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

When I left this message to you, I didn't know that you had already submitted a draft multiple times. And now you are blocked. If you have a successful unblock request we can revisit this discussion but I imagine a condition of an unblock will be that you stay away from this article you were so insistent about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the other editors will now be able to collaborate to develop a draft that will be approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have developed a page and also i submitted it now for review as i think it is ready for article space also i assure that page won't be without any references or any other things and also would try to minimise vandalism. Kaustubh42 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz also i request you to check our draft which is at Draft:Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 Kaustubh42 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz and User:Robert McClenon also if you reject it i would give it try as per your suggestions without any questions. I won't try to repeat any mistakes which were made earlier. Kaustubh42 (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you However, was the admin-level protection needed? In my opinion, it probably should have been ECP-protected. However, intriguingly, @Kaustubh42 has stated "What is missing as we have added each thing now ?" in here. Tavantius (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Tavantius for this and i assure that i will work on it after which i will submit it. Really thankful to you admins. Kaustubh42 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, I'm an AFC reviewer. I still don't think it deserves to be in mainspace yet, primarily due to the large amount of unsourced content. Also, you never did explain what you meant by "we"? Tavantius (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant by "we" the editors, i apologize for that if that's mistake and i am right now adding source to each and every thing. Kaustubh42 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you reduce the protection for the Bigg Boss article so I can accept it? Tavantius (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Tavantius, can you provide a link to the draft article? Are you an AFC reviewer? How long have you been reviewing drafts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I can answer one of those questions: Tavantius is, in fact, an AfC reviewer. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I dream of horses. The unprotection of this page title has been fraught with drama over the past month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the draft and here's confirmation of me being an AFC reviewer. Tavantius (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Tavantius, well, that draft as been declined many times which isn't a good sign but you seem to think it's ready. You didn't need to provide me with proof of being an AFC reviewer but since you did, I was surprised that I couldn't find your username listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Old Requests/2024. Which month did that happen? Also, please provide me with a link to the main space page and I'll lower the protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, right. I renamed myself last month here and the main article is here. Tavantius (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have to say that lowering protection gives me pause after an AFD just closed deleting an article at this page title and also given how this same request got another editor indefinitely blocked. But if this article passes AFC review, then I really have no reason to decline this request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Message

Hello Liz! Thank you for all your hard work. I am new to wikipedia. I edit athletes pages for weightlifting! I just created a page for Shania Bedward. The information is the most current and is now cited. I was wondering how to add her athlete headshot and medal summary? Please let me know. Thank you so much!

GoldenLift5

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenlift5 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup

I'm surprised to see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup less than 3 hours after I pointed to a lot of coverage, and looked for further information. Surely it's a relist, not a redirect? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Bump Nfitz (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey User:Liz - perhaps you aren't seeing this? Should I just go to DRV? Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

• News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

• Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

• In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

• Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

• Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

• Book review: The Editors

• Humour: The Newspaper Editors

• Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

AFD: Mutual Majority Criterion

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

Good day!

I'm a long time anonymous user and very new-time editor on Wikipedia, and I saw that there was an AFD request for the mutual majority page that you had closed discussion on before I could participate. For some context I was the editor who reverted the page back from the redirect back to the full article, and the reason I did so was because the redirect is only tangentially related to the original article and will mislead readers. It's an article that has been around since 2005 and there are quite a few other pages that link to it. Since I'm still getting the hang of the back-end of Wikipedia, I'm not really sure what the proper response is here. As of now, I've undone the redirect again and added my reasoning in more depth on the Talk Page of the mutual majority page, but if possible could you re-open the original AFD Discussion so that I could actually make my case there?

Thank you for your time 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 180 Degree Open Angedre,

I see quite a few AFDs every day. Could you provide a link to the article and to the AFD so I can review them? AFDs are infrequently reopened once they are closed, especially if the opinion was clear. They aren't reopened just so that an editor who didn't get to the discussion can add their opinion. After I review the closure and get back to you, you can decide whether or not you want to take this closure to Wikipedia:Deletion review for reexamination but you'll need a strong argument about why the closure didn't occur according to policy and guidelines. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's OK, there was a second AFD discussion for that article done here: Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion/Mutual majority criterion (2nd nomination) where I and others got the chance to make our case. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

BISHOPS

Given that policies and guidelines are descriptive of practice, how many more AfDs of clergy kept per BISHOPS do you believe we need before we consider it an SNG? Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jclemens,

Welcome to my User talk page. I have no idea how to predict this in order to answer this query. All I can say, from my editing experience, is that we don't see many articles on bishops or priests at AFD. In fact, this recent discussion was the first I've participated in where I saw someone invoke BISHOPS as a reason to Keep an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

DELSORT religion is one of the several I watch, so I would say I see most of them. We've had two within the past six weeks, IIRC, and I'm not being facetious when I say I've never seen a BISHOPS-relevant (i.e., major denomination where bishops oversee many local churches) bishop deleted at AfD. Of course, our AfD closers can't really pick and chose specialty areas like participants can, so I am probably projecting my own look-at-a-lot, comment-on-a-few take on AfDs inappropriately onto you. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sahari Gultom

@Liz:, I forgot to remove the PROD for the article you deleted Sahari Gultom because based on sources he clearly was notable figuire in Indonesia football but forgot to remove the PROD. WOuld you be able to restore the article? If not, could you draftify it for me to improve? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Das osmnezz,

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

But why :(

I felt so sad and cried when I read my Wikipedia was deleted. By the way I am IJWBAA, a digital artist from the Philippines - https://wannabelabs.com IJWBAA (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Inquiry Regarding Page Deletion

Dear Liz,

I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to respectfully inquire about the recent deletion of my Wikipedia page. I understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines, and I appreciate the effort moderators put into maintaining the platform’s quality.

Could you kindly provide me with more details on the specific reasons for the deletion? I would like to better understand where the page may have fallen short in terms of notability, citations, or any other concerns, so I can work on improving it in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

If possible, I’d also appreciate guidance on how to address the issues and potentially have the page restored in draft form for further edits.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and hope to ensure the page meets the necessary standards.

Best regards, IJWBAA

Hello, IJWBAA,

You should read the notice that was posted to your User talk page which provides a reason. The article about you (which is not "your" article) was promotional. Editors are discouraged from writing about themselves because it is impossible to be objective when you have a conflict-of-interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with referenced articles about notable subjects, it's not a platform to be used to promote yourself and your career. You need to have substantial coverage of your notability by reliable sources like books, articles and mainstream news sources. If you can demonstrate that these secondary sources exist? Few people in the world have sufficient notability to have an article on Wikipedia.

I think if you want to tell the world about yourself, you should get a blog or your own website. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Liz,

Thank you once again for your response and the helpful guidance. I understand the importance of ensuring that my notability is established through independent and reliable sources.

I wanted to mention that my work has been included in several institutional collections, such as the National Museum of the Philippines Library Archive (http://library.nationalmuseum.gov.ph/cgi-bin/koha/opac-search.pl?idx=&q=I+Just+Wannabe+an+Artist&weight_search=1), and I’ve had an article written about my artistic journey in The Global Filipino Magazine (https://theglobalfilipinomagazine.com/emerging-talent-from-pangasinan-captivates-art-world-with-unique-fusion-of-history-and-modernity/). Additionally, I maintain my own website (https://wannabelabs.com) to share my art and updates with the public.

I recognize, however, that more substantial coverage and a broader array of reliable secondary sources will be necessary to demonstrate my notability by Wikipedia’s standards. I will continue to work on that and will refrain from attempting to write about myself directly to avoid any conflict of interest.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, and I look forward to improving my approach.

Best regards,

IJWBAA IJWBAA (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

deleted page Draft:Pach Chhoeun

Liz, on this date an article on Pach Chhoeun was deleted, it says, by you so maybe you can reply with information. I'm writing to find out why. If it is a G8 reference link that may have been deleted which one? It can be fixed, perhaps a web site changed a link target. ALL information in the article has been carefully verified and referenced.

I'm asking for the the article to be re-posted and un-deleted to improve accuracy of the content. Many hours and months over last year spent to compose this historical document just to have it deleted unexpectedly for an unknown specific reason. Pach Chhoeun's life has historical interest for Cambodian culture and history.

• 18:38, 9 July 2024 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Pach Chhoeun (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) (thank)

Vany1953 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, just to say that I've dealt with this matter, per this convo. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Growth News, October 2024

Current work

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We will add a new module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version on beta wikis and we will soon start an A/B test on our pilot wikis. This module will only display on the Newcomer Homepage if communities decide to utilize it, so learn how to configure the Community Updates module, or share your thoughts on the project's talk page.

One design concept aimed to increase constructive activation

Constructive activation experimentation

After showcasing early design ideas at Wikimania, we conducted user testing of design prototypes. We now aim to engage communities in further discussions and plan to run a targeted experiment, presenting a structured task within the reading view to logged-in new account holders with zero edits.

Community Configuration

This Community Configuration extension was developed to help communities customize wiki features to meet their unique needs. The Growth team is now helping other Wikimedia Foundation teams make their products configurable:

• The Moderation Tools team now provides Community Configuration for Automoderator. (T365046)
• Certain Babel extension settings will be configurable soon. (T328171)

Future work

As part of the Growth team annual plan, we will continue to investigate ways to increase constructive activation on mobile, while also working with Data Products to move forward A/B testing functionality via the Metrics Platform.

Community events

• Growth team members presented Community Configuration: Shaping On-Wiki Functionality Together at Wikimania (slides). The session recording is available to watch on YouTube. This session provided an update on the Community Configuration project and introduced details about the upcoming features that communities will soon be able to configure. Representatives from the Moderator Tools, Editing, Web, and Campaigns teams shared their plans for utilizing Community Configuration in the future. Following these presentations, the WMF Growth team's Benoît Evellin and Martin Urbanec answered audience questions.
• Habib Mhenni gave a presentation of how mentorship works at WikiIndaba 2024. The recording is available.

Stay informed

Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Trizek_(WMF), 15:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of is this music? page

Hi Liz - I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor so apologies if this ends up in the wrong place. (can't see how to send you an email)

As far as I can tell, you will know what's happened to the wiki page for is this music? It's been sitting there quite happily for the past 20 years but I discovered that it had vanished (been deleted) a few months ago - I was doing some SEO stuff and Google said that it couldn't find a reference site when verifying it (previously it would have used the wiki page). I didn't see any notification since like I say I don't use wiki as an editor, and I can't even remember what username I'd have used to create it in 2004 (just made a new one just now)

Anyway, I really want to get the original page reinstated. If you can let men know why it was taken down and what I can do to get it back that would be very helpful (I realise there will be good reasons for this but hopefully you can suggest whatever changes would be needed to get it listed again. Thanks - Stuart (can't post my email address and not sure how I will see your reply otherwise!) Isthismusic (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Isthismusic: The article was deleted via community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is this music? (2nd nomination). It is very unlikely it will be restored. Judging by the username you chose, you are not the person who should attempt to draft a new version of the article as you have an obvious conflict of interest. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isthismusic (talk page watcher) (edit conflict) It would appear that the article was deleted per a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is this music? (2nd nomination) over concerns about lack of sourcing. Our standards have risen over the years. On top of that, Wikipedia is imperfect in part because of how few volunteer there are, so it quite likely fell through the cracks. If there's enough sourcing, it's likely that summarizing those sources will result in a vastly different article, so restoring it would prove useless.

Just as an aside, if you do work for the company that made/makes "Is it music?", you need to declare it on your user page or risked getting blocked for violating the terms of use of Wikipedia. It's not something someone honest would hide, anyways.

@UtherSRG Just a note that sometimes fans will choose a username like that, not just employees. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say they were an employee; there is more to COI than being an employee. Their mention of SEO work increases the level of COI. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG How did my eyes skip over that? Sorry! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all so far for chipping in with the info above. Particularly the comment about the higher standards relating to sourcing. Oh, I am an 'employee', yes, I quickly created the username so I could post here. I'll add that disclaimer to my page. As I say, I have no idea what I'm doing with this, just trying to get the page up again or get advice on what to do if this isn't possible. Does anyone know if the original page exists somewhere, I can't really remember what it said, so would be useful to see what was now deemed 'wrong' so any new draft could rectify the issues. Isthismusic (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isthismusic You need to change your username so people don't think you're sharing an account with your co-workers. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was blocked so had to set up a new username (actually the one from 20 years ago). Any advice, if not on reinstating, then on viewing the original page would be very much appreciated. Smchughuk (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You wrote above how a new draft might rectify the issues, but the issues aren't with the content in a way such that changing the content can resolve the issues. Instead, the topic is not eligible for being covered on Wikipedia in a stand-alone article. It isn't like your changes made to the content, restored or provided to you in any manner, can do anything about this intrinsic problem of ineligibility. —Alalch E. 16:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the info, but I'd thought it was denied due to lack of sources - given that it was written close on 20 years ago and never updated there should be more sources available from across those two decades that cold be included? Smchughuk (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read the deletion discussion linked above. It was deleted as not notable. It's not that there weren't adequate sources in the article; there are no adequate sources at all that can prove notability. Note that notability in Wikipedia standards is a very particular thing. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Maperturas 99 (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz?

Hi Liz - I can see you are editing right now, but you've not responded to my comment above about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup - which I assume you aren't seeing the notifications for. Can you relist this that AFD? Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nfitz (talk page watcher) That's the sort of task that tends to get sorted out eventually, even if belatedly. It's best to be patient. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No rush. Which is why I've only been going back to it every 3-4 days. Nfitz (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nfitz Hmm. Just looked at the discussion. Should've done that previously, sorry about that. It was closed a week ago as "redirect," an outcome I agree with. Perhaps you should devote time to writing some sort of draft and then taking this to DRV instead of trying to get Liz to respond. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that would be appropriate after an AFD that only lasted a week, with 4 participating, and only two calling for redirection (and none calling for deletion); one of which is notorious for drive-by delete voting, expecting anyone who actually does a before to notify him with references; while the second actually admits they didn't do a BEFORE! I feel it's important to discuss with the closer before going to DRV. There's no rush here - I'd suggest being patient until Liz responds. I can make some improvements and add references once the AFD is reopened. Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nfitz Is there a reason why you haven't opened up a DRV discussion already? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty dismal on responding to my talk page messages. If I don't respond to them immediately, it can take me a few days. But over the past hour, I've been getting notifications every 5 minutes so I'll get to it tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nfitz, after reviewing this AFD, I saw that there wasn't a strong consensus for this outcome (or any outcome) so I have reverted myself and relisted the discussion. Thank you for your patience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to throw minnows at me. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Vital article categories

Hi Liz, I was wondering what triggered Category:Unassessed vital articles to suddenly get deleted, it cycles through being full or not as things change across its various articles, mostly due to GARs and FARs. CMD (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CMD,

I'm going to refer you to MSGJ. They have been going through the vital categories and tagging them for deletion. I've been carrying out the CSD deletions but MSGJ probably has a better understanding of whether or not they are necessary or if another category structure has replaced them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have coded the module so this category will no longer be used. Now all the problematic vital articles will be bundled into Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention. If you are still seeing things in that category, then please let me know and I may have to check the code — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks both, a new system to figure out. CMD (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, MSGJ. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Skyscrapers in Santiago

Hi Liz, I thought that that this redirect at Skyscrapers in Santiago was eligible for G6 since the creator said in the edit summary that it was "Mistakenly created duplicate article of the List of tallest buildings in Chile", and that they moved it to the Template namespace to fix things. But I might've been misinterpreting things since I thought they might have created it at the incorrect title and really should have asked the creator JeyReydar97 if they wanted it to be deleted. Sorry about that, just wanted to make sure that I was getting the context right. Fathoms Below (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fanthoms. Yes, I'm sorry. I forgot to add the "Template:" namespace instruction before creating it. It resulted in a duplicate page of Skyscrapers in Santiago on the mainspace in the process which I didn't intend to do. Can the template remain like this or should I redo it? JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JeyReydar97 I'm really not that familiar with templates sadly but you could maybe G7 Skyscrapers in Santiago since you didn't intend to create the page in mainspace and you don't want the redirect left over right? WP:R2 which is the speedy deletion criterion for cross-namespace redirects doesn't apply to redirects to the Template namespace but you can still do G7 I think. Maybe I'm getting something wrong but you can G7 tag it if you would like for it to be deleted. Fathoms Below (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with cross-namespace redirects. So do I have to G7 the Template:Skyscrapers in Santiago? This is basically the redirect from Template:Skyscrapers in Chile. JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No you don't have to G7 Template:Skyscrapers in Santiago (unless you wanted to, since you are eligible to G7 that page too). Since you didn't want the template in mainspace and only created it there by accident you would only have to G7 Skyscrapers in Santiago since that redirect is from the main namespace and you didn't want to leave the redirect behind right? I think that's what you were getting at? Fathoms Below (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Skyscrapers in Chile is the current and correctly activating template in the mainspace. if you're referring to this redirect, than I can only G7 the latter. The initial correct one must remain in the mainspace. JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh no I was referring to Skyscrapers in Santiago (which is currently redirecting to Template:Skyscrapers in Santiago, which itself is redirecting to Template:Skyscrapers in Chile) The article namespace (also known as mainspace) is different from the template namespace WP:MAINSPACE. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can G7 it. Hope it's not going to take down the correct template with it. JeyReydar97 (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@JeyReydar97 It won't take down the template, just the redirect. You can add the following in brackets {{db-G7}} by editing here and that should G7 it and an administrator will come along to delete the page. (Sorry Liz for the long conversation, hope this didn't cause you too much of a fuss). Fathoms Below (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Quick sourcing question

Liz,

I have a quick question concerning sourcing on a draft I am reviewing. In Draft:Warren Western Reserve High School, the source for the statement on construction and opening, seen here, is an image. Can images/image pages such as this be used to source statements like this?

Cordially,

Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ktkvtsh (talk page watcher) No, it can't. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in Rivash, Iran has been nominated for merging

Category:Buildings and structures in Rivash, Iran has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

delete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9A%94%ED%95%9C_%EC%95%84%EC%9A%B0%EA%B5%AC%EC%8A%A4%ED%8A%B8_%EC%97%90%EB%B2%84%ED%95%98%EB%A5%B4%ED%8A%B8. Would you delete this? It is wrong to language choice. 칼빈500 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 칼빈500,

Another administrator has deleted this page. In the future, if you want a page you created to be deleted, and you are the only or main contributor to it, you can tag it CSD G7. This tagging is made easier if you learn to use Twinkle. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 칼빈500 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

G13 drafts

Hi Liz, I hope you are doing well! I wanted to let you know that there are currently 1896 drafts eligible for deletion under the G13 criteria. These weren't deleted earlier because they were edited by bots and didn't show up in the relevant categories and queries. Since bot edits don't reset the G13 clock, these drafts qualify for deletion. Most of the creators weren't notified by FireflyBot, but my bot will handle that. After three days of notification, we can go ahead and delete the drafts for which the creators didn't reset the G13 timer. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DreamRimmer,

We're pretty on top of what is eligible for CSD G13, even drafts that have been edited by bots, so I'm greatly surprised that there are that many that we might have missed. Are they in Draft space or User space? Because there are plenty of old drafts in User space that aren't really eligible for deletion because of the strict G13 requirements. Thank you for the notification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The majority of these drafts are in draftspace. I tried to get more accurate data here (586 drafts). Could you please check the results of this query and let me know if there are any false positives? Also, the current query used by FireflyBot has 6152 results, but this query, which filters out bot edits, has 7736 results. This indicates that creators of at least 1600 drafts were not notified by FireflyBot. You can also check SD0001's comment on my bot's BRFA. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer (talk page watcher) So it sounds like your bot will help with following the spirit of G13. That's good. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Drumnamether

Sharkzy has asked for a deletion review of Drumnamether. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 05:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Bringing back RFC/U

Is a good idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra (talk page watcher) Why? I never saw any positive outcomes from RfC/U when it was around. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz and I have been thinking about it in the context of the current debacle. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I'm curious as the what the debacle is, but it may not be any of my business. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: that way lies madness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Blue Oyster Bar redirect

Hi Liz. For my own understanding and future reference. What is the point of a redirect that takes the reader to a target/ destination where there is nothing about what the reader is expecting to find, i.e., something about Blue Oyster Bar or at the very least some indication that what the target says is related to what the reader was looking? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

How to resolve a dispute

Hello, I want to ask you for advice, or maybe for help as a mediator. I got into a dispute with the user Paradygmaty (see AN/I, where you also responded) who misinterpreted my edit as a personal attack. Now he's reverting my page move with ugly Edit summary accusations (despite being pointed out by you and another user in the AN/I thread that it was should be done through RM), stalking me and deleting some of my last edits, and starting new page move threads where I want to oppose him because he does not take into account the concept of WP:COMMONNAME, but I'm afraid to participate because he would take it personally.

What to do now? I don't know if his actions are serious enough to start an AN/I thread, plus it may trigger more vendettas from him. I dare not move the stadium page again yet, even if it was confirmed as OK (and even if there is a typo in the current version), because he will take it personally. I don't know what to write to him and if it's worth writing to him, when he prioritized starting an AN/I thread over discussion and my apology and explanation in AN/I wasn't enough for him. He doesn't listen to me or other experienced users. Thanks in advance for any insight you have. FromCzech (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, FromCzech,

Sorry for my delay in responding. It doesn't look like this editor has done much editing since the ANI complaint and they had one article page move that was reverted. I think the best thing in these situations is if other editors support you so it doesn't turn into a me vs. you situation. But if they return to start reverting your edits, I'd try talking with this editor first and then come here or to ANI with a formal complaint. I think you should go about your normal editing routine, whatever that is. You can try not to provoke them but I wouldn't let a fear of retaliation stop you from pursuing your editing work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for response. When I wrote to you, it seemed that he will revert every edit I made, so I needed to talk to someone. But maybe it won't be so hot in the end. FromCzech (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Blue locks and sky and all that

When Susanna Gibson is a redirect again, how do we stick a sky blue lock on it? Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

sigh. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

fyi Liz, I reclosed this one and indefinitely bluelocked. I expect there will be a WP:DRV in our futures momentarily. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Thanks. They can DRV if they want but the consensus on both AfDs was interpreted correctly, and WP:COMMONSENSE is a thing. Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, sorry for taking so long to respond here (which is my primary failing as an editor) but I see that asilvering handled this appropriately so thank you to them for taking speedy action. Glad this was resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries; real life is far more important than Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Response to Doxxing warning

Hi Liz, thanks for chiming in over at my WP:ANI thread about the user threatening to contact my employer. I've been keeping an eye on the situation and he logged a number of edits today without acknowledging the ANI thread or retracting the statement he made. Just wanted to raise that point in case he catches the WP:ANIFLU, or whatever. I'll also ping in @JPxG: on this. As of yet I've not received any indication he actually did attempt contact my bishop, fwiw. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It can be frightening, Darth Stabro. I've been doxxed twice before a decade ago, at Wikipediocracy and at a Gamergate noticeboard and it's unnerving. Luckily, I was not an exciting target and users quickly moved on to focus on other people so that's all in the past. But I won't forget the feeling of having my identity exposed.

I'd advise you to remove any identifiable information from your User page, if it's present. I'm pretty confident that this editor doesn't have the technical knowledge to even know how to find out someone's identity especially if you only use this username on Wikipedia. I've seen a few instances here where employers have been contacted by a disgruntled editor and their typical reaction has been "Why is this crazy person calling me?" It's more likely that they might sock and come back to bother you but just alert an admin and that can be handled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I've been doxxed to my bishop a few times before from upset people online on different sites. It's just annoying having to explain the background, etc, to my bishop so that he can make sure everything is on the up and up. And I'm sure he gets a little annoyed with it as well. Just want to see the process through here. Thanks for your concern! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for being a voice of reason and encouraging restraint at places like WP:ANI. I really don't know how you stay so calm and civil all the time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, NinjaRobotPirate. I think it's for two reasons: when I first started editing in 2013, I spent a lot of time (too much time) at ANI and I saw a lot of cases of mob behavior where momentum would suddenly be built up and an editor was blocked without even being given a chance to respond to a complaint. It was quite a scene with lots of noticeboard regulars who never edited anywhere else. Luckily, there is not this volume of activity at ANI or AN any more. My activity at ANI was brought up at my RFA as a negative so I stopped spending much time there. I've only recently returned to weigh in on complaints where I think my comments might help deescalate a situation.

Secondly, I would never ever want to be a Checkuser. SPI investigations seem to take over CU's lives on Wikipedia and you see the worst sort of deception and misbehavior from sock farms. You are our heroes. That exposure would make any rational editor cynical. But I also have had my share of personal attacks and, at my age, it's kind of hard to take internet hostility personally, it's the nature of being online, unfortunately. But we could all do better, myself included. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't often get the chance to speak on behalf on everyone, but: please don't forget to join the angry mob once in a while. It's a lot of fun and you get a free pitchfork! Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you are dealing with editors spewing hate that crosses a moral bright line, Polygnotus, being emotional isn't the basis for decent decision-making. And, believe me, you wouldn't like the mob when they are seeking sanctions against you. And as someone who has been brought to ANI once or twice in my years here, my experience has been that it has never been over legitimate mistakes I've made but ordinary edits that someone has taken an issue with. You never know when someone will take a sarcastic comment as a personal attack or a quick revert as "harassment". You can not control other editor's perception of your actions so always try to edit in a fair, balanced and policy-guided way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

All that is true, certain people are shockingly thinskinned or pretend that they are to reach their goals, but who can afford $134.71 in this economy? Polygnotus (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Drmies talked me into applying as a CheckUser. I blame him for all of the stress in my life. Even my trouble with women. But, yeah, it's harder to take the internet seriously when you've been around a while. You'd make a good Arbcom candidate if you ever felt like having Wikipedia take over your life. I gave up on sarcasm. Or, at least, I've tried to. It just doesn't work on a website where you're expected to be civil. The Butthole Surfers said it best, I think: you never know just how you'll look through other people's eyes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, you know, I think about ARBCOM every year at this time but early in my time here, I worked for 2 years as an arbitration clerk. I've seen how thankless the job is. And the most conscientious arbitrators seem to be the ones the burn out the quickest and quit before their term is up. It is really unfair, I think. In my 11 years here, I don't think I've ever seen any editor at any time say that "This year we had a great Arbitration Committee, they put in a lot of time and their decisions were fair and just." There is no appreciation of the work they do and every year's committee is said to be worse than the previous year's committee. I don't need constant gratitude (or I wouldn't be spending time on the activities I do do) but I don't want to pour my time into an activity that causes resentment from other editors just for doing it. Life is too short, you know? But who knows, I don't know I could say no to Drmies either if he asked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, burnout is always a possibility. I don't like being a functionary sometimes. I even panicked a bit the first day after I was appointed because I thought someone had given me oversight permission, too, and I didn't want to be responsible for cleaning up the nastiest stuff on Wikipedia on top of being a CheckUser. I was relieved more than you might expect when it turned out to be a brief and unrelated glitch. If you ever decide to go for it, though, you've got my vote of confidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate I went through a threatening sexual harassment a few years back. Very grateful to the oversighters and checkusers that helped me deal with that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to go through that. You've always struck me as another nice person. And I like your username because I once had a really nice dream about a horse. We did everything together, and when I woke up, I wanted a horse. But it's always nice to feel like you're doing something worthwhile. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ayambakar711

Dear Mrs. @Liz, please delete user pages User:Ayambakar711 because WP:U5. Thanks..... 180.252.56.220 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 180.252.56.220,

I blanked their User page. This editor made 3 edits 6+ years ago, this isn't an urgent situation. I'm not sure how you even stumbled upon them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Move

Hello Liz, someone moved Tyla to multiple titles and went as far as to create a duplicate titled Tyla Laura. My guess is that they were trying to get the credits for creating the Tyla article. Can you please look at the article, its talk and subpages and check if there's anything wrong? dxneo (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, dxneo,

Though I'm late in responding, I actually looked into this situation when you posted about it last weekend and looked to see if any clean-up was necessary. The editor has since been blocked for disruptive editing and because it might be a compromised account. Thanaks for bringing this to my attention and I'm sorry that it's taken me a while to reply to your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Procedural keep/close?

Hi Liz, could you give this a quick look please [1] to see whether it should be procedurally closed. There is an active unclosed merge discussion and this seems to have been started as a novel means to close the merge. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sirfurboy🏄,

 Done I initially thought it was too late in the process for a procedural close but when I saw the nominator's deletion argument was actually an indirect request to get support for keeping the article, I decided that you were right and this was an incorrect use of AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Liz. It was all getting rather confused. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kent

May I ask how this could possibly be considered a no consensus result? It's a clear keep result unless you are overriding the five keep votes and deciding for some reason that the two deleters have stronger arguments (which is a bit odd since it comes down to people claiming he meets GNG versus people claiming he doesn't). What is the justification for this? You don't say in your closing statement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Saying that keep arguments were "people claiming he meets GNG" is a fundamental mischaracterisation of your own argument which consisted partly of "The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets" and which made absolutely zero attempt to assess notability based on sources. That's one of the weakest arguments I've seen at AfD in a while. No closer should take it into account at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I'm not sure how I would have voted, but, like OzLondoner, I hope I would have pointed out the paucity of the argument. The close was good. SerialNumber54129 17:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait, that is Oz Londoner? I have been reading that forever as aus, as in German for out. Out of Londoner. Now I don't know what to think! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh and yeah, I think the close was good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: like, aus, raus!  :) SerialNumber54129 01:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Haha that made me smile. Now I'm wondering about your name though. Sir Fur Boy? Or Surfer Boy? 😂 AusLondonder (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I added the surfer emoji partly to clarify. When I first came up with the name I had know idea furries were a thing. Furboy was my Paladin when I used to play D&D. I do actually surf - although these days I have switched to a kayak. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I always thought "Aus" referred to Australia or, maybe Austria, but I now see from your User page, AusLondonder, that you don't seem to participate in any WikiProjects on those countries so perhaps I've been wrong all of this time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Necrothesp,

I gather that you would have preferred a firmer close as a Keep rather than No consensus? Well, first, as a frequent AFD participant, I know that you know that it's not a vote count. But when you have a divided discussion like this one, with some editors arguing that WP:BASIC is met and others arguing WP:BASIC is not met, then you need to review the arguments and, I believe, the experience levels of the participants in the discussion.

I didn't think I could close as Keep without it signalling that I was ignoring the opinions of two editors who were arguing for Deletion, both of whom are very experienced in assessing articles and sources in AFD discussions. So, I closed as No consensus which is not saying that both sides were equally strong in their arguments but it acknowledges that their wasn't unanimity or agreement close to unamity in this discussion. This is not an uncommon outcome when you have experienced editors reviewing sources who come to opposing evaluations of them. It's not my job to review the sources myself because that would lead to a "supervote" so I have to rely on the arguments of the participants and, in this case, I didn't see a consensus.

Of course, you can take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want and present your argument there. In this case, you might have a few participants who agree with your interpretation but I think the majority of opinions would be that "No consensus" was a reasonable outcome that any closer might come to. I'm occasionally willing to revert an AFD closure if an editor is asking for an additional relisting or I've made some obvious error but I don't think I did here and I don't think a third relisting would have altered the outcome of this discussion. But that's your call. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not a "vote count", but when you have more than twice the number of editors voting one way than the other, then not acknowledging that majority and closing in their favour does indeed look like a supervote unless they're spouting utter rubbish. I didn't think I could close as Keep without it signalling that I was ignoring the opinions of two editors who were arguing for Deletion, both of whom are very experienced in assessing articles and sources in AFD discussions. I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. It's basically saying that because two editors, both of whom have a proven track record of being very keen on deletion incidentally, say it should be deleted then their arguments should be given more weight than the other five participants because they're "experienced" and it would be somehow insulting to them to close in favour of the other participants. That's just weird, frankly, and I think goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the effective same result so I'm not sure why you're complaining so much. Consensus is based on argument quality, not numbers. Maybe try and assess notability based on sources rather than tangents about cornflakes and your opinion will count for more at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is indeed based on argument quality. And yours weren't superior in anyone's opinion except yours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Necrothesp, I didn't participate in that discussion, but reviewing it now, I see two editors making good source based arguments to keep, as well as two making such arguments for deletion. Two said it meets WP:BASIC but did not say how. So I think Liz evaluated that fairly. But there is also your argument that the CMG is a high honour. This was not related to any SNG, but is an SNG style of shortcut argument that many of us use in our first look at a subject to come to an initial view. For instance, today I have posted on an AfD school discussion that you also posted on, and expressed my own shortcut argument based on the age, prestige and size of a school. But such arguments are nothing more than a rebuttable supposition of notability. What always matters is whether sources exist from which the page can be written. A school can be big and old and so unremarkable that perhaps there really are no sources. A person can be an unremarkable civil servant or part of a diplomatic mission, so much in the background that sources do not exist. In such cases the assumption of notability will be rebutted by the searches that turn nothing up, and no page can be written. But certainly we can use such arguments to choose where we might be concentrating our efforts, and, when the matter is finely balanced, to argue the toss in favour of retention. Still, what really matters are the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Creating a Previously Deleted Article

Hi Liz,

I created an article for the Powhatan Hotel in Galveston (sometime in early 2023), which I realized was an ill-conceived mess, so I requested speedy deletion. Thanks for your assistance with that. Now I have a new source for the article, making two expert architectural sources for the same article. Before I re-create the article, however, I would like to recall the specifics of the mess I created in order to avoid a similar mistake. I am not finding my own conversations on this and without the text of the original, I am not recalling the specifics of my errors. Do you have any tips for pulling any helpful documents? I am in no rush to re-create the article, so whatever timetable works for you also works for me. Best regards, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Oldsanfelipe2,

It sounds like I might be able to help you out but you need to provide a link to the deleted article. You know the exact name of the article you created so it would be faster if you could provide this rather than me spending time looking for it. Then I could review the reason for deletion and see if the situation is as you state it is. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Does this help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powhatan_Hotel Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Oldsanfelipe2,

Yes, that's what I needed. Oh, this was from 2023! This was a CSD G7, an article creator asks for deletion so this can be reverted if that's what you are asking for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

SPAs POV-pushing in The Keys to the White House

I completely agree with your concern, on the AN/I thread, that the volume of material is daunting. I spent literally hours researching, drafting, and editing my request, to try to simplify it as much as possible. (I'm responding to you here instead of there precisely so as not to add to the length of the thread.) I think this was also a problem on the thread on the BLP Noticeboard. The three SPAs flooded the zone with reiterations of their position, and only one uninvolved editor was dedicated enough to wade through it all.

And speaking of wading through it -- you presumably haven't waded through Talk:The Keys to the White House. You've done more than other admins by even reading my summary. Frankly, your hope that these differences could be resolved on talk pages is, alas, completely unrealistic. If you look at that page, you'll see that I've tried and tried and tried until I'm blue in the keyboard. The SPAs will not budge.

It's a classic case of WP:SPA. In June of this year there was a blog post criticizing Lichtman. At about the same time, these three accounts showed up pushing the bloggers' position. They even insisted on citing the blog's criticisms (in a BLP!). You can see several screenfuls of text at Talk:The_Keys_to_the_White_House#Unacceptable_source as I tried to get them to adhere to WP:SPS. But even that self-evident point couldn't be resolved on the Talk page. Just to get those improper citations removed, I had to expend yet more time to create a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard thread. Consensus-based dispute resolution just doesn't work when there are SPAs whose sole or primary purpose in editing is to push their POV. (The current, POV version doesn't directly link to the blog post, but it does quote the nonnotable bloggers as if they were experts. Coincidentally, the SPAs asserted that the bloggers were experts.)

I'm at my wits' end with these accounts. There's a limit to how much time I can spend banging my head against a brick wall in the hope of some miraculous resolution on the Talk page. If no admin will pick up a mop and do something (maybe even a 30-day article ban would send a salutary message!), then I'll probably just have to give up. The SPAs will succeed in thumbing their nose at WP:NPOV and hijacking a BLP article to promote their views. JamesMLane t c 15:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JamesMLane,

I'm sorry that this situation has left you so frustrated. And also that I'm not willing, at this point, to go diving into this complicated dispute to try to settle it. But most of my time editing on the project is filled up with some routine tasks that take up most of my time and I've only recently returned to even looking at cases that come up on ANI so I don't see my time freeing up any time soon.

Without coming to a conclusion on this complaint, I see that you have two problems: a) the complexity of this case that involves at least three other editors and the fact that it appears that this dispute has covered several different talk pages and noticeboards and b) that, right now, it looks like it is you against at least three editors. You'd have an outcome more to your preference if you had at least one other editor who was contributing to this discussion who supported your interpretation and could speak up. I'm sure it's maddening to see a situation you believe is inappropriate and be alone in this.

Is there a related WikiProject where you could go to their talk page and ask for uninvolved editors to offer their opinion? Or you could post an impartial request for help on the talk page of a related article. Of course, numbers don't always determine consensus on Wikipedia but at least you could get a second opinion on whether the way you interpret this situation is correct. I've found that in many disputes on Wikipedia "me vs. you" situations (or, in this case, "you vs. them") are frequently resolvable if more editors join in the discussion. Any chance of that occurring? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, thanks for your response. I completely understand the limitations on your time and energy. I have a long Wikipedia to-do list, with some items dating back years, and I'm not even an admin.

I wanted more editors to join in the discussion. That's why I started the RfC and then the Noticeboard thread. Each of those efforts brought a response from an experienced and previously uninvolved editor, and in each case the editor agreed with me. The three SPAs are unmoved, though. Their attitude is that their POV is correct, the article is fine the way it is, as long as they don't agree to a change there's no consensus, and as long as there's no consensus the version they prefer must remain in place.

As for WikiProjects, I did post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia#Question about adding template. I just want the BLP template placed on the Keys article, because the SPAs wouldn't even agree that BLP standards applied. Being cautious, I thought an uninvolved editor should add the template. No one added the template or even responded to my post. I also noted the RfC on the lists for Biographies; for History and geography; and for Politics, government, and law. I assume that many WikiProject participants monitor the applicable list for their project.

My current inclination: (1) Hope that the AN/I thread gets attention from an admin who can undertake the admittedly burdensome task of addressing the problem. (2) If some time passes and no other admin responds there, I'll try starting a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The weakness in that plan is that, even if it elicits comments from a few experienced editors, the SPAs will persist. Past comments from such editors have had no effect on the SPAs. (3) If that doesn't work, I'll consider your suggestion of WP:AE. I've never done one of them and it seems to be a lot of work by me, and then hope that some admin takes an interest. My personal opinion is that the SPAs' violations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are much clearer than the charge of contentious editing. If nothing can get done based on violations of two clear policies, I can't be very optimistic about AE. JamesMLane t c 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge vs AfD

Hi Liz, I'm writing about the odd situation with Wikipedia and antisemitism. I don't believe the AfD nominator (Selfstudier) was looking for a Keep result; they supported merging while saying Might be better just to AfD it as POVFORK. They seem okay with either merging or deletion.

From my perspective, the merge discussion seemed to effectively evolve into a deletion discussion, especially now that the destination article already has relevant content and can't really fit more. So I thought it was logical to move to AfD, and there seemed to be some agreement for that from both sides of the dispute: myself and ProfGray on one side, Selfstudier and Hemiauchenia (the merge proposer) on the other.

I suppose the merge should have been closed before an AfD, but now that the AfD had developed, would you consider reopening it to let it run to conclusion?

I realize it could appear like I'm trying to work around a consensus to merge, but FWIW I think those arguments should also be considered by a future AfD closer. I.e. I believe this should be evaluated as a deletion, but with consideration of all relevant arguments. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, XDanielx,

Well, I was accommodating another editor who requested a procedural close since the merger discussion was ongoing. Since the consensus was going in the direction of Keep, it was not clear to me what a Keep would mean if a Merge was also being discussed. Would it negate a decision to Merge? If a Merge was opposed then a Keep decision would be irrelevant because a Merge would already have been rejected. And I didn't see much support for Deletion which is what AFD is typically for, to consider whether or not an article should be deleted. So, I don't see any purpose to having an AFD discussion ongoing while a Merge is being considered if the closure looks like it would just have Kept the article as it is. I don't think an AFD should occur to just see if there is widespread support for a Merge, that's what the Merge discussion is for. So, it looks like this was splintering the debate and since the Merge discussion was started first, I think it should continue.

And AFDs should never occur just to verify that an article should be Kept, they should only occur if the nominator is seeking Deletion. Sometimes the outcome for an AFD is a Merge, Redirection or Draftification, but that decision arises out the consensus of the discussion, not as an outcome sought by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining further. So as I understand it, there were two concerns with the AfD:

1. The filer might not have been seeking deletion.
2. It was filed during an open merge discussion.

On (1), my impression is that several editors like Selfstudier are seeking either a deletion or merge outcome, and probably don't feel strongly about the difference since there isn't really content that would be merged. The practical difference might just be a redirect. For example Tryptofish mentioned supporting "either deletion or merging"; the merge proposer Hemiauchenia also planned to file an AfD. I guess what I'm saying is, we can have someone else file if needed.

On (2), I think ideally the merge discussion should be procedural closed (but its arguments still considered) to indicate that it has been supplanted by an AfD, but the question is who should make that call. I think Hemiauchenia might be willing to. If not, we could request an uninvolved closer, where a possible close could involve recommending a change of venue to AfD. Does that sound reasonable? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is reasonable at all. The merge discussion had been open a week when the AfD started and had some 25 participants and represented a lot of editor time. The AfD was started without a deletion rationale and any outcome that overturns the merge outcome would instantly be challenged at DRV because it is out of process. It was just making a mess. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about

Hey Liz, I thought you might want to be aware of this discussion (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Wikipedia's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate sub judice reasons).

While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Snow Rise,

I've actually been following this issue for about the past 10 days. I'm always reluctant to jump into a very long discussion that I haven't been part of since the beginning because I'm sure I'll miss something important when I skim through all of the comments. But I agree that this is a very important issue so I'll check in on the current state of the discussion. I appreciate your efforts to publicize this problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz: it's a novel form of project activity for me and I'm not sure my approach is optimized for exposure, but I've made such efforts as I could. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates

An editor has asked for a deletion review of People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Piotrus,

I've already responded at the deletion review but I wanted to thank you for the notification. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

• From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

• In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

• Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

• Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

• In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

• Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

• Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

• Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:CyberIdris

Hi, dear Liz, thank you for earlier. I'd like to report sock puppets but I'm not sure how to do it. If you can help me I'd appreciate it if you could report User:CyberIdris and User:45.128.80.181. みしまるもも (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, みしまるもも,

It's not a process that is easy to describe here. I would just go to SPI, look at some of the open cases listed on that page and then follow the instructions to open a new case which is pretty obvious if you review the page. As a warning to you though, Checkusers will not connect registered accounts to IP addresses because it can be an invastion of privacy, sockpuppet investigations are really to compare registered accounts with each other. So, if you just have this registered account and an IP address, I don't think it would be worth your time to go through the steps to set up a case. But I suggest you at least look over the SPI main page so you are more familiar with the process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I just noticed that User:45.128.80.181 is blocked for two weeks so that might help out with any problem you are having. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Liz, Thank you for letting me know. みしまるもも (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought they might accept it, so I made the request. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CyberIdris Thank you. --みしまるもも (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Award

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your collaboration and kindness, you deserve this award. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, FkpCascais, this is very kind of you. I'm not sure that I'm always civil but I try! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You are cool, say what you want to say, and straight forward. Mine kind of people. Lets keep on this project going on better and better, and, please, poke me for whatever you need. I had been away and only focused on football for the last decade, or so, but earlier I had been active in many more areas of Wikipedia because I always did and still do find this one of the most amasirog projects on the entire internet. FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Drafts

Please restore all the drafts you deleted. Thank you. Crafterstar (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Crafterstar, Liz deletes a lot of drafts, and many of yours definitely shouldn't be recreated. Are there some specific ones you'd like to have back? -- asilvering (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Crafterstar, you will have to be more specific and list the deleted drafts you want restored. You can also request restoration of a draft deleted for CSD G13 reasons at WP:REFUND. But I have deleted tens of thousands of draft articles for legitimate reasons and I'm not going to blindly restore them all because you requested this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being vague. I would like to have Draft:Earthsea (TV series) restored. That's the only I want returned right now. Now that I have returned, now what... Any advice for me? Crafterstar (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Crafterstar,

 Done Sorry, I didn't recognize your name and didn't know that you had been unblocked. You were quite a prolific editor and I deleted many of your drafts during the time period you were blocked as they went stale. In the page history of your User talk page, there should be a record of notices from FireflyBot so you can see which drafts were due to be deleted via CSD G13. I'm happy to restore any of those articles if you give me a list of the ones you wish to continue working on. Any way, welcome back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My only advice is not to sock. There is no benefit from doing so, only risks and sanctions. If you want to have an alternate account, make it a legitimate one and put a notice on both User pages identifying it as such. I think that is where you got into trouble.

Also, among editors working on recently released films, there is some kind of rivalry on being the editor who creates the article for a new film and multiple editors in this area have been indefinitely blocked for taking shortcuts like overwriting another editors' work or tagging a page for deletion and then recreating it yourself. Don't get caught up in this nonsense because, truthfully, no one is keeping score of "who got there first". Focus on quality, not speed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

↑↑↑This is fantastic advice; I have been tempted many times to approach you, Crafterstar, regarding your creation, abandonment, and requested restoration of drafts. I have never seen this pattern outside of editors trying to be "first" when a draft they created becomes notable. It's not a particularly well-regarded approach to article creation.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ponyo, there is also one other area where I see this happen and that is with hurricanes, tropical storms and tornadoes. But luckily, there is a fairly sizeable community of editors working on storms, they have created their own norms and they generally police themselves. And this has come up with some articles on elections and current events as seen on ANI and in a recent arbitration case. But the movie business is so big, prolific and announces upcoming movies years ahead of them being made, spreading across lots of countries that it is on a different scale as those other subjects. I've seen drafts kept "alive" for 3-5 years just because a film has been announced to be produced but nothing has happened on it yet. There is a lot of anticipation surrounding them, especially some big budget films and sequels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The draft work is a useful process in the situations you note as the event (whether it be political, a storm, or similar) is imminent. It's a staging area where multiple editors work together in preparation to publish an article on a soon-to-be notable topic. The mass creation of drafts based on announcements is just sort of...hoarding. It really appears, to me, as an attempt at owning the creation. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ok. Thank you for the feedback. If anyone else have any thing to say, please do. Crafterstar (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing links after AfDs

Hello Liz. Sorry to bother you, but I've noticed on several occasions you have closed AfDs on North Korean footballers (as delete) and then removed links to the article. The issue is that some of the links you are removing were incorrectly linking to the footballer and should have been linking to a politician of the same name. For example, in this diff you removed a valid redlink to a member of parliament who would be deemed notable under WP:NPOLITICIAN. I wouldn't say anything if this was a one-off, but it's happened repeatedly over the past year (see the history of the 2014 North Korean election article, where this has happened at least seven times). As this seems to be specifically an issue for North Korea, could you be a bit more careful when closing AfDs on North Korean footballers if the outcome is to delete? Cheers, Number 57 00:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Number 57,

First, you are not bothering me. Thank you for bringing this issue to me but I'm not sure exactly how to respond. You say these are links are from articles deleted through AFDs and XFDcloser removes all links to deleted articles as part of its deletion process. And I'm not the only AFD closer, where are probably half dozen regular AFD admin closers and we all behave similarly, as far as I know. So, if this problem has reoccured then it's because I'm the only closer that has handled articles about North Korean footballers. The closure process doesn't make it easy to examine links to other articles to see what they are, it's kind of an "all or none" option and most (all?) closers choose to remove all links.

I also wonder how common it is that a North Korean football player has the same name as a politican. Is this really a big issue? All I can offer you as a soljution is that I skip closures of AFDs about North Korean football players but I think you will run into the same issue with any other closer who does handle them. It's just the way XFDcloser operates and closers are dependent on this editing tool. I'm sorry that I can't offer you a more elegant solution than for me to just cease closing these AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure that these links are all removed because of AFDs? Because we see a lot of North Korean football players in PROD'd articles and that is a different situation entirely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Question: when using XFDcloser, do you see a list of pages you are about to edit/just edited when removing the links? Otherwise, it might be a good idea to check your own contributions after running the script, just to verify that removing the links made sense. For example, after you closed the Ri Yong-chol AfD, you made edits to the following pages:

• 2017 in South Korean football
• Organization and Guidance Department *
• 2017 EAFF E-1 Football Championship
• South Korea national football team results (2010–2019)
• 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
• Jo Myong-rok *
• 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup squads
• 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup squads
• 2010 AFC U-19 Championship squads
• 6th Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea *
• 2015 Thailand national football team results
• North Korea–South Korea football rivalry
• 2019 North Korean parliamentary election *
• 2017 EAFF E-1 Football Championship Final squads
• 2015 EAFF East Asian Cup Final squads
• 2014 North Korean parliamentary election *
• 2017 King's Cup squads
• Yon Hyong-muk *
• Young-chul *

Knowing you just deleted an article about a football player, many of those are obviously correct. However, the ones I marked with a * above are not as obvious, so you should verify whether your edit made sense and possibly self-revert. Obviously, that's not always necessary, only when the name of the deleted article could be ambiguous. And looking at your contributions, most deleted articles have far fewer incoming links, so checking if the removals made sense is even less work.

(note: in this case, Number 57 already fixed the two election pages, I fixed four others, and the last one is a list of people with that given name, so it's a correct removal.) --rchard2scout (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realise it was automatically done by XFDcloser rather than you doing it. It's not a massive problem, but just as it had happened so often I thought it would be worth bringing to your attention. Perhaps it's an issue for XFDcloser and tweaking that so closers can examine the incoming links to make sure they are all relevant? I've never used it, so not sure how it works. Number 57 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieving my draft titled "The Jackson 5 Us Tour"

I request for this draft titled "The Jackson 5 US Tour" that was taken down by you on October 4, 2024. I wasn't aware until now that it was lacking editing and that it was taken. I'd like my draft back. 1Skywriter (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 1Skywriter,

Please provide a link to the deleted page. Then I can see why it was deleted. That will determine whether or not it can be restored. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Jackson_5_US_Tour&action=edit&section=2 1Skywriter (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done This was a straight CSD speedy deletion G13, stale draft, 1Skywriter. These are easily restored. You can find it at Draft:The Jackson 5 US Tour. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Olga Gnedovskaya

I was almost certain I added a reference and deproded this article. Could you check in the history to see if I did, or am I not remembering right? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, BeanieFan11,

You are right, I was wrong. Sometimes, I open up articles, each in a tab, that are due to be deleted. I saw in the page history that you added content but I didn't note that you had removed the PROD tag, this is often noted in an edit summary. But I should have refreshed my screen. Thanks for being on top of this and your work on PROD'd articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Altenmann's doubling down

Hey Liz, Thanks for attempting to intervene with @Altenmann:, who I have pinged for transparency. Unfortunately, they are clearly not getting the message that they're deep into battleground behavior. And insulting my coding ability, telling me I should be shamed by my behavior, and frankly, just throwing a temper tantrum instead of trying to actually engage in the issue, is not helping them achieve their desired outcome. Frankly, I'm surprised that they have so many edits (200k+) and think that this kind of behavior is acceptable. I think that they should be embarrassed by their behavior. I'd rather not waste ANI's time if it can be prevented. ^SMason_Garrison 01:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, politely revert warring with cosmonauts in the category of Russian Empire is a nice and pleasant behavior. Surely you are not ashamed of your WP:OWN attitude. Your coding creates a mess in wikipedia category, and it is a fact, not an insult. Yes with my 200k+ non-automated edits have brought me in a contact with plenty of bullies and sometimes I am losing temper. --Altenmann >talk 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Smasongarrison,

This is typical of my experience with this editor over the years. Every once in a while, they will post here IRATE, not displeased but seriously angry, over some random edit I made that is just typical of the editing I do, nothing out of the ordinary at all. But it drew their attention and they were not happy about it.

When I tried to discuss the situation, they might have made some parting shot but then they just moved back to continue editing like nothing had ever happened. I'm sure given their MO over their long tenure here, there is enough for an ANI complaint about civility but it would take a lot of time to track down all of the diffs and I'm sure you'd rather be editing categories. If I were you, I'd try to just shake it off and know that you are just the latest target of their displeasure and they are unlikely to be hounding you. I think especially among editors who been editing here for a long-time, they just learn to avoid disputes by keeping their distance from editors who push their buttons. No one at Wikipedia gets along with everyone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, it's good to know that this is just what they do. I assume that after the CFD closes with a rename, they'll move on to their corner of the internet. And yep, you're right, I'd much rather be futzing around with categories :) ^SMason_Garrison 01:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to re-open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Safety Authority

I would like you to re-open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Safety Authority because I was on wikibreak so I couldn't participate in the discussion. Per AusLondonder, since it's officially approved by the government, and it passes WP:GNG/WP:Notability and is very likely to commence operations. Referring to the Pakistan Airport Authority as an example, it was approved in the same month last year and has now started operations. Moreover, we also have National Cyber Crimes Investigation Agency being approved before the E-Safety Authority and which is yet to start operations. Ainty Painty (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ainty Painty,

I don't see a strong reason to reopen that AFD. Besides, the article hasn't been deleted, just moved to Draft space. You can work on it at Draft:E-Safety Authority and submit it to AFC. No content has been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom

FWIW, I think you'd make a great arb. I hope I see your name on the ballot. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 C F A 💬 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, RoySmith and CFA. I had a pretty grueling RFA but that was 9 years ago so maybe this wouldn't be a repeat of that experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They changed username

I'm leaving that anonymous here in case it breaches any outing policy 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand, Timtrent. I didn't see any indication of a changed username and generally, when a username is changed the renamer moves their user pages to those corresponding to the new username. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed it hereon 9 Nov 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is peculiar. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Timtrent. The same thing just happened with User:Lukejstancil who might now be User:RiceOwl24. Do we have a new renamer who doesn't know what they are doing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure. If it is the same one then a polite enquiry might bear fruit. I don't get very close to arcane things like renaming, I'm afraid 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Radka Zelníčková

Hello @Liz I thought I'd answer your question here rather than on the AFD discussion as it isn't relevant to whether the article is deleted or not (it'll be not by the way). Shrug02 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Shrug02,

Welcome to my User talk page. But I don't see an answer here. And because I edit so much, I've forgotten what the question was. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello again @Liz I've now left an answer on the page in question. I've had enough of all this business and would like to be left alone now. I will not be participating in any further AFD matters after the current ones are closed as 1 I started doing Wikipedia for fun not hassle and 2 the process is a biased farce based on who says what rather than facts and rule adherence. Have a great day 🙂 Shrug02 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD Barnstar

		The Articles for Deletion Barnstar
		For all the work you dedicate, every day, to closing or relisting so many discussions. Thank you for keeping AfD ticking! MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, MolecularPilot, I've never seen this barnstar before. You must have created it. There's about half a dozen of us regular AFD discussion closers, happy to play a part. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yes, I did create it, because it must take so much effort for you (and the other closers) to do the pretty thankless task of reviewing ALL the AfDs that close every day and I thought a little recognition was in order. I thanked you first because from what I've you always throughly evaluate the consensus and close with reasonable ATDs that might not have been considered. So, thanks I guess! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if I have a bias in closing AFDs, MolecularPilot, It's not for "Keep" or "Delete", it's for a valid ATD. But I found out early on when I first started that I can't introduce an ATD, it has to come out of the discussion. So, hopefully, a participant can find a relevant article to redirect to and bring it up in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted redirect from student mis-merging

Hi Liz,

Mülbach had been a bare stub in mainspace. Then a student-project began working on it in draft-space. It was recommended they merge the stub with the draft, which they did. But they did "stub merge+redirect to draft", rather than leaving the stub existing until the draft was ready to move to mainspace. Should the mainspace be undeleted and returned to the stub state, rather than losing mainspace content? DMacks (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks,

Feel free to do whatever you think is appropriate. It was just deleted as an CSD R2, cross-namespace redirect, not because of the content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! DMacks (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, DMacks, I"m trying to turn over a new leaf. I have been remiss in not replying to messages on my talk page very promptly. I was waiting until the end of the day to respond to them all and then something would come up. I'm trying a new way of responding to messages soon after they are posted. Wish me luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"Good luck!" If you're in the northern hemisphere at the moment, perhaps you can find some nice autumn leaves for turning-over or shuffling-through. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor you blocked

Hello Liz, you recently blocked this editor from category namespace for improper editing there, and it appears they have now transferred that same behavior to file namespace. Can you please take a look and consider taking additional administrative action? Thanks. Left guide (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It seems like the accounts has now been globally locked. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 10:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Isabelle Belato and Left guide. We have a number of sockmasters who focus on children's TV series and animated films and this was probably one of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your light touch is needed

Hello Liz Dr. D. presents his compliments, respecting you to be one of the (alas, now very few) sensible and rational administrators of this community. Since Dr. D's group members do not edit Wikipedia article space, he requests yous to kindly arrange with like minded admins to Revdel all references to his bodies on this project, for which he shall be obliged. PS: that's a really cute kitten(meister). PPS: The medium is the message SumoAvocado (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SumoAvocado,

Welcome to my User talk page. First, I have no idea who Dr. D is so I wouldn't know how to search for references to him on this enormous project. If there aer specific edits you are concerned about, please provide a "diff" or link to an individual edit and I'll see whether or not it fits in with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There usually has to be a good reason to remove content from an article (unsourced claim, BLP violation, copyright infringement, etc.) so if you could provide a reason why these mentions are unsuitable, that would be helpful. But first, you really have to first provide a real name before any action can be considered.

If you have any general questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies and guidelines, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. I'm not always available but there is almost always someone available at the Teahouse to address any concerns you have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt revert. Here's the diff. and here's Dr.D in conversation with famous journalist and author Iftikhar Gilani. Since we presently have no intention to edit in mainspace, your welcome offer of the Teahouse is politely postponed to a future date. (Sorry for any misunderstands, English is not my first language).SumoAvocado (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SumoAvocado,

Well, I see no reason to revert my comment on WP:ANI but I'm not sure that's even what you are asking of me. And you still haven't provided a name for who is this "Dr. D". I read through that link you shared and I didn't see anyone who is a "Dr." who had a last name that started with "D". Your intentions for your contributions on Wikipedia are unclear to me so I don't know how to respond to you. You are being very indirect and not spelling out what you want to happen. But discussions on Wikipedia are public and not censored as long as they don't violate our guidelines and policies. So, I guess, for the moment, this discussion is over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Dr. R.S. Dalvi, CEO of Hindu Raksha Dal requests Administrators of Wikipedia (English version) to delete all references to Hindu Raksha Dal and "Hindu News" / "Hindunews.stream" from WMF hosted computer servers. Specifically, for the present, Hindu Raksha Dal desires that the following threads be REVDELed 1 and 2 as they contain unacceptable, derogatory language and ignorant opinions about the organisation and its projects. SumoAvocado (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I figured out you were referring to "Rajendra Singh Dalvi". I did a search on Wikipedia and he is not mentioned in any article on the project. I'm not going to delete entire discussions about the Hindu News and no other admin would either. That would be censorship. Just because a discussion can contain criticism does not make it defamatory. Discussing subjects in detail is how editors come to a consensus on how to treat sources and come to decisions.

If you want to make a complaint to WMF about this, I recommend going to the Teahouse and asking them how to contact our parent organization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Certain privileged confidential material criminally misappropriated from a private website of Hindu News is being discussed on your website by strangers to the Hindu Raksha Dal/HRA. In these discussions highly disparaging and derogatory remarks are being made about Hindu Raksha Dal (an intensely private body) and its projects. Your editors have no cause to discuss HRD / HRA (private bodies) or its private projects, it's a blatant violation of your CoC. When an HRD rep visits your website to protest he gets blocked. When we approach WMF (in the past) they say they have no editorial control over this website. Having previously gotten these matters escalated all the way up to the Supreme Court of India (where WMF was severely rapped for its selfsame stand) on the 2024 Kolkata rape/murder victim naming issue, HRD is now left with limited options (incl. but not limited to enforcing its own CoC in place of WMF's). If complaints to Senior Administrators of this website go unheeded it only spirals the situation, especially since HRD/HRA is not your typical "rule of law abiding" aggrieved stranger coming here to complain. NB: When WMF pleaded "no censorship" to the Supreme Court of India, they were told categorically WMF would be blocked in India. Its a slippery slope. If legally ill informed Wikipedia editors generate content about a private Indian organisation that contravenes India's cyber, media and criminal laws , we should not be told that only US law and Wikipedia (English) policies like "no censorship" apply. SumoAvocado (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

SumoAvocado, I've already advised you to go to the Teahouse if you want to get in touch with WMF. Additional comments here, trying to itimidate me into doing what you ask, will have no effect so I see reason to continue this conversation. I do not know anything about the Indian courts, I'm just an administrator, taking care of my daily tasks and my concern is the health of the project, not your organization. I advise you not to make any legal threats which would result in a swift block of your account. Since your interest seems to be into debating and not actually contributing to this project, I'll ask you politely to move on from my User talk page and find something more productive to do with your time. Good bye. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We have more than one email communication from WMF Legal (eg. from WMF erstwhile counsel Michelle Paulson -Date: Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:27 AM-, and/or jpgordon, and/or legal@wikimedia.org "On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation") asking us to reach out directly to Wikipedia (English) admins in such situation. Because you are an Admin who has posted multiple messages on the Administrators Notice Board thread we are concerned with and in accordance with the afore described WMF communications to us, we are reaching out to you, and you specifically, to get those 2 threads entirely redacted / revdelled IN GOOD FAITH as contrary to US Law in addition to Indian law, as well as WMF's CoC and ToU. We are puzzled why you feel intimidated. As an Administrator of this website and its policies, surely you are obliged to follow the policies of your website and those of your media hosts which we are approaching you to enforce with the administrative tools at your disposal which are not available to us. SumoAvocado (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Invitation for Your Insight and Guidance

Hello Liz,

I am Muhammad, and while you don’t know me, I’ve noticed and greatly admire your work on improving Wikipedia. I’m reaching out because I’ve recently been given a 72-hour block (that's now expired), but I’m still not entirely clear on the reason behind it.

I saw your comment on my prior talk page [2], and it seems you may be familiar with my actions. I’m open to discussing the situation further in case there has been any misunderstanding or if I missed something. Any insight you have to help me understand the reasons behind the block would be truly appreciated.

I’ve written a response here [3] and would be grateful if you could take a moment to review it. I’m more than willing to engage in a constructive conversation to clarify things and if I had indeed done something wrong to get 72 hours, I will take responsibility for those actions. But it's hard to take responsibility when you don't even understand the error.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.49.180.201.206 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 49.180.201.206,

If you are evading a block, please stop editing right now. Wait for your block to end and then we can talk. Block evasion can result in a much longer block for your original account, lasting weeks and months, not 72 hours. This is a short block and don't do anything to jeopardize your original account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I had waited until the entire 72 hours is over before asking you on your talk. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&ip=49.181.58.245) There's no current block because it had expired almost one day ago. I know it's short so that's not a big deal. What's a big deal is not even understanding it. 49.180.201.206 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 49.180.201.206,

Well, I'm glad to hear that your original block is over. I have posted a response to you on the User talk page of your original account, the one that got blocked. I'm sure you won't be satisfied by my comments but it's the best advice I can offer you. I'm not saying that your block wasn't a "big deal", every block is a big deal to the person who has been blocked. But if you want to continue to edit here in harmony with the community, you need to move past this block and work on improving the articles and other productive work you could do. Think less of the past and more about the positive ways you can contribute from here on out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The conversation with SumoAvocado

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I know you are more than capable of handling this incident yourself, as you have been. Sometimes, though, the protector needs protection. I hope I have not overstepped the mark here. If I have, and if I have upset you in any manner over this, first please accept my apologies, and second please ask me to withdraw the ANI report. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually only came by to thank you for offering bludgeoning advice to the Gerard Gertoux editor. The SumoAvocado behaviour offended me greatly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, Timtrent, I wasn't pleased that you brought this discussion to ANI because while I, in general, agree with removing vandals, I didn't think I need "protecting" from this particular conversation. And also I was wondering how far this editor was going to go with their demands. But I didn't object here, or at ANI, because I had ended the discussion here and I thought that this subject of threats against Wikipedia is bigger than me and this User talk page and my interactions with this editor. I was considering sharing this discussion on AN but that was just to inform other administrators about the revision deletion demands, not to take action against the editor. But now that NRP has identified the editor as a probable sock, if I had known that earlier, I would have blocked them myself. But I see you had good intentions when you took your action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I was in two minds over this. Please accept my apologies for the displeasure I have caused you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, no, Timtrent, no apologies are necessary. I know that you do what you do for the benefit from the project and clearly this was an attempt to exert undue influence over our discussions and content. As a woman, the language of "protection" probably strikes me differently than if I was male or gender fluid.

But I also appreciate having editors watch my user talk page because, for some reason, I seem to have a lot of socks and bad actors reach out to me, maybe it's because I'm female, I don't know. Additionally, I do try to engage with some blocked editors to help them understand why they have been blocked and perhaps that is an unwise use of my time and I should rethink that activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You may not believe this, but I had not considered your gender, your username notwithstanding. I see you as a valued colleague, no more and no less. I consider Wikipedia editors to be equal in every respect with each other. I think I need to stop digging this hole now!

Juxtaposed with Trump I can now see why that wording would upset, though. It was an inappropriate word choice. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's Blaxstocatamazon or someone related. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Peer pressure

I know there is usually a last-minute rush but at the moment we don't even have enough candidates to fill the open spots. And although several former arbs are running, the committee needs people who aren't as jaded and prone to burnout. I think you could bring the perspective of a very hard-working admin who knows what it is like to be in the trenches to the committee, something that it may be a bit thin on right now. I'm also more or less positive you'd get in if you ran.

The process really isn't so bad, you answer a bunch of questions, maybe a few people comment on your discussion page, that's pretty much it, the rest is just waiting. I expect it will be considerably easier for you than it is going to be for me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Just Step Sideways,

I actually just posted my statement but had some glitches so if you could double-check it, that would be awesome. I noticed during the same half hour, that two other admins also posted their statements so maybe this is the beginning of the last minute rush. But thanks for the encouragement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Good luck, Liz! Though I'm sure JSS is right and you don't need much extra luck. There's lots of folks on standby ready to pick up the slack if you have to drop some of that hard work you do to handle ArbCom business instead. :) -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, you know, besides repeating the horrendous experience that was my RFA, the other reason I was hesitating to file was because I greatly enjoy the work I do as an admin and it keeps me very, very busy. I'm reluctant to let that go as it provides me with little boosts of energy throughout the day. But, if I am elected, we'll talk more and maybe I can start delegating some of the projects that I spend time on to other competent administrators who might have some time on their hands (just/kidding) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting both of your candidacies @Just Step Sideways @Liz (and full disclosure, a root vegetable of whom I'm quite fond). You are exactly what ArbComm needs to move this project forward in its next decade but also amid this world mess which will lead to more CTs and not less. Good luck! Star Mississippi 02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Star Mississippi, I appreciate your support, as always. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Great to see you run Liz! Best of luck with your candidacy. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And the same to you, Daniel. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

ooh another one I'll be supporting. Didn't realize you were running @Daniel. Star Mississippi 13:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, things are looking much better this morning. Best of luck. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite semiprotection of ANI

Hi, Liz. You have semiprotected ANI from editing indefinitely, which is very unique and surely not desirable. Usually it gets protected for 6 or 12 hours or a few days at most. Did you perhaps misclick and mean to semi moving the page indefinitely, which is usual, and from editing for 3 days? Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC).

Oh, never mind, I see you changed it as I was posting, with ECR protection for 3 hours. Mind you, I still think moving the page should be indefinitely limited to admins. Basically, nobody needs to move it. Bishonen | tålk 09:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC).

That was a mistake, I meant to semi-protect it for 3 days but it sounds like even that would be too long. I'm not sure why the default duration of protection is "infinite". I didn't want to protect for only extended confirmed editors but this troll seemed to have an infinite number of accounts and reverting them was burning up our supply of editors. But it's just for 3 hours, hopefully, long enough for him to get bored and move on. But sorry for my mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem, and I see you caught it yourself. The short ECR protection is novel but seems a good idea in this situation. (But, sorry to go on about it, what about the move protection? Move vandalism is quite popular, if the trolls get a chance with a major page.) Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC).

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

• Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
• Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
• Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Liz! I hope it's ok to reach out with this suggestion, you know so much more about Wikipedia than I do but I'm wondering if I might be able to help a little with blocked editors, considering what you've said? I've been working on getting more experience with editing (specifically with the Typo Team) as you kindly suggested, along with some basic copy editing of random articles. I've come across editors who were otherwise decent, but became embroiled in a dispute to the point that they lost perspective & wouldn't drop the stick.

They were angry because they cared about their work but let it get the best of them & just needed someone to acknowledge their feelings, so I continued on their Talk page to say if I could help. I'm glad to say that it definitely did and the stick was dropped - you can see the discussion link in the Barnstar on my Talk page if you want to see an example, or I can post a direct link for you?

If you come across someone who you think might benefit from a similar positive message on their Talk, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to do so! I realise how busy you are (and will be, I can see everyone's rooting for you for Arb!). Needless to say, I'm too inexperienced to discuss the reasons for a block, policies, other people's actions etc., so I absolutely will not discuss that. If things go awry I'll immediately stop and seek advice. TLDR: If you come across someone who might need a positive post please let me know; similarly if you don't think this is a good idea then I completely understand, I just wanted to throw this out there to see if I can help 🙂 Blue-Sonnet (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Blue-Sonnet,

I moved your comment to start a new discussion as it had nothing to do with the rather intense conversation that you placed this in the middle of. Please do not insert content that is not relevant to a discussion, especially in the middle of an ongoing conversation. I don't think you have enough editing experience to be advising other editors (maybe when you are extended confirmed) but I encourage your efforts to deescalate situations. W