Jump to content

User talk:Liz/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"

Request to contact you

Hi Liz,

I've been asked by a person who wants to contact you to act as an intermediary because I have a Wikipedia account.

My email is craig @ weiler . com. (Just remove the spaces.) thanks. Craig Weiler (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

This Month in Education: January 2014



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Page moves without discussion

What the hell do you think you're doing! CassiantoTalk 11:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What part of "discuss first" are you failing to understand? If you move the pages anymore without discussing it first, you will be reported. Now, stay away! CassiantoTalk 11:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

See my talk. Cheers CassiantoTalk 12:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane articles

Hey there. I was wondering how long do you estimate til you're done editing all of the hurricane articles? The categories really aren't that significant, and I can't find any edits made by other people :/ In the future, could you label them as minor edits, by chance? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just working on categorization of natural disasters, Hurricanehink. I don't know if there is any more work to be done. Right now, I'm working on earthquakes and floods. I work mostly with categories, so I do think they are important. It's about organization, not content. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your move of Hurricane Charley

Hi there; I saw your move of Hurricane Charley a few minutes ago. Within the tropical cyclones project, it's a de facto standard for notable hurricanes to not be disambiguated in the title, due to their importance. For example, there was a storm which took the name of Betsy in 1956, but the more notable storm in 1965 was not disambiguated, and is located at Hurricane Betsy.

If you'd like to see it moved back to Hurricane Charley (2004), feel free to put up a discussion on the talk page.

Thanks,
Cloudchased (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not just "notable", but in this case, retired. Retired storms always get the main name preference. --Golbez (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, Cloudchased and Golbez. I'm not a weather expert, I just sort out categorizations. It appeared to me that any time a name of a hurricane was used more than once and they were notable, the year was added. But I bow to your expertise! I think I've done the clean-up work I saw that needed to be done and am on to earthquakes and floods. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You've been mentioned online in a case study regarding harassment on Wikipedia re: Sheldrake

Favorably of course. Wikipedia, we have a problem

Happy New Year. Thanks for your work and service on WP. No more scary monsters (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Will this Sheldrake mess ever be over, No more scary monsters? Some users are incredibly fixated. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #92

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Categories for UK weather articles

I agree with the other category changes that you've made to articles relating to UK weather events, but I'm wondering why you removed the "Droughts in the United Kingdom" category from 1976 United Kingdom heat wave. That heatwave was the culmination of a long drought that began around May the previous year, and the category seems to me appropriate and useful for the article. It's true that the article was the only one with the category, which clearly isn't desirable, but that reflects a failure of people to provide articles on other notable droughts, something that hopefully will be put right at some point. JH (talk page) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of unicorns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supernatural (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #93

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Talback –categorization of Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #94

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Pastorelli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outrageous Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User stats

I ran into you a couple of months ago during a flap about Rupert Sheldrake. Some of your userboxes inspired me to do a "user stats" section on my horribly oversized user page. See it HERE and notice a little joke -- a self-effacing comment in the second bullet references one of the pages I created. Tee hee.

If I knew how to do it, I'd like to include counts of all the articles in Wikipedia and all the active editors. I figured it out. Lou Sander (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Top 25 Report

Hi liz,

Sorry to bother you -- I could not figure out who else to ask this question: I checked the history of Category:Top 25 Report to see who created it, but all I can see there is your edit of 18:05, 14 December 2013 and nothing else. Just curious. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ottawahitech. It looks like I created the category but it's Serendipodous who comes up with the weekly Top 25 chart. The Top 25 has been generated for over a year now, is an ongoing statistical breakdown and deserved a category of its own. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Strange. I usually see "(New category.)" not "(added Category:Wikipedia statistics using HotCat)" in the edit summary for a creation of a new cat. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #95

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.


Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Jefferson Market Public Library
 Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014,
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley.
--Pharos (talk)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2014



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Ban/Block

Please read WP:Banning policy to understand the difference between a user who is blocked and a user who is banned to see why I removed the comments by that IP address.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked that account, Ryūlóng, and they have never been blocked and there was no notice that they had been banned. If they are banned, it should be noted on their account. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are mistaking the meaning of block and ban. The IP is a sockpuppet of a banned editor who used the username Wiki-star. Because Wiki-star has been indefinitely blocked since 2006, he is de facto banned because no one would ever think it would be a good idea to unblock him considering he has been harassing Zarbon since apparently 2004. Again, the IP is being used by someone who is banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Liz. I've been here since 2006. I was an administrator for a period of time longer than you've been a registered editor. I know Wikipedia policy. It is clear that you do not. Please acquaint yourself with these policies, particularly the ones I have pointed out to you, before speaking up on behalf of someone who has been stalking and harassing another editor across this site and WikiQuote for more than 8 years and recently chose me as his new whipping boy.
Also, you do not need to copy the styling of my signature in order to get my attention. Just use my normal username within the template {{U}}.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Banning policy, never restore a banned user's content. Doing so means you are accepting all responsibility for the banned user's content or you are proxy editing for that banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. You know, I've now read a slew of conversations involving you on Wikipedia over the past 8 years (including RfCs, RfAs and Arbitration) and come to the conclusion that, regardless of the consequences, this is what you do...you go after accounts you judge to be sock puppets with an unbridled fury and zealousness. Removing your admin privileges didn't change that, time hasn't changed that, people asking you to ease up on your ferocity hasn't changed that, it's just how you operate on Wikipedia.
A 24 hour block will have no effect on your conviction that you tracking down and deleting the edits of people you view as sock puppets takes precedence over the wishes of other editors that you don't edit their Talk Page. I don't see a rosy future for you, despite your clear record of WP contributions, if you disregard repeated warnings from other users.
But all I know for sure though is that I do not want to be part of this drama. So, I'll stay out of your way and I hope you no longer come to my Talk Page implying that me undoing your edit on a Talk Page means I have some connection to a banned user...a revert that, by the way, X96lee15 thanked me for making. But enough verbiage, thanks for informing me of your stance and goodbye. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists by status

Hi Liz, I'd appreciate it if you would take another look at the CFD for this category and give serious consideration to my counter-proposal to rename the category rather than merging/deleting. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #96

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • See the office hours logs at meta
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • See the FOSDEM slides
    • Thiemo joins the Wikidata development team
  • Development
    • More work on badges by Bene*
    • Lots of Lua improvements by hoo (separate announcement with details soon)
    • Created backend Time parsers (yet another necessary step towards doing more in the backend instead of in Java Script in the frontend)
    • Automatic builds created, tested and deployed to beta labs every day!
    • Investigate Elastic Search as possible backend for queries
    • Made Wikibase Query work with our new component structure
  • Monthly Tasks

AdminStats

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at User_talk:JamesR/AdminStats#Count.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— JamesR (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #97

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
  • Reasonator
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Wrote performance tests so we can track performance improvements better
    • Did a code review of all gadgets that are enabled by default in Wikidata. Found and fixed a performance bottleneck.
    • Work on making the interface more responsive, e. g. live preview when editing labels and updating the watchlist star when saving.
    • Started refactoring and fixing issues with automatically created summaries that are, for example, created by bots via API calls.
    • Fixed an issue with OAuth on Wikidata because of permissions
    • Started code review of the code the student team is working on for suggestions
    • Discussed updates to the data model document to be able to update it to the actual implementation
    • Did a technical debt analysis and design review of Wikibase.git, with initial focus on WikibaseLib
    • Got (backend) EntityStore on the way, so we can test API modules without touching the database
    • Further work on TimeParsers move to the backend
  • Monthly Tasks

Constant removal of Jewish categories

Please stop removing categories of people of Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian descent from their proper Jewish categories. It's been agreed upon to include them in various discussions, and you've been reverted every single time you did removed such categories, but you still persist. Next time, a warning shall be sent. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

First, Shalom11111, it has not been "agreed upon". There was a months-long discussion at WP:WikiProject Judaism and it was far from resolved, with a slight majority arguing against labeling all people of Jewish descent (not Jewish, of Jewish descent) as being "Asian". I have as much (if not more) support for removing the Asian category as there is for keeping it. You are stating a false consensus.
Second, my "constant" removal was actually the removal on three articles. Considering that I have over 17,000 edits, I do not spend a lot of time editing topic on Jewish descent and saying I am constantly removing these categories is purely hyperbole.
That said, I do not want to edit war. But I will bring up this subject again and see if rationality will prevail and there can be a clear consensus for saying, for example, that an individual who is of Brazilian-Jewish descent is not of Asian descent. It is ludicrous to argue that every person, on every continent, who ever had one Jewish ancestor somewhere in their family history, is Asian. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I know there were some discussions about this in the past and you're welcome to start a new one if you want.
Nearly all the categories I added were of "Middle Eastern descent", I agree that the Asian one can be much more disputed. But DNA tests, scientific results, and archaeological evidence don't lie, and therefore the Middle Eastern categories should be included in the proper places. Regarding that example you gave - note that categories can never be 100% accurate for 100% of the pages they are used on, and this is nothing new and doesn't only apply here. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Warehouse 13 episodes

Hi Liz. I was wondering why you removed all the articles from Category:Warehouse 13 episodes? I thought it was common practice to categorise TV episode articles in this way. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DH85868993, I don't recall how many episodes have their own article but typically we don't have categories that have less than, say, 6 articles and there needs to be a clear room for expansion. As this is the final season of Warehouse 13, I doubt that many editors will go back and write full articles on past episodes from other seasons. If I'm wrong about this and you expect to write further articles, it might warrant having a category devoted to the episodes. But it is definitely not the case that most television series have categories for their episodes because there are few TV shows where editors write up articles for individual episodes.
If you choose to revert and add the category back to the articles, I'll probably bring the matter to WP:CFD and propose Category:Warehouse 13 episodes for deletion. This way, other editors can voice their opinion.
By the way, I appreciate you being polite about an editing decision you clearly don't agree with. It makes a difference! Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is no minimum number of pages per category at all, but 5, not 6, is the number commonly thrown around as a general agreement as to the minimum. I agree that there is probably no need to have the episode cat at this point, but when you removed the articles from the cat, you should have added the articles to Category:Warehouse 13 and nominated Category:Warehouse 13 episodes for deletion as an empty cat. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, AussieLegend, and that was an oversight on my part. I'll double-check those articles. By the way, in the days since you posted this, I have taken quite a few categories to CfD for a proper discussion. The discussions haven't closed yet as the process takes some time. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

  • This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
  • Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
  • The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
  • An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #98

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Liz! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

I had to revert you on this one, as this cat was there when the discussion concluded at the end of December 2013, and there was no consensus for removal or for addition. See the diff. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Category:American_people_of_Jewish_descent&diff=588133201&oldid=582517384 Evildoer187 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to your message

Re: your post on User_talk:175.38.131.95 Yes, and it's an area that I have a strong interest in. May I enquire as to whether there is some sort of issue?I presume that "diving into a contentious category" is something that I have the right to do, and honestly, I'm not sure I would consider that category to be particularly contentious, especially since a very substantial percentage of the Jewish population do have Semitic DNA markers. But thank you for your input. Kitty (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying yourself, Kitty. It's not that this is simply a contentious area, it was just strange to see an IP account whose only edit was on this divisive subject. Of course, there are no off-limits areas, I just thought you might be one of the editors involved in the debate who I'd be familiar with. For background reading, look over Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 32, an entire archive page devoted to this question of whether individuals "of Jewish descent" should be categorized as "of Asian descent". The result was there was no consensus either way so you might find your edit reverted, like I did mine. I am trying to start another discussion to seek some resolution, one way or the other, on the WP:CfD talk page.
And, for what it's worth, most articles relating in some way to race or ethnicity seem to be areas of contention. Political issues and health-related topics, too, but ethnicity even more so. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz :) Kitty (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason is privacy concerns

Liz, the admonished administrator Kww has been deleting my communication to you on your own talkpage if you haven't noticed. I will not repost it once you tell me it is unwelcome, not him. Again, I saw where you said about me that you "don't understand the reluctance to be forthcoming about alternate accounts." Excuse me if there's a note of frustration in my tone, but *I explained this* in my very first post, and at multiple points in the RFC/U. Once more: I don't have "alternate accounts." I am a single account user with a single prior account that I abandoned for privacy concerns. I hope you will consider going back [1] and changing your viewpoint. This is Colton Cosmic. 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, your comments are not unwelcome and I saw your first comment which was similar to this one. This is such a big mess that I don't think that my comment will make that difference in your case. I certainly understand privacy concerns but it seems like this is a trade-off, either tell ARBCOM your previous account or lose Colton Cosmic. Something has to change in your argument because you are not swaying public opinion. It comes down to what you value more, your privacy or having the Colton Cosmic account. I'm not sure you can have both. By the way, I don't think that ARBCOM gossips, just confide in one arbitrator, they can check on the old account and then consider an unblock. But repeating your current argument over and over again, on different user talk page is not proving to be successful. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, well against my better judgment I told Jimbo my former account. He had agreed to treat my appeal favorably if it checked out, though he did not agree specifically to unblock me. Instead, he appeared to become disinterested after eagerly emailing me three times to convince me to tell him the account. He just ceased responding. Finally a month and an half later or so, he said without explanation or criticism of my former account (which is indeed unblocked, unwarned, and so forth) that I now had to tell the Arbcom mailing list. That is not the favorable treatment he had promised. I was suckered by Jimbo Wales. What else? I *do* think Arbcom gossips, and they've historically leaked. I'm not concerned with public opinion right now, was only trying to get *your* support. This is Colt on Co5mic.
Well, Colton, I've read your about your situation and I can't explain Jimmy Wales' action. Personally, I would not expect him to follow up with requests from individual Wikipedians to look into their cases but I guess he has done that occasionally. I'm not sure what else I can say that I haven't already said above. At this point, no admin is going to reverse your block on their own (because of the likelihood of the action being reverted by another admin) and your approach is not having much success. Time to change strategies, I think. Liz Read! Talk! 15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from December 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks, Liz, for the great thoughts on my talk page, and for calling out that it IS a pretty cool job. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, Philippe Beaudette, it's much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback?

If you have any thoughts on the case for blocking me as a sockpuppet, your input would be greatly valued. Thanks! The Cap'n (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Cap'n, I think it's ridiculous, frankly. But I don't think there is a place in a SPI for me to say that. The way I understand it, check users can't match an IP account with a registered account definitively so they can only look at behavioral elements and see if the two accounts had similar behavior and editing styles. I think this is ordinarily inconclusive but this strategy has been used to block accounts in the past. Unfortunately, "sock" is a terrible label and should the label stick, every future account you create will be blocked if your association with it is established. That's why it is extremely convenient and effective for editors you disagree with to launch a SPI if there is any suspicion that an editor is using more than one account. When I last looked at this case, there hadn't been a decision and the checkuser was asking for a second opinion.
My only thought that if you did use this IP address because you weren't logged in, just declare that to be the case. I have two IP addresses listed on my user page that I have edits because I neglected to log in. It is not wrong to have an alternative account if you acknowledge it and don't use it for nefarious purposes (like voting twice in an RfA, AfD or covertly supporting one account with another). So, if this is you, let them know. If it's not you, then let the investigation wrap up. I've never seen an SPI where the individual in question played a part so I'd just leave it alone.
The impression I'm left with is that it was a helluva lot of trouble to compile all of this information and present this case. There are clearly editors here that don't want your viewpoint heard. I know it's hard not to take this personally but it seems like a strategic move to drive out people with a differing opinion. It could be you, it could be me or anyone else who spoke out. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at the SPI and seen your response there when I posted my comment here. It makes some of my remarks moot. Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN

Do you think we should do it? I want to get everybody's opinion before we proceed.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as you and Gilad555 edit war, the only resolution will be to hand out blocks. Liz, could you please help stop their joined efforts on Category:American people of Jewish descent? Debresser (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Evildoer187, I believe Iryna Harpy volunteered to put together a case. I would, since I initiated the discussion at Wikiproject Judaism but I think, at this point, I'm not seen as neutral and I think the case should be presented and then discussed without debates about the accuracy of the presentation.
Debresser, you know that you and I are pretty much in agreement on this particular issue. I initiated the original discussion, solicited feedback from editors who had posted on the WP Judaism talk page before, explained my stance on descent categories and the subsequent discussion lasted about a month without consensus. A couple of months went by, I made some category changes to test the waters and was reverted. In the {WP:BRD]] scenario, it's now time to discuss. I'm not looking forward to it, I'm sure it'll rehash our previous conversation but I'd like to get this settled, one way or the other. I don't think anyone wants to get blocked for edit warring but that's what I see in the future unless we get a third opinion on this to break the stalemate.
Looking towards a DRN case, one thing that I think got the conversation off-track was editors who showed up and argued based on a theological, biblical perspective. It's a social and cultural debate, not a biblical one. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Social and cultural arguments were made on both sides. I don't recall seeing the Bible brought up in that discussion at any point by anyone except Debresser, but I could be wrong. Debresser, who are you to accuse anyone of edit warring when you yourself just broke WP:3RR?Evildoer187 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
"A couple of months went by, I made some category changes to test the waters and was reverted." What exactly do you think "no consensus" means? It means no changes until consensus is achieved, not "wait a few months and make the contested changes anyway".Evildoer187 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought no-consensus means that there was no decision, either way. It doesn't mean "do not ever make any future edits ever on this subject." Are you suggesting that every topic where no consensus exists should not be edited until consensus is reached? Because that would invalidate a lot of edits on controversial topics where no consensus exists or where consensus is changing and evolving. Do you have any WP policy that asserts that topics that have "no consensus" should not be edited and, basically, put on hold for months or years? If so, point me in that direction and I'll admit I'm wrong. But that is not how I've observed how WP actually works when there is a difference of opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
"It doesn't mean "do not ever make any future edits ever on this subject." Are you suggesting that every topic where no consensus exists should not be edited until consensus is reached?" That has been my understanding of Wikipedia policy, i.e. if there is no consensus for a particular change, it should not be made. The crux of the matter here is that neither of us have consensus for the changes we desire. I'd like to see something worked out between all of us, but I am uncertain that this is possible at this particular time, hence my suggestion to let this calm down for a while. I have personal issues to attend to as well, and all of this drama has been a distraction from that.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to get on with some IRL 'stuff' at the moment, but will return to take some notes on the earlier discussion tomorrow. I sincerely hope a DRN brings some fresh perspectives on the matter. Cheers for the moment, everyone! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be awesome, Iryna...as tired as everyone is with discussing this topic, I think the desire not to repeatedly rehash this debate endlessly in the future is stronger. Thanks for taking on this challenge! Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting my user page. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It was pretty bad, I'm surprised that Cluebot didn't catch it. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Q

Hello. Any idea where File:Photo of Chad Knight.jpg was used? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Lifespan timeline of Domnitors of Romania

Dear Liz, Just a heads up that I have now merged the content of Lifespan timeline of Domnitors of Romania into Domnitor (working through the AFDMERGE backlog), leaving a redirect as usual. In the discussion, there were explicit votes to delete rather than redirect; I assume from the close that you decided to re-interpret these per WP:Merge and delete, but I wanted to let you know in case I am mistaken. Felix QW (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Philippine basketball coaches categories

These were created less than an hour ago. Please give me a chance to fill these up LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you stop nominating these newly created categories it's been less than an hour. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Howard the Duck,
The Empty Categories list is issued every day at 01:02 UTC and I tag all of the empty categories on it. I don't look to see when the categories were created. You have 7 days after the categories are tagged to make sure they aren't empty so it isn't exactly "speedy". Please do not remove the CSD tag, I or another editor will remove them if the category is no longer empty. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
All created categories have at least one article in them. Revert yourself on the remaining categories that were tagged. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to "revert" myself because I took a correct action. But I will remove the CSD tag is they no longer apply to these categories. This happens every day with empty categories. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Suit yourself. The categories have not been unpopulated for 7 days, much less 7 hours. Tagging such as this applies once it has been unpopulated for 7 days, not "tag it anytime, wait for 7 days, then delete it if it's still unpopulated by that time". I know CSD's backlogged (I've tagged an article for CSD and wasn't deleted for almost a week), but this is not the way to circumvent it. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Howard the Duck, you misunderstand CSD C1 completely. We do tag empty categories, wait 7 days and delete them if they are still empty. That's exactly what happens! I've been tagging empty categories daily for years now. Look at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, this is the category where tagged categories sit for 7 days. If I or another editor sees they are no longer empty, we remove that CSD tag unless all the category contains is another empty category. It frequently happens that categories are temporarily empty and end up being filled before the 7 day period is over.
How would we know that 7 days have passed if we don't tag categories? There is no other feature that indicates when categories have been unpopulated. The database issues a report each night of empty categories (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories) and that's how we know a category is empty and so we tag them and that starts the 7 day clock. It's as simple as that. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten appreciates you making sure the lights are on (or off), i.e. doing all the various wikiadmingnome maintenance things (as evidenced by you showing up a lot on my watchlist).

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hello, Liz,

Thank you for the information. I didn't know the policy. As the tag said "If you know of pages which are appropriate for this category, please populate it and remove this notice." I thought I could do it. I won't do it anymore.

And adding content categories to pages in Draft space is over, don't worry. Thanks again. Itxia (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Itxia,
Mistakes like this are typically one-time events and once an editor understands the policy and practices, they don't repeat them. So, no worries and I'm sorry if I sounded stern but I post a lot of warning notices on User Talk pages all day.
As for categories on Draft space, we have editors who just go through Draft articles and remove categories from them. If you want to add categories to a Draft article for when it gets moved to main space, just put a colon before the category name, like [[:Category:1502 in the Ottoman Empire]], and this way the Draft article won't appear in the category but the category will be listed on the page. Then if the article gets approved and moves into main space, just remove the colon (:) from the beginning of the category name. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Request page return

Hello Miss Liz. Masoud Minaei is one of the best kickboxers in Iran, please return his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.147.187.185 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2.147.187.185,
Answered below. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Request page return

Hello Miss Liz. Masoud Minaei is one of the best kickboxers in Iran, please return his page 2.147.187.185 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2.147.187.185,
This article has been deleted twice through deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Minaei and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Minaei (2nd nomination). The consensus was that this person didn't have notability by Wikipedia standards. Depending on how his career goes and whether he receives substantial coverage by reliable sources, he could have an article on Wikipedia in the future. You're welcome to start a new article in Draft space and submit it for review to Articles for Creation. If the article receives approval, it can be moved to main space of the project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:History of the Majeerteen Sultanate

Nothing in that category or the subcategories seem empty to me. It looks like some of the child categories were gutted but I don't know why, for example, Category:1600s in Africa has an extensive tree for the Ottoman empire but not this sultanate. Is the goal to have each of the categories under the Category:Majeerteen Sultanate deleted? If so, I can nominate my own categories for G7. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ricky81682,
Sorry for the deluge of CSD notices. All of those categories in that particular category are empty. If you look at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, you'll see lots of "Africa categories". What has been going on for the past few weeks is that editor Marcocapelle, who works a lot with categories, has been removing African categories as parent categories for categories about the Ottoman Empire. You can see my inquiry to them on their Talk page here. Apparently many of these annual categories, establishment and disestablishment categories for Africa only contained these Ottoman Empire categories. There are still some African categories that remain but they contain categories about existing and former countries and kingdoms on the African continent.
I don't know what happened with the Majeerteen Sultanate categories, I just found one empty category, checked the parent categories and found that they only contained empty categories and tagged them as well. I don't what caused these categories to become empty, I have a user script that reveals if an editor has recently removed or added pages to a category but has no information if a categorized article has been deleted. I deal daily with empty categories though and a couple of times I have found layers of parent categories that were created and there is ultimately only one article that was in the original child categories. So it could be a handful of articles were responsible for dozens of categories once you get into dividing time up by year, decade and century.
As for tagging them for deletion, I'd just like to leave the Majeerteen Sultanate categories in the Empty Category category in case we can track down if anything improper has happened. Would that be okay? Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ricky81682,
Oh, by the way, there are 6 or 7 editors whose work focuses on creating categories and categorizing articles who have asked me to skip the CSD C1 notices to their User Talk page. You'd recognize all of their names. If you'd like me to skip the notifications, I'm happy to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
No, I prefer to see what is going on. Either way, I do find this wholesale gutting and restructuring of categories without discussion quite annoying. It is virtually impossible to figure out what was done and "whoever is the most persistent and stubborn" is not the way to resolve things but whatever is done is done and I'll G7 all the work I did since I don't care to reinvest the wheel. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hedingham & Chambers/Archive Chambers

It really should be deleted. It was copy-pasted to that location by a newbie from Talk:Chambers (bus company) as part of the article merge. Talk pages should not be merged this way. So, I have restored it to Talk:Chambers (bus company). Currently, this page is just a copy-paste with no purpose, not to mention, we don't archive one article's talk to subpage of another (if we do, that's news to me). Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Usedtobecool,
I'll look over this again if it hasn't already been handled by another administrator. It was rather confusing as the talk pages have been moved around and given unusual titles. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Please block this user

Hello Liz,

In Wikimedia Commons, Heraldrist is blocked as a sockpuppet of WikiLoverFan1007. In Wikipedia, this is the sockpuppet. Can you block this user? IndonesiaSquarepants (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I want to block this user. Elcobbola blocked Heraldrist in Wikimedia Commons which is maybe a sock of WikiLoverFan1007. This user also being blocked in Wikipedia which is maybe a sockpuppet of this account.Heraldrist (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, you have both been blocked as sockpuppets so you you got your way. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requested

I notice you're one of the admins who will relist AfDs a third time. I've stayed out of the general AfD arena but have been participating in occasional processes and specifically the three relisted category at admin backlog. Figured these would be sensitive cases and if I could learn to close those the others would be easier. I have found that often I can be most useful in making appropriate assertions to help tie up the discussion. I'm sure you've noticed my efforts. How am I doing? Can you see some weaknesses or bad habits? Can you provide me some advice or guidance? I haven't done this enough to be good at it yet but I am making an honest effort NOT to shy away from issues. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BusterD,
Yes, I'm probably one of the very few admins who will list a discussion a third (and final) time. I know it should be avoided but there have been instances where editors have finally shown up after a third relisting and it has made a big difference in the outcome. But if I can, I'll close a discussion without relisting it even once if the consensus is clear. I was taken to Deletion Review over a No Consensus decision, which I thought was a pretty neutral closure but one that some participants had strong feelings about. And if I'm on the fence over how to close a discussion, I'll leave the closure to other admins who are more experienced than I am in closing very divided discussions. I've been an admin since 2015 but I only started helping out in the AFD area in January of this year so I don't consider myself an expert by any means. I have noticed that many admins regularly doing AFD closures shy away from complicated discussions, I think because being taken to Deletion Review is like the admin equivalent of getting a colonoscopy...it can be very unpleasant even when the Deletion Review closure endorses your decision. But I'm getting off on a tangent!
I have noticed your participation at AFDs and I value it. As I stated at a recent Arbitration case, the burden of proof usually falls on those wanting to Keep an article rather than those who advocate Deleting an article. It shouldn't be this way but often the Keeps are called upon to prove a subject has notability while the Deletes can simply state that a subject doesn't have notability or state that the sources are unreliable or don't meet our standards for significant coverage or independence. The most helpful participants, whether they are for or against keeping an article, are those who actually offer their opinions about the existing article sources as well as sources that exist but haven't been incorporated in the article yet. One person doing a well-done source review is worth 100 editors who post, "Delete per nom" or "Fails/Meets GNG". And with the recent flood of AFDs about athletes, one can tend to ignore the editors who post the same comment on all of the discussions. I understand that it is time-consuming to review 10 or 20 articles a day on the same subject (and we are going to have an RFC about mass article deletion nominations) but when you see the same editors making the same comment over and over again, you can wonder if they have thoroughly reviewed the article that is the subject of discussion.
As far as where you can help the most, I have a couple of thoughts. It is obviously the most effective to offer an opinion about subjects that you know well, where you know the most likely place to find reliable sources. So, if you are knowledgeable about small, rural towns or football players/teams or train stations or 19th century actors or obscure TV shows, you know the reference books and sources where you can see if the subject is covered in any depth. Second, it is better to go deep on a few AFD discussions rather than trying to participate in many discussions. My favorite example of this is editor Cunard...he may only participate in 3 or 4 AFD discussions a week but in the ones that he does participate in, he goes in deep and tracks down foreign language sources that no one else was able to locate. Sometimes the references he locates aren't all excellent sources that show a subject's notability but they often are and it can really influence the subsequent opinions of other participants. I also think offering an opinion on relisted discussions is VERY helpful, especially when there have been no other participants but the nominator or the discussions is evenly split among the possible outcome options. It is sometimes worrisome to me that an article can be deleted after years on Wikipedia based on the opinions of only one or two editors over a week-long discussion but that is the system that has been developed here and one can just hope that the participating editors have done their due diligence in assessing the quality of the article as well as it's potential to be improved.
Finally, I give an awful lot more weight to the opinions of editors/admins who I see treat each article under discussion on its own merits. We have some editors who would just like to clear Wikipedia of all stub articles as well as those who think every subject that is written about here has some level of notability. So, I'd recommend participating in a mix of discussions, both those on articles which you think we should Keep as well as those which you think are Delete-worthy. The editors sanctioned at the recent Arbitration case had the tendency to be rather strict inclusionists or deletionists and I think evidence presented on that case influenced their subsequent topic bans from deletion discussions.
I hope this response has helped, even if it is unnecessarily long! It's just after 8 months working in the AFD area, the addition of even few more civil editors who treat the deletion discussions not as a battleground but as a forum where each discussion helps determine what kind of encyclopedia we want Wikipedia to be, can really change the tone and atmosphere of the entire deletion discussion areas. So, yes, I welcome your thoughtful participation at whatever level you can offer it! Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Your detailed response is very much appreciated, and your comments welcome. I have a personal procedure I follow when evaluating any close, which often takes more time than it might, my mind occasionally looking overlong at user behavior and sequence of events. I make a good faith effort to provide a solid observation whether asserting or closing. Please feel invited to call on me if you see an issue with which I'd be helpful. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Kim Klassen

Hi Liz, can you please point me to the discussion for the above article? I can't seem to find it anywhere. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Praxidicae,
This is my mistake. Looking at the edit summaries for the article, I saw that a VFD was filed on this article (the predecessor to AFD) but apparently it was an "incomplete VfD" so no discussion occurred. I'll nominate this article for deletion myself. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done You can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Klassen. Thanks for bringing my mistake to my attention so I could rectify it. Now, the article will either, most likely, be deleted or be improved. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

CSD decline?

Hi Liz

I am new to AFC/NPP.

Please can you explain why this is a standard redirect? I have never seen a redirect from a draft to a main article? I just approved the draft being moved to main. Why do we then keep a redirect draft? It looks silly for the main article to have "redirected from draft" up the top, and I have never seen that before.

Thanks Liz, hoping I can understand.

MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaxnaCarta,
Okay, this is a two part answer! First, the practice is to leave redirects from moves from Draft space to main space for as long as I can remember. That's what I was told to do and that is what I've told editors to do. If you look at redirects created from page moves (see Category:Redirects from moves), you'll see over 2 million redirects listed, many of which are Draft space->main space redirects. There are tens of thousands of them! For me, letting them be is just standard practice.
HOWEVER, in looking at how I would answer you, I've found nothing about draft redirects in any of our policy pages about redirects. Not even at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide. There is no mention of what to do with them at all! But there is also no speedy deletion category that directly applies to these redirects from Draft space. The page where you would expect to find guidance, Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, is an essay, not policy, and is concerned with redirects from main space to Draft space, not the reverse. The only conclusive discussion I could find about this matter is in this Village Pump proposal discussion from 2016, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects where the clear consensus was not to delete draft redirects. I guess this was where the practice was validated that I've been following.
But since I haven't found any policy guidance and you might encounter this regularly with your work at AFC, I suggest bringing this question to a larger audience at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. There are editors and admins there with much longer memories than I have who might have some insight into why we leave them alone and not delete them. I did a search of the AFC talk page archives and found the matter coming up occasionally but I haven't looked into the individual discussions which I leave to you.
I'm not sure if this is a satisfying answer to your question. I'm sure there are some admins out there that would just delete these pages under CSD G6, Housekeeping and non-controversial cleanup, criteria. But I don't do that and I think there are just as many admins who would also untag those pages. Thanks for prompting me to do some policy research! Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I searched forever also! And I couldn’t work out what to do so I thought to tag. Normally I do not willy nilly tag but I thought that a redirect to an article I’d just approved would be in controversial maintenance. I will bring it up for sure and till then just leave the redirects. It’s interesting because I’ve never had any of my draft articles have a redirect attached. Oh well.

Thanks for the reply Liz. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Really? I"m surprised. Well, some page movers do not like to leave a redirect when they move pages so I assume that's what happened. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, MaxnaCarta,
You won't believe it! I found the policy reference that applies to these redirects from Draft space. I knew it was there, somewhere in the policy pages. See WP:RDRAFT, it's short, Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. and it refers to the RFC I mention above. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
You are now the new Queen @Liz! Thank you! How interesting. Until working at AFC I’ve never seen a draft redirect before. This is sorta weird and looks funny on the article. Oh well. Most casual readers don’t notice that stuff anyway. Sometimes I have to remind myself when I’m fretting over a citation or category style that no one cares and I jus t have to let it go. Have a good one Liz! Thanks? MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz!

Looks like we edit-conflicted on that block :) Thanks for sorting things out afterwards. I hesitated about pulling TPA from the get-go but it will expire in 24 hours anyway... I hope that the temporary break helps them get the point. DanCherek (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DanCherek,
Yes, I've never done a simultaneous block before! You know, I reverted SalishSea098's edits because I saw they had messed around with some articles, adding content, then reverting their additions. Other editors had to do some corrections after their edits. If they resume this behavior, they should just be indefinitely blocked because they are trolling. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
For sure. I noticed them earlier today when they were being kind of rude on another editor’s talk page so I can’t say I’m too surprised that it’s ending this way. Oh well... DanCherek (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page and history

Regarding Ruth Huenemann please see both the talk page, and the history. I approved this page and it should not be deleted. I contributed to the article as well so G7 is not correct. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bruxton,
I did not judge your contributions to this page to be substantial, they were minor like adding a tag or category. Your edits were primarily reverts of the other editor's edits.
Please create a new article on this subject if you would like to. This page deletion seemed like it had turned into an edit war with the page creator that needed to stop. If you disagree, you can take the matter to Deletion review. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the wrong move to delete a an article simply because an editor was mad about an edit conflict. I was thinking of the project and the content. I stopped restoring the page and placed a message on the talk page for any admin that might come across the blanked page. It looks like the editor has some issues 1, 2. I thanked them for the article and approved it during the NPP process. Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Liz, no deletion reviews are needed. I think you know best and I will defer to your judgement about the speedy. I learn something new every day on the project; especially regarding the processes. Thank you for the message and the consideration. Bruxton (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion discussion

Thanks for the thought. I saw the notice placed on the page in question after it was restored and you removed the speedy deletion request. The deletion discussion page has not yet been posted to the Miscellany for deletion page, though. isaacl (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, isaacl,
I'm not sure about listing the MFD, I think a bot takes care of that if it isn't done correctly but maybe that has to be done manually. I also restored that related page you requested. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Liminal Spaces

Hi Thanks from removing it, I tried to do redirection but I miss the section Robercik101 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision delete

Hi Liz! Thank you for the protection. Can you please revision delete the bot’s edit? The page history is still messed up. Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tropicalkitty,
 Done I'm not sure how you even leave messages like that! Not that there is any good use for having smashed up sentences that are vertical, not horizontal. At least it makes them easy to spot. Liz Read! Talk! 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Article being recreated

Hello Liz, you had G4 deleted one of the past versions of Annamalai Kuppusamy. The article was WP:SALTED for repeated recreations.[2] The subject of the article, a politician who fails WP:NPOL as he never held any posts and lost one election he contested in. There is also a draft Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy which was rejected for notability and is mostly edited by socks and SPA's. Yet again it has been created now under a different name at K. Annamalai (BJP Politician) after being salted with almost all of its content copied from the deleted versions and the draft. I believe G4 applies here too. Thanks.

Please see the logs for different names:[3][4][5] and AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai (I.P.S) - SUN EYE 1 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Suneye1.
Sorry for the delay. I'll look into this today. Just a reminder, the articles have to be substantially identical for CSD G4 to be a valid deletion criteria. Liz Read! Talk!

Why'd you just delete that image

im patrolling recent and i noticed you deleted an image, gotta have a reason labroney jahomey. Gorilla Balls (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gorilla Balls,
Could you provide a link to the page you are concerned about? I have no idea what you are talking about. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lamuella

Hello. I hope you are doing well. Like three years ago, you deleted Lamuella. It was a redirect page. I cant rembember the exact target though. Would you kindly tell me where did special:undelete/Lamuella lead to? I am guessing something similar to "places in hitchhiker's guide novels" or universe. I cant recall exactly. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, usernamekiran,
Lamuella was a redirect to Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I hope that answers your question. If you can think of another target article, feel free to recreate it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the response :-) No. I actually wanted the content of Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but couldn't recall the deleting admin/who I had asked. But from the AfD, I found it was Nosebagbear. They had promised me the copy on or after Friday, or to remind them, and it is Saturday today. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
It's Saturday where you are at? Okay, it's Friday at 2:22 pm where I am. They could be located in my time zone. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yup, its Saturday here for me, and you should reeeaaally see the conversation, and time stamps where Nosebagbear promised me a copy (link in my previous comment). —usernamekiran (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
It is indeed after Friday! Give me a few minutes Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
hehe. Thanks Nosebagbear —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I see why you need a special userright for 5000 diff undeletes - even 1700 is taking forever! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
And damn, it crashed. Going to go find a specialist on Discord - back in a bit! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Nosebagbear, I'm not sure what operation you are doing but there is currently a 13 hour replag on Wikipedia. It's stopped some bots and xtools from updating. I don't know if this is affecting what you are trying to do. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran - do you want an email of the plain text or the wikitext version? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: I am not sure what method you are using, but if you click on special:undelete/Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it should take you to page history, and if you click on any revision/date, it should show you the source code of the page. I would prefer the wikitext version, but I am okay with either one. Please send whatever is the convenient for you. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
That was, of course, planned method one. It was only when wikipedia has not reacting normally (maybe because of the issues Liz noted?? No idea) - anyway, recreating was plan 2, and then failed.
But use of a different browswer has worked, and you should have received the email, or shortly. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

thanks. Received the wikipedia notification for email. Your help is appreciated a lot. May I ask you what browser did you use when it failed, and succeeded? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello, Liz,

I've noticed that you may have restored all the pages I've requested, but you forgot Vassallia (which I accidentally spelled without the second "l". Would it be possible for you to restore it. Thanks, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Magnatyrannus,
 Done Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Liz, User:Patachonica/sandbox1 is however, still not undeleted (it could later be moved to my userspace because I was working on creating an article). Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Caquias

Hello, I see you blocked a certain IP on the 47.x.y.z subnet at least once recently (I'm trying not to dox). They've just re-created their usual at Draft:HBO Kids (TV channel). What's the process for requesting an extension of the block? UAV? ANI? Other? Thanks. Storchy (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Storchy,
Well, to be honest, what I have found can be effective in these cases is going to the SPI case, in this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremiah Caquias/Archive, looking to see which Checkuser or SPI clerk most recently dealt with this block evader, and going to their User talk page, laying out what you have discovered, just like you did here. If you file a new incident in the SPI case, typically, the admins/checkusers who patrol these cases can't act on these new notices because they can't connect IP accounts to registered accounts. But if you approach a checkuser on their talk page and post a brief message, connecting the dots, especially if they are familiar with the case, they sometimes will take action. I would just refer to the SPI case you are talking about, do not post a link to it. Or you can approach the admin who last blocked the account, like you do here, but I'm reluctant to make very long blocks on IP accounts. Admins who have been around longer than I have seem more comfortable blocking IP accounts for 3-12 months (or even longer) but I am not.
I've now blocked that IP account for a week. I think IP blocks have limited success because the sockpuppet often can come right back with a new IP address so let me know if you see these articles restored in Draft space. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Music of Your Life AfD

Hi, ran across this because you closed it as delete and removed incoming links.

I disagree with the contention that there are not enough sources. I think the fact it became a separate company when it was not its own company in the days when it was a major deal in radio is muddying the notability waters. If this had been brought up to WikiProject Radio Stations, I might have contributed a Keep !vote.[1][2][3][4]

I'm not sure how to proceed, but I feel like the sourcing is there. In several markets where MOYL became a thing, it led to long-form articles, and it was clearly a popular radio format for mostly declining AM stations in the 1980s. Thoughts? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ van Vugt, Harry (February 13, 1987). "CKLW seeks more 'life' from its music". The Windsor Star. Windsor, Ontario, Canada. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ King, Bill (June 25, 1982). "Tuned To The Past: Going For The Gray Hairs, Mining Gold". The Atlanta Constitution. Atlanta, Georgia. p. 1-B, 5-B. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ Pope, Leroy (August 4, 1982). "Successful selling of a music style". The News. Paterson, New Jersey. UPI. p. 28. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  4. ^ Reddick, David (February 26, 1984). "'Music of Your Life' Singing the Right Tune". The Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Florida. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
Hello, Sammi Brie,
I'm not exactly sure what to do in these situations either. I kind of look at them on a case-by-case basis. There was some discussion on this article but those editors advocating Deletion came in after the relists. I'm willing to revert my closure to let you offer your opinion on this case. If the article is kept, I'll add back all of the links. The timeline is that the discussion was just relisted on Tuesday so another relist isn't timely today. Does this sound acceptable to you? Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
That's fine. This was just...a surprise to me, and I certainly would have offered a Keep !vote. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
In general, I've been disappointed at the low number of editors who participate in AFDs. I can understand getting burned out by that area but it's tragic to have a few uninformed editor determine the future of articles. I'm not referring to this specific discussion but I've seen it happen in other AFD discussions...some editors are excellent and do a thorough review for sources but there are far too many that just offer a thumbs up or thumbs down. But it seems like an ongoing problem. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know I incorporated these sources and others. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft of deleted page

Hi. Requesting that recently deleted page 2022–23 Delhi Premier League be made available in draft space so that it can be improved and verifiability issues can be removed. Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dhruv edits,
I will consider doing this if you will go through the AFC process and get a new version approved by a reviewer. If you are just going to move it back into main space, it will be deleted under speedy deletion criteria CSD G4 and could result in a loss of your editing privileges. Do you agree to doing things this way? Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Liz Yes. I will go through the Afc process for reviewing the draft once it is good enough for mainspace. Dhruv edits (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Dhruv edits,
Okay, I have restored this article and moved it to Draft space. You can find it at Draft:2022–23 Delhi Premier League. Good luck!
@Liz Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete procedure

Hi Liz, you deleted Transportation in Sarawak a few days ago per an AFD. I assume you use Twinkle to remove links to the article. After the article was deleted, there was a redlink left behind in a hatnote in Tanjung Manis District, which is even worse than a redlink in an article. Redlinks are allowed in articles for subjects that have potential, but should never be in hatnote or the see also section. There should have been a warning message in Twinkle that no link was found to the deleted article in Tanjung Manis District. That is because the link was not made with [[ ]], but was in a hatnote. So the article was added to Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page. I fix several of these almost every day, but there are over 8,500 and article deletions cause it to grow every day. Mentioning this because you commonly delete articles. Do you recall getting a warning message from Twinkle? MB 17:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MB,
You are absolutely right, our unlinking tools do not remove broken links in hatnotes. This happens both with PRODs and AFDs. With PRODs, you have to manually select an option to unlink all mentions of a deleted article so I can see when there is a failure in the unlinking process and I try to follow up when I see this. The failure to unlink is not as visible with XFDcloser so I'm not sure how to catch these unless admins check "What links here" with every deletion they make, whether it is a CSD, PROD or AFD/RFD/etc. This can be a big problem when doing batch deletes or bundled deletions as the tools often don't remove red links or redirects/redirect talk pages when the multiple deletion are done. And there are some admins who don't use Twinkle to delete pages which is the deletion tool with the primary unlinking feature we use.
I'm sorry for any additional work I caused you to do and I'll try to be more conscientious about checking for these hatnote red links. I wish there was a way to bring attention to this to all of the admins who spend time in a deletion area, maybe a note on WP:AN would help but I'd be open to other ideas. Last year, I saw a note on the user talk page of an admin who has been active for over a decade, reminding him about the unlink feature so I think that a reminder to all of us might be useful for those who are either not aware of red link problems or who have forgotten about taking care of them during their page deletions. Thank you for this reminder. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Pizza Tower

Hi Liz. Not sure whether you noticed, but Pizza Tower looks to be the same as Draft:Pizza Tower. The creator of both is the same and they were indef'd; so, it's unlikely the draft is going to be worked on. Does it need to be MFD or is just OK to wait until G13 becomes applicable? FWIW, if the article is deleted, File:PIZZA TOWER.webp will evntually end up deleted as well if it remains orphaned. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,
Yes, I was aware of the draft version. As it is though, CSD A7 doesn't apply to Draft space. The only speedy deletion criteria I could see applying to this page is G5, if the editor was a sockpuppet (which they weren't) or G11, which is for promotional articles, which might apply, I'd have to review the page again. But I usually just let bad drafts sit for six months until they are stale. You could take it to MFD but the editors who participate there are reluctant to delete pages that are not problematic in some way and I don't think this Pizza article is. But you are free to nominate it for deletion. I just haven't seen many editor have much success at convincing the MFD regulars that ordinary Drafts or User pages should be deleted. They kind of embody a "hands off" attitude there at MFD.
Any way, I hope you had a good weekend! It's nice to see you visiting my talk page. Have a good week! Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Waiting six months for G13 to kick in is fine with me. Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue with File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg

An issue with File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg involving you has been reported at WP:BOTN#Issue with File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GeoffreyT2000,
Oh, what a mess. Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I have made a comment there. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ataman Brotherhood

hello colleague. this article has been created and deleted on other wikis. It is confusing to keep this article on the English wiki. the article contains serious exaggeration and is a non-encyclopedic organization. I posted a delete template but you deleted it. I could not nominate the article for deletion. thanks. Atakhanli (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Atakhanli,
The CSD, Criteria for Speedy Deletion, are very specific and limited and I did not think this article qualified under CSD A7 criteria. If you believe this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then you have a couple of options. You could edit the article to improve the content so that it is not so exaggerated. You could go to a related WikiProject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey, and ask for assistance on the WikiProject talk page. If you seek deletion, then I suggest using Twinkle and either tagging the page for a Proposed deletion or nominate it for deletion at Articles for Deletion. For either PROD or AFD, you need to present a convincing deletion rationale and I suggest you mention whatever policy you believe this article is violating.
If you need any additional help, either using Twinkle or with Wikipedia's deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you guidance and support. It would be a good place to go for getting a second opinion on this article. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The organization is based in Turkey and has been removed from Turkey Wikipedia. It just remained on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, where I also work, and was nominated for deletion on that Wikipedia. will be removed in the next few days. Atakhanli (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I have suggested a number of different options you could take. I suggest you pursue one or more of them. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Mariano Yenko

Hi Liz. You BLP prodded Mariano Yenko back in February 2021, but it was deprodded when someone added a citation. That citation, however, just mentions Yenko once by name; so, in and of itself, it's not really sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. I came across the article because of the non-free image being used in the main infobox. The rationale provided on the file's page states that Yenko has been dead since the late 1980s, but I can't find anything to verify this and the article is still listed as a BLP. I've asked the uploader about this at User talk:WayKurat #Mariano Yenko and also asked at WT:PINOY#Mariano Yenko so perhaps someone will be able to find some more sources. It's not so much that the file will most likely need to be deleted per WP:F7 if they can't, but rather more that there will be a one source BLP of someone who is supposed to have died around 35 years ago that is unlikely ever going be than it already is. Any other suggestions on what else to try and do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,
It's not clear to me what you are asking me to do. I tagged Mariano Yenko for BLPPROD 18 months ago, it was a time when I was reviewing lists of BLP articles that were unreferenced and I was tagging a number of articles for BLPPROD. But another editor supplied a citation and untagged the article. And in the last day, both you and Lenticel have added additional references to the page. If both of you are continue to review and work on this article, I think my additional participation here is unneeded.
And I'm no expert on dealing with files so I'd go ask Explicit or Fastily for help with this matter. You seem to have a good working relationship with Explicit so I'm sure they could offer you more valuable advice than I can about whether or not this file is eligible for CSD F7. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for being unclear and not updating my post sooner. Both issues seems to have been now resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Marchjuly,
No apologies necessary. I either respond to talk page messages immediately or wait until there is a lull in my work tasks and respond to them all at once. This was a case where I waited and in that time, the problem changed and was resolved. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

draft:Tomoharu Ushida

Hello! I am the page creator of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tomoharu_Ushida and I want to delete it please. Shalom777br (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shalom777br,
I'm sorry but the page history shows that Joannabr started this draft, not you. And CSD G7 wouldn't be valid even if that editor tagged the page for deletion as other editors have contributed to the draft. If you, and other editors, leave this page alone, it will be tagged for deletion in six months as a stale draft (CSD G13) and deleted in March. The only other Speedy Deletion criteria that could possible apply would be CSD G11 for promotional articles but I would decline that tagging as well because the article doesn't seem like overt advertising to me.
You could also nominate it for deletion at MFD but you'd have to have a persusaive deletion argument for why this draft should be deleted which I can't see that you have. I would just recommend abandoning this article and it will just be deleted any way in early 2023. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am joannabr but if you think I would not be able to delete it on my own, please help me to make it better and publish it. Shalom777br (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Mudville, Texas

Hi Liz. I created a new article on Mudville, Texas. What do you think? Colman2000 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Colman2000,
I don't review articles but I don't see major problems. However, I don't really see the relevance of how many white students attended the school 100+ years ago. You might rephrase this to focus on the point you are trying to make which I think is that there was a school operating in this town at this point in time. We have editors who primarily focus on reviewing articles on small towns and geographical features so if this article gets tagged, let me know.
By the way, I see by your User page that we are neighbors as I'm also in the Portland metro area. But you know, you should really be rooting for the Blazers and Timbers! Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz! That's cool that you live in the Portland metro area with me. I will most definitely root for the Blazers and Timbers as long as they play opposing teams that are not from my part of the woods. If you want to know what part I live in, I live in Aloha, which is sandwiched between Hillsboro and Beaverton. If you don't mind me asking, where in this area do you live? Colman2000 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and barnstar

Thanks very much for restoring the article to its original title [6]. This was a disconcerting situation and quite a mess. Here is a barnstar for you:

The Minor Barnstar
For helping out the (Wikipedia) project and a group of concerned editors. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar, Steve Quinn! It's very confusing to participating editors and the XFDCloser tool when articles are moved around to different titles during an AFD discussion. And this article was moved several times! If it survives the AFD it can be moved again but since this article has generated a lot of opinions, it should probably only be moved after a move discussion on the article talk page or we could end up with some move-warring. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes moves during an Afd are very confusing for editors and the closer. It was only one editor who was the culprit making not one, but two page moves. Maybe it was more than that by some other editors. Jeez! I think they had no idea the page moves are prohibited during an AfD. So I am AGF on that one.
Besides that, I just want this AfD to be over with. It is one of those AfDs that are not smooth sailing. Also, thanks for suggesting a move discussion on the article talk page after the AfD is over, if the page survives. This would probably the best way to go. As an aside, I changed the section title to differentiate it from at least one other thread here that is also entitled "Thanks."---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)d

Undeletion request for SBS PopDesi

Hi Liz,

I know you deleted the SBS PopDesi page but can you do the opposite (undeletion). Thanks. Bassie f (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
You created this page and then tagged it for deletion. But you can request its undeletion so that is what I will do. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
via WP:REFUND Bassie f (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done. You can find it at SBS PopDesi. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Italia Conti

I can't see the all history but it looks to me like a COI account had you delete Italia Conti, which had been an article about the actress before it was moved to Italia Emily Stella Conti to enable a move of Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts. The actress should be at the basic title, surely? Anyway, Italia Conti was certainly not a "one editor" article, given the history before the move. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DuncanHill,
Thanks for catching this. What happened is that an editor moved this article to a different title which left a redirect. Then they blanked the redirect page so a very experienced editor tagged that page as a CSD G7. When I looked at the tagged page, I saw that it was a blanked redirect and deleted it. But, G7 doesn't apply to editors who move an article and leave a redirect, it only applies to the page creator of the original article that had been moved. So, I should have investigated this more fully and caught that mistaken tagging because G7 didn't apply here.
It was correct to move that article back to its original title so thank you. A page move might be called for in the future but it shouldn't happen like this but through a discussion either on an article talk page or at Requested moves. I'll look into this editor and see whether any other edits were improper. I appreciate you seeing this and correcting the error. Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Liz, hopefully it will all settle down and get sorted out properly now. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Un deletion request for the redirect page PRT Company Limited and it’s talk page

Hi Liz,

I know you deleted the redirect page PRT Company Limited and it’s talk page but can you do the opposite (undeletion) through WP:REFUND. Thanks. From Bas Bassie f (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
 Done. But you know, both of the pages you asked to be restored had only 2 or 3 edits and were redirects. You could just recreate them yourself when there is so little page history. The situation would be different if they were articles but these were just very simple redirects. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion of A Snow Capped Christmas

Hi Liz - I see you deleted this in January 2021 as an expired PROD. I have found a couple of sources that I think will establish notability. (I found it as a disambiguation for Falling for Christmas, which is an upcoming film.) StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, StAnselm,
 Done Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Expressways of Sri Lanka

I'm curious about something. You removed a redlink saying that the subject was moved to Draft space. There's a redlink just below the E06 row in that table for E09. I thought redlinks for subjects were a good thing. Per WP:ROADOUTCOMES that article would be kept. I draftified it earlier because it was an infobox-only situation. If the author had added some prose, I would have tagged it as a stub and moved on. So I wonder why the redlink is so harmful that it needs to be removed, twice? Imzadi 1979 → 02:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Imzadi1979,
Actually, you are right here. I'm used to removing red links of articles that have been deleted either through CSD or AFD because it is unlikely that those articles will be recreated. I was also instructed to remove these red links years ago by a more senior editor when I started doing more article deletions. But recently (like for the past 2 days), I started removing links to articles that have been moved to Draft space on the premise that it was unlikely that they would be moved back to main space. That's an incorrect assumption. I spend most of the day deleting hundreds of drafts that have been abandoned and gone stale (CSD G13) and so one comes to the conclusion that few articles that get draftified go back to main space and that is just flat out wrong. I'll stop doing that now and I'll revert edits involving this draft.
I really appreciate you challenging my editing decisions so I could change my behavior. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The other version was deleted because it was created by a sock. This one doesn't seem to be. May not be a good project, but that will need to go back to MfD. Thank you. GedUK  10:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ged UK,
Yes, I was looking to see if that page was deleted and saw your explanation. When I'm not 100% sure about a page deletion, I just tag it and let another admin make the final evaluation so thank you for checking it out thoroughly. It's appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Forest Lake Shopping Centre

Hello, can you please undelete Forest Lake Shopping Centre so I can save the history as part of the redirect? There wasn't any reason why that couldn't have happened as part of the close of the AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Deus et lex,
The reason why it wasn't done was that the majority of discussion participants thought the page should be deleted. You were the only one advocating a redirect. Is there a reason why you can not just create a redirect now from the deleted page? I see no reason why you need the article history to create a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
P.S. It really helps an editor or admin if you would add a link to the page you are talking about when you start a discussion on a User talk page. It's just a common courtesy so the person you are talking to doesn't have to go searching to see what you are talking about. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not linking, although it's disappointing that you don't remember it. I would like to have the page history back so I can redirect that and enable it to be used for future reference. I don't think that is unreasonable. I'm not looking to create anything other than a redirect. Deus et lex (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Your attention appreciated at WP:RM/TR

There's an open request to revert an undiscussed move which you were involved. Left a ping to you, but your notifications may have been busy so leaving a note here as well. Would appreciate that you comment on it. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, – robertsky,
I actually don't keep track of my pings because I get so many so I appreciate the talk page notice. I've left a comment on that noticeboard about this page move request. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome. :) – robertsky (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A couple of questions about redirects at AfD

Hello Liz. I can see you're busy, but if you get a moment... (1) Is a closing admin at an AfD able to decide to redirect rather than delete an article even if no-one has explicitly !voted for it? I ask mostly in connection with the many Olympic stubs now passing through the system where there is always a plausible redirect target, since all events at all Olympics have their own articles; and (2) (brought forward, with apologies, from further up your talk page on 31 Aug): Could you reconsider whether Erminio Confortola might be redirected rather than deleted? a couple of !voters did suggest redirection as an alternative, and there seems to be no good reason not to. Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ingratis,
It's hard to answr hypothetical questions but in the case you mention, I could have created a redirect but I didn't, I deleted the article and have left it to editors to create a redirect if they think it is appropriate to do so.
A couple of remarks. First, every admin has a different way of assessing a closure to an AFD discussion. Some admins, for example, never close discussions as "Soft Delete" even when it is a perfectly acceptable option but I do. Second, I often choose an alternative to deletion if one is suggested by participants but I have been criticized in the past for not deleting an article completely and then creating a redirect instead of simply turning an article into a redirect and preserving the content. When a closer acts against the consensus of the discussion participants, you get accused of "Supervoting" and can get taken to Deletion review which is about as pleasant as a discussion about an editor being started at ANI. Since the partipants in this discussion preferred Deletion over Redirect (their 2nd choice), I took their opinion as an indication that they wanted the article to be deleted and a redirect could then be created from this deleted page to the preferred target by an interested editor. This is how I interpreted their opinions but reading over the discussion now, I could see how another admin might have reached a different conclusion.
I started closing AFDs in January 2022 and one thing I've learned through this experience is to not IAR and to abide by the opinions of the participants in coming to a closure decision. If I disagree with them, I should be adding a comment to an AFD discussion, not closing that discussion. I hope this explains how I closed this discussion. But again, I'm sure if you looked through a daily log of AFD discussions, you will find that different admins have different approaches towards closing AFD discussions but they vary within a narrow range of what is allowable. If there is too much divergence from recommended behavior, well, that will lead, first to a Deletion Review case and if it persists, a case at Arbitration which most people want to avoid if at all possible. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful reply, which makes the restrictions on closing admins a lot clearer (what a thankless job!) I was hesitating to create the redirect myself because in the light of the AfD decision it may be deleted again by someone else but have now gone ahead with it. Thanks again for taking the time to reply in detail - I do appreciate it. All best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Touch grass

Liz go outside OwainAFC (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OwainAFC,
You're right. I am taking a break later to go wine tasting which will be outside. But I need to be cutting back on my time on the project, especially at night. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Block request - legal threats

Care to block 2405:201:4004:4091:918A:DA18:4606:4624/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for legal threats? S0091 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ignore. Taken care of. S0091 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, S0091,
Yes, it looks like someone got to them first. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Leo District 404B2 Nigeria

Pls help me to review this draft and moved it to article. It's a really urgent matter. Alphaechoromeo (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alphaechoromeo,
I'm sure every editor who submits their draft to Articles for Creation for review believes their drafts are urgent. But you still have to wait your turn. Also, I don't review drafts, I leave that activity to the experts who spend their time on Wikipedia focused on doing exactly that. I do look at a lot of declined drafts and most of them are declined because they don't have adequate references so make sure your article is properly sourced.
If you have more questions about draft creation, you can go to the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse for help. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Yohai Aharoni (2nd nomination)

Hi Liz, I know you do a lot of closures of deletion discussions, so I don't want to be annoying, but could you elaborate on your decision in this closure please? Personally I think it seems more like a no consensus than a keep. I realize they're effectively the same in the way they impact the article but there is still a meaningful difference between no consensus and keep. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FormalDude,
You have every right to ask about a closure. Looking at this AFD now, I think I was influenced by the fact that Gidonb' Keep argument was strong while the two Delete votes simply stated that the individual didn't have notability. After looking at AFDs so much, I have come to not weigh comments that merely state "Fails GNG" or "Meets GNG" (or similar words), without more elaboration, very heavily. Also, Gidonb did a lot of work improving the article since the time it was nominated for deletion (and even after the AFD was closed) which indicates to me that there are editors who are willing to improve the article and address any sourcing problems that came up in the AFD discussion. And I was influenced by the fact that the nominator wanted to withdraw the AFD. They couldn't do this because two editors were advocating Delete but when the nominator changes their mind, that seems stronger to me than if they merely made a vote to Keep the article. They have gone from being the primary advocate for an article deletion to changing their mind and wanting it to be Kept.
While you could say that the "vote" was 2-2, I also saw BeanieFan11's comment, and the nominator's withdraw as recommendations to Keep the article.
I will say that with all of these AFDs about athletes/football players pouring into the AFD area, I have closed very few of them as "Keep" and maybe only one or two as "No consensus". Those advocating for article deletion seem to have numbers, policy and momentum on their side. For me, this was a rare "Keep" closure. I hope this addresses your concerns. And just a reminder that you can always renominate an article for deletion after a suitable period of time has passed. I wouldn't do so immediately after an AFD closure but I've seen this happen with other football player articles. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This definetely addressed my concerns. Thank you! ––FormalDude (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Shakira article

Hi @Liz, good day. I see you deleted a redirect only four days ago for Shakira impersonator. This has been recreated under a full article. I'm quite green at New Page Reviewing and for my own learning want to get this correct. Is there a version you deleted that is relevant to assessing this article? I'm slightly confused - is it just coincidence we had a redirect deleted four days ago, now a full article comes back under the same name? Article creator looks like a diehard Shakira fan. Normally I skip over the more tricky reviews and leave for someone more experienced but I thought I should reach out and ask what you think is the go here. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaxnaCarta,
Okay, when a page is moved from main space to Draft space, either by the article creator or a new page patroller, there is typically a redirect from main space to Draft space. If the editor who draftifies the article is a Page Mover, they can repress having a redirect. But, if the article move is done by an editor without this user right, there is this redirect that needs to be deleted as a CSD R2, redirect from main space to other namespaces. So, that was the page I deleted, a redirect after the article was moved to Draft space. It wasn't a judgment on the content of the article. And it's just the same article, it has not been recreated.
I had some skepticism about the article content but we have a similar article about Madonna impersonators and it seems like this is a big phenomena in South America, in a variety of countries so I was just ignorant about this subject. Personally, I'd give the article a little time to develop since it is pretty new but if you judge it to be lacking in notability, you can always nominate it for AFD deletion. I can't think of a CSD criteria that would apply here and the article creator is active so they would just remove a PROD tag so a page deletion, if you are set on it, can only really be done through AFD.
I hope this explains a little bit about what happened. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Liz! Thanks so much. You’ve helped me. I needed guidance not just for this article but for future ones. I’ve been asking a few people for help on certain reviews. I didn’t think this needed to be tagged for deletion. I just am learning the ropes and like to run weird ones past someone experienced. Sometimes it’s confusing because the log says it was previously deleted but of course because I’m not an admin, I cannot see what was deleted. So it can be hard to see exactly what’s happened in the past. And yes, because this user has created good content I knew this article was likely going to be fine. Thanks so much for always being there to answer my questions. I am a little cautious with things I don’t understand! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User page redirect

Hello Liz, and thanks for noticing the workaround on my user name. What I can't figure out is how a new user page with the name 'User:Randy Kryn' was created when that combination of letters was already in use. Do you know how this could be done? I've tried figuring it out, as he has in the past substituted I (capital letter for i) for l (lowercase L) in impersonating other user names, but don't see how this one was accomplished. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Randy Kryn,
I don't know exactly how this was done either. There is no obvious substitute letters going on like, as you mention, "l" for "I" or "1". User:Rаndу Krуn looks just like User:Randy Kryn. But some keyboards have alternative alphabets available to use and one of the letters in R-a-n-d-y K-r-y-n might look normal but actually be a similar looking letter or symbol from a different alphabet. Now that I'm thinking about it, I think I'll just protect that fake user page from being created so this will not happen again.
I found an SPI case that looks like it is the same vandal. You just seem like an odd editor for a vandal to target...trolls mostly target editors who do counter-vandalism work or admins who have blocked previous accounts and you are such a considerate, thoughtful editor. I don't know how you would have gotten on anyone's grudge list. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking and the possible explanation, and for the nice compliment. What happened is the fellow was doing good work on the United States page but has a habit of doing dozens or even a couple hundred edits at once, which was going on for weeks and tiring out the regulars there (I'm not a regular, just happened by to check something, forgot what now), and then was being reverted without anyone checking the edits and put up for a ban and somewhere along the way I came to his defense. In the past two-three months he's been editing various pages as well as focusing on myself and a couple of topics, and I've complimented his edits (he is a good editor and writer, seems to really like editing Wikipedia, and does a good job but keeps doing the too-many-edits at a time thing which causes him to be found). He did focus for a time on the James Bevel page, where he purposely forced my attention to add some references, which I've promised myself to do very soon. A book by Thomas Ricks will be published in early October which will probably contain quite a bit on Bevel, so the page should be gotten into better shape by the end of September. It still surprises me that more editors haven't worked on the Bevel page, as I've been surprised since 1983 on why and how journalists, writers, publishers, and historians have either missed Bevel's story or have chosen not to add to literature about him (Bevel had a way of doing things that made people not publicize his massively important and world-changing 1960s work, even before his incest conviction which no journalist has ever investigated). As for the editor in question, lots of socks and he knows how to do them, although the name duplication and personal focus on me seems somewhat unfair. If it were my choice I'd give him a clean account and let him edit. Thank you again for keeping track of some of this, and for following up. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Jessica Jones (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Hey there Liz. I noticed you recently deleted Draft:Jessica Jones (Marvel Cinematic Universe) under G2, which confuses me because I do not recall that page looking like a test page. Am I mistaken, or did you mean to delete it under G13 instead? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, InfiniteNexus,
Well, it was just a page that had headers on it and a navigation box and no other content, there was no article draft there. I can restore it if you wish. It was due to be deleted via CSD G13 and that's what caused me to look at it and delete it as a test page. I know that the page creator is an experienced editor and their pages don't usually get deleted for being test edits but that's how the page looked to me.
Since we have such a lengthy article on Jessica Jones already, I'm not sure what this draft was going to be. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Your question caused me to look at this draft again and so I restored it and deleted it again under CSD G13 criteria. It can still be restored again by request. But this was a more appropriate speedy deletion criteria. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The draft was a valid one and has the potential of becoming an article, but it can stay deleted per G13 until there are editors who want to continue working on the article again. Thanks again. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, InfiniteNexus, well, I can restore if you or the page creator want to continue to work on it. Let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Xenophobic edits

I would like to voice a concern about your decision to delete the Wikipedia page of my country and others. Bermuda, Azores, Bahamas, Bahariterra. 2600:4040:139F:1000:1977:F8D2:B2D6:96C9 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2600:4040:139F:1000:1977:F8D2:B2D6:96C9,
Before we can discuss why a page might have been deleted, you need to provide me with a link to the deleted article you are concerned about. I don't know what page has been deleted that has gotten you in such an upset mood that you are making personal attacks against an editor. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

“[Iwi] people” categories

(Per cats tagged on my talk.) Apologies for leaving those empty, hopefully it’s cleared up now. I had hoped to automate the various steps of creating and moving the cats by creating the cats, then filling them. Clearly that—and/or requesting that C1 that truly would have been empty—pinged your radar. — HTGS (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HTGS,
I would warn you against any action that would "automate" creating or moving categories around. Categories are very different from other pages on the project and can't just be moved like an ordinary page. If you wish to rename, merge or delete a category, you need to make a nomination at Categories for Discussion or make a simple speedy rename request on the CFD page. But because categories impact a lot of different pages, you can't just move them around like you would move an article from Draft space to main space. There are editors who are quite devoted to making sure there is consistency in Wikipedia's categorization system and if you are interested in categories, you can find them debating at CFD. They have very long memories of categories that exist or did exist and were deleted so they are a great resource for the project but it also makes it a challenge to act spontaneously with categories.
As for the categories you created today, every night, at 01:02 UTC, a database report is issued which lists all empty categories and they get tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. "Speedy" is really not an appropriate name because the empty categories sit for 7 days before they are deleted (if they are still empty after a week). If the categories are only temporarily empty--which happens quite a lot--then the CSD tag is removed. But please do not remove a speedy deletion tag from any page that you have created because that is a red line rule that shouldn't be violated by any editor, from newbie to arbitrator. We have a few editors who scan the Empty Categories category throughout the day and remove categories that are no longer empty so you don't have to worry about a mistaken page deletion.
And this is Empty Categories 101. There will not be a test! Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Message to Liz

I understand Lizzy. It's a terrible mistake. Okay, the real page and this one is fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaunTheCatBoy2005 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Message to Liz

I understand Lizzy. ShaunTheCatBoy2005 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

List of coin collectors

I think this was a poor edit. I understand the practice of unlinking deleted articles, but if a subject is non-notable (as this was deemed to be), the whole entry should be removed from a list like this. StAnselm (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: In fairness to Liz, it's a script that automates the process of removing links from deleted articles so that there does not remain a redlink. It would require human intervention to then make a conscious decision as to whether the former reference to the article is also necessary or not. I don't think we can expect those deleting articles to scrutinize potentially redundant former article links in this manner, as it isn't always the case that the former link's text be removed from articles too. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, StAnselm & Bungle,
I hope you can accept that it was both a poor edit and an automated edit that occurs when an admin closes an AFD discussion as "Delete" or when one uses Twinkle's "Unlink" tool. All of the red links are coverted to regular mentions, I don't always see them or their context. I use to pick an option where an entire paragraph that contained a title that was deleted would be removed but I was told that this was removing otherwise useful content. When I first started doing page deletions, a much senior editor came to my talk page and criticized me for not removing red links when I deleted a page so it is ingrained in me to do so. I don't always go back to see the context of the unlinked article title.
And that's not even the worst part, if a link is part of a hatnote, it remains a red link and doesn't get unlinked, despite our tools and I just found out that there was Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page that contains articles with red link hatnotes that a few editors are taking the time to manually remove. But those occur every time an article that is mentioned in a hatnote gets deleted and becomes a red link which I think is more unslightly that having an unlinked name in a table.
Because of the work I do, I end up deleting a lot of pages here and I can't promise to check each page every time a person's name is unlinked. But I will try to be more careful in the future, especially if I see that there are a lot of associated links to an individual's now-deleted article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your gracious response, Liz. In this particular case, I was aware of the addition to the table, and I was waiting for the AfD to be resolved before removing it. But it struck me that automated delinking is problematic. StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Add Biography

I would like to add my biography to wiki, I am a graphics designer Tanver247 (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz

Can you move SBS TV to SBS TV (South Korean TV channel) and after the move redirect SBS TV to SBS#Broadcasting please Liz. Bassie f (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
I understand moving SBS TV > SBS TV (South Korean TV channel) but I don't understand the second part of your request. What page title of the redirect and what is the target of that redirect? Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I would like SBS TV to redirect to SBS#Broadcasting Liz Bassie f (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I moved this page just five minutes ago and SBS TV now links to the Australian SBS TV. Bassie f (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Liz

Can you put SBS (Australian TV channel) in place of SBS TV on Australian talk and user pages that still link to SBS TV please Liz. Bassie f (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
It is almost 2 am here so I'm taking care of a few last things and heading off to bed. I'll look into this tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz

Namasthe from India. My brother uses Wikipedia for a while and he's a sockpuppet holding so many accounts. Am his sister, able to create new account for myself? I'm using the same WiFi connection. Is there any problem? I'm also following my brother since a year. I'm trying to learn everything slowly. Now I've gone through the norms, understood about the sockpuppet. How can I create an account for myself? Can you please help me? Thanks --202.164.139.101 (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Tamzin. I'm not sure why they think I could assist them here! Sockpuppet cases this big are beyond what solitary admins like myself can help out with. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't delete my user page

I got a notice that you deleted my page User talk:Macquigg/Sandbox/ThorCon nuclear reactor
I am assuming this is a good faith mistake, not something related to the controversy over nuclear power.
As I understand Wikipedia's policy, our User pages are not subject to censorship by other users.
Please restore my User pages, and tell me how we can stop this from happening again.
David MacQuigg 14:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, David MacQuigg,
If you are talking about User:Macquigg/Sandbox/ThorCon nuclear reactor, it was deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted page, Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor - draft and it was deleted when the draft was deleted. That draft was deleted under CSD G13 speedy deletion criteria which states that any draft pages, and some User pages that have been submitted as drafts, that go 6 months without any edits are deleted. Hundreds of "expiring" drafts are deleted daily.
But a draft that is deleted purely because of CSD G13 grounds (and not, say, for copyright violations or being advertising), can be restored upon request, either to the administrator who deleted the page or by going to WP:REFUND and asking for the page to be restored. It's usually no problem! But there is no purpose in restoring the User page if the draft article isn't also restored. Is this what you would like?
By the way, we don't have ideological censorship on Wikipedia based on your political views. The typical "censorship" that might happen is when content violates copyright rules or when it is BLP=violating content, that is when it makes unsourced, negative assertions about living people. If you present a fringe point-of-view (and I don't know if you have), it's unlikely that a draft would be approved by Articles for Creation to be moved into main space but your draft wouldn't be deleted on this basis. There has to be a valid and recognized rationale for deletion, not just because someone disagrees with your viewpoint.
The best place to go with questions like these is the Teahouse, where experienced editors can offer you advice and support while you try to work within Wikipedia's complicated system of policies and guidelines. I hope this helps. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
But, as you (Liz) know, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored is often misunderstood, especially by inexperienced editors, and editing is not censorship, and removal of copyvio and BLP violations are not censorship. I know that you already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this explanation. I misunderstood the connection between user space and draft space. Deletion of the draft is OK. I will restore my user page separately. As for "censorship", my wording was a bit too strong. What I am seeing is an general anti-nuclear bias or group-think, probably a result of the anti-nuclear sentiment in our general population. This shows up as biased enforcement of the rules - for example, in the ThorCon article, a regulatory agency, the IAEA, is not accepted as a reliable source, but an anti-nuclear organization, the UCS, is featured in the Criticism section. A balanced presentation of the UCS critique was deleted. David MacQuigg 13:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Jean Dawson

I am puzzled by this article, or rather by the closure of the AFD for the article. The closure is to merge the article into Draft:Jean Dawson. However, the article never had any information that wasn't in the article, so there is nothing to merge. I think that the recommendation of multiple editors that a merge was in order was a mistake, but maybe you can explain something to me. I also don't understand how some of the editors said that the subject passed notability, but my guess is that they are seeing sources that aren't in the text of the article. I have declined the draft as not meeting musical notability, but I am puzzled about the article. I see nothing to merge.

I don't want to go to Deletion Review, partly because I think that it will confuse the reviewers there also, but the current situation is a mess with a stub article saying that it needs to be merged, and there is nothing to merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert,
Well, it maybe should have gone the other way, the Draft should have been merged into the main space article and I had it backwards. But the draft article is in much better shape than the main space article. I read the consensus of those who participated in the discussion as that they felt that the two articles should be merged. I didn't compare the two articles to see whether they had identical content. There were some sources brought up in the AFD discussion that the editors thought aided establishing notability and I don't see them all used in the articles yet.
If you went to Deletion review, what resolution are you seeking? As for me, I don't see myself reverting my closure but I could revert the merger proposal. But the discussion was already relisted three times so I don't see reopening and relisting it for a 4th time. The only participant advocating deletion was the AFD nominator so I can't see the outcome of this discussion being article deletion. It's been a month since the AFD discussion was closed so you could renominate it again for a second AFD. I try to be cooperative with editors that are unhappy with AFD closures but I'm not sure what is to done at this point. Ideas? Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
You're right about Deletion Review. You made me think what User:Robert McClenon would say at DRV if I appealed Jean Dawson, and I would probably Endorse, because we can't expect the closer to supervote when the participants in the AFD are off-base so that the AFD is useless. The participants did indeed say to merge, and there was nothing to merge. You said that I could renominate it, and I probably will renominate it. The fault is that of the editors at the AFD, not of the closer of the AFD. However, something has to do be done, because there is nothing to merge, and there is a stupid merge tag on the article, but the article doesn't have enough content for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I've taken the article to a second AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Liz

Liz, can you link SBS TV (South Korean TV channel) with the Korean articles on the English Wikipedia that currently link to SBS TV please Liz. From Bas Bassie f (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
You know, that sounds like something a regular editor can take of. I have a lot of admin work that keeps me busy all day. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you please tell your Wikipedia friends Liz. They will do it probably. Bassie f (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Move (Japanese band) albums

Good afternoon Liz. You might want to delete Category:Move (Japanese band) albums, since there are no more articles. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jax 0677,
Thank you for the notification. But in about an hour, the Database Report listing Empty Categories gets issued so if it is empty, I'll see it there, too. But I'll check on it now, thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hi, you just deleted five pages (after this) I wasn't against the deletion, that's why I didn't participate in the discussion but based on the nominator's request I thought they will be merged into the main article, but now they are deleted and I can't merge them with the main page. I wonder if you still have access to those deleted tables/information? I would like to add some of those tables to the main page which was the nominator's request too. thanks in advance. Sports2021 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sports2021,
There's no need to panic. As long as the content isn't oversighted or a copyright violation, administrators have access to deleted content. Please give me a day to review the AFDs. There wasn't much participation on the AFDs so I think most of them closed as Soft Deletion. I believe on at least one, an editor recommended merging content.
Tell me about your plans...do you want to combine all five articles into one big article or selectively merge some of the content into a different article? Let's spend a little time talking this out and I'm sure we'll come up with a solution. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer, first it will be 6, I assume this one will be deleted too, no I don't want to put back the whole 6 articles into the main one. mostly just the "Results" section. I did some edits on at least 3 of those pages but right now honestly I can't remember what I added (or removed) so it will be great if I can see the whole thing to pick up what I needed. is it possible to copy/paste them all to one of my sandboxes? Sports2021 (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I haven't forgotten about this. My gut response is that it might be better to restore them to Draft space as long as I can count on you not to move them back to main space. The pages are kind of lengthy so I don't know about pasting all of the content into one User page. That would also result in a loss of attribution so I think Draft space would be more suitable. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That's totally OK, I just need them for a day (to take what I need) and then you can delete the draft version as well. Sports2021 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Sports2021,
Just scrolling up the talk page to find messages that I lost track of over the past two weeks and yours is a big one. Are you still interested in recovering this content? Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes of course Sports2021 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Growler, Arizona train wreck

I would like you to reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growler, Arizona. Right now we have a mess of redirects because, when I promoted my (unfortunately extremely stubby) version of Growler Mine Area, I redirected the discussed article to it, which was not only then reverted, but my article was copied over top of the old version of Growler, Arizona, and the NRHP article cut-and-pasted over the latter and then redirected to the town article, to the point where "Growler, Arizona" begins "The Growler Mine Area is a historic mine[.]" I have tried reverting some of this with comments as to why, but I am now up to two reverts and obviously that's not going further. I am headed to @Onel5969:'s talk page to try to find out why he is being obdurate about this, but the impression I get from his comments is that since the AfD result was "keep", there must be an article at that name and not a redirect. I personally have my own issues with "keep" as a closure, but perhaps a clarification of the result is in order. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mangoe,
I know you were hoping for a Delete but the AFD consensus was to Keep the article in some form. What resolution are you looking for at this point? I don't want to encourage edit wars but I also trust your judgment on articles like this one. I will look this page over but I might not get to it tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The consensus of the AfD discussion was to keep the article and transform it to include information about the NRHP site: "But the consensus here is to Keep this article and improve it so that it is more clear where this town is located." When I began to do just that, another editor erased those changes. There's no train wreck, simply one participant in the discussion trying to enforce their opinion above the others in the discussion.Onel5969 TT me 08:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree that was the consensus; as far as I can tell the only consensus was that the mine was notable (because NRHP), and maybe that the original spot was not. In any case it is likely only a matter of time before the NRHP project comes along and tries to have the article moved back to the NRHP title, because that is the usual pattern for non-towns. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems like this isn't a dispute about the closure of the AFD any more but is about the content of the article. It would be more suitable to discuss this on the article talk page where more interested editors can see it and participate. You might ping editors who participated in the AFD discussion, regardless of what they thought should happen with the article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

submitted for your kind attention for Draft:Dado Coletti

Good morning Liz, I am writing to greet you and thank you for your visit on my page, here I ask you if you can intercede for Draft:Dado Coletti, I submit it and propose to your vision, if you think it appropriate to be able to publish it I would be happy to know. Anyway, I am available for anything, waiting to hear from you I wish you a good day. Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino,
Unfortunately, my tasks at Wikipedia don't involve reviewing draft articles. Those who are AFC reviewers are very skilled at reviewing drafts, checking for copyright violations, seeing whether a draft duplicates other articles on Wikipedia, checking references, this is what they do so I'd try to be patient and wait until an AFC reviewer gets to your draft. Approaching individual reviewers and asking them to review your draft usually results in a negative response. There are thousands of drafts to look at and AFC reviewers, like all of the rest of us, are volunteers.
If you have specific questions about editing on Wikipedia, its policies or how AFC works, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you support and advice. Who knows, maybe one of the editors at the Teahouse will look over your draft and offer you some suggestions! Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Page Deletion Query

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

Hi Liz,

I'm just messaging about the recent deletion of the Valda Energy Limited page on my account Lukeweaver95 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC). It was cited as being deleted for violating G11. I have since read up more on this code and completely altered the draft offline as in my sandbox, the notice I received has stated the following: ' If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below'. As this is very different to the original draft, should I proceed with creating a new draft or request the page be restored?

Kind regards

Lukeweaver95 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lukeweaver95,
Can you provide me with a link to the deleted page you are talking about? I know it was important to you but I look at hundreds of pages a day and will need to look at the content. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
Thanks for getting back to me. The deleted page is Draft:Valda Energy Limited. Lukeweaver95 (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Lukeweaver95,
I'm finally getting back to you and it looks like I'm too late as you have gotten blocked. It looks like you haven't gotten the unblock request code done correctly so I'll fix that for you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Draftication

Hi Liz, please can you expand on why you draftified Draft:Peninah malonza instead of just deleting it per CSD A3? As I understand with drafts, they should be plausible topics that have some potential as an article, but surely not when the entire contents are headings (not even formatted correctly) with zero prose or useful information? This isn't the first instance, though I am quite sure this is not the kind of article we should be sending to draft. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bungle,
Well, I read over the CSD criteria for A3 and it states that A3 applies to articles consisting only of external links, category tags or "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, questions that should have been asked at a noticeboard, chat-like comments, template tags, or images, which didn't seem to apply to this page which consisted of section headings. Typical main space articles I have deleted as CSD A3 just contained external links or an image and this looked like pages I usually come across in Draft space where I do much of my work these days. Also, this editor has been working in Draft space so I thought that it looked like the start of an article they were intending to write and it was mistakenly placed in main space.
I'll admit that I don't know who or what "Peninah malonza" is or was so I don't know whether or not an appropriate draft can be made about this subject. I just thought I'd give the page creator the benefit of the doubt. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'm unsure if you observed that this editor in fact created numerous articles of this nature around the same time, all of which either have little or no meaningful content to them (and I don't consider section headers exclusively to be meaningful). I'd consider ext links and images to actually convey more information though, ironically. As far as I can see, they have not been working in draft space, but created these in mainspace. I think, as it seems this has been the case on a few articles rather than just as a one-off, maybe they would benefit from some helpful words of advice. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ann Cotton (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Theroadislong,
I was hoping that you'd notice that we currently have a stub article on this individual, Ann Cotton, and that this draft has much that it could add to this main space stub. Any chance that a merge would be possible? Have you seen this happen with other drafts? Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice that! I have little experience of merging and even less of merging with a draft! Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ann Cotton has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ann Cotton. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arianna Carter has been accepted

Arianna Carter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference has been accepted

Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say thank you for your tireless work. What's really striking to me is that despite the volume of your actions at AfD, you take a very level-headed approach to closings and relistings, including relisting comments which often direct the discussion toward a "healthier" consensus, for lack of a better word. I would probably get exasperated much quicker. Ovinus (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ovinus,
Well, that's very flattering, thank you for your kind words. I still think of myself as new to AFDs...I've been an admin since 2015 but I only started regularly checking AFDs this January. Over the past 9 months, I've learned a few things I'm trying to get better at. Unless the participants are unanimous in their opinions, most editors prefer an explanation instead of a one word closure so I'm trying to write more statements about a closure when it seems like a close division of opinions. Some admins are just superb about doing this but they do fewer closures than some of the rest of us. That's fine, if they are willing to read through some of these complex discussions, weighing all of the factors and comments, then if they do 4-7 AFD closures a week, it's something we all benefit from. But I still have a ways to go on this.
I do often think that editors who regularly participate in AFDs wish I was more decisive handling AFDs rather than relisting ones where I don't see an obvious closing decision. Editors often get impatient with relistings but a closer can't make a "Super Vote" and impose our own ideas about what should happen in a discussion. And I've seen knowledgeable editors show up after 2 or 3 relistings and offer an opinion that changes the direction of the discussion so I think it can be worth doing it. I wish that would happen more often but there are just a lot of articles that come up in AFD discussions that very few editors care about.
What has helped me is if editors unsatisfied with a closure come to me instead of heading directly to Deletion Review which is generally an unpleasant experience, even when a closure is endorsed. Sometimes, discussion, both at AFD and DRV, can turn personal and that just deflects from the stated purpose of the discussion.
Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Isn't it just common courtesy to bring up a problematic deletion with the closer?? Rather unfortunate to take things to DRV immediately. Also agreed with dividing closures among admins to avoid tiring people too much—Sandstein, for example, seems to do really well with the contentious ones. I do hope the upcoming RfC will help with the anomie in some parts of AfD, particularly borderline sports biographies, but I haven't seen quite as much acrimony as before the recent Arbcom case. Not sure whether that's due to individual problematic voters being topic banned or simply because people are worried about being sanctioned. With regards to relisting, I really appreciate it, despite the perceived backlog. Ovinus (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

  • New instant-access collections:
    • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
    • Project MUSE
    • Taylor & Francis
    • ASHA
    • Loeb
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

CSD on Draft:International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response

Hi Liz, sorry to bother, but I think I'm just confused about the CSD rules. In rejecting my tag, you said: "It will not be eligible until 6 months from today (unless some else edits it in the meantime)."

Are you saying that simply CSD tagging in and of itself, and rejecting of that tag, counts as a human edit of G13? That this would reset the clock? This seems to be a strange thing since I was just attempting to correct an earlier CSD.

G13 says "human edits". The only edit in 6 months aside from my original CSD was from citation bot and someone using an autowikibot apostrophe fixer. I was under the impression that these were bot edits, not human edits, for the purposes of G13. If I was mistaken, I completely understand. But does that mistake alone really reset the clock ANOTHER 6 months? Why does it not simply mean, wait until 6 months have really elapsed (which they now have, even from those edits I thought were bot edits).

It sounds quite cyclical in reasoning. I'm also noticing that different admins appear to treat this question differently. is it ambiguity that needs clarification in G13?

Please provide any clarity you can as I'm quite confused about this! Thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you're right here Shibbolethink (or at the very least have a very valid point), as when you tagged it in early Sept, it hadn't quite been 6 months since the last human edit (albeit an automated one) however your second csd tag was definitely over 6 months since the last edit (clearly, we can't count your original csd tag as an "edit", as that would be somewhat ludicrous). If Liz is counting your original csd tag as an edit and clock reset, I think that would need to be taken somewhere else for some consensus and discussion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I should have responded to this comment last week! But I see it has been escalated and more editors will be participating in a discussion about this which I think is good for policy development. Liz Read! Talk!

Deletion of my sandbox. It wasn't a webhost, it was a little mistake.

Hello Liz. Hoping you're well, I write this message to you to know in which reasons was my Sandbox deleted. I created the sandbox with the purpose of creating drafts and testing. However I decided to rewrite it from scratch, deleting all previous drafts I made, however the thing is I found out today that my sandbox was deleted due to the misuse as a Webhost. However I wanted to make this clearing, because the recent draft I created was a draft for my user page, however as it was a user page draft, I added by mistake the external links of my personal pages section with two (equal signs) instead of three to include it as a sub title of the draft, but I didn't make any misuse, it was a little mistake I was going to fix but due of other things I have to do (such as study and work) I didn't fix it, and obviously that made my sandbox look like a "webhost".

Hoping a sooner answer and solution,

Diego Esquivel (Got any questions?) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, this is awaiting your response, either here or at WP:Requests for undeletion#Sandbox:Diegoesquivel2004. Jay 💬 14:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Jay,
I missed seeing this on my rather busy talk page so I'll check REFUND tonight or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Diego Esquivel and Jay,
I apologize for the delay in responding to your questions, I see that REFUND request has already been archived without action being taken.
However, I just reviewed User:Diegoesquivel2004/sandbox and wasn't an article draft, it was an autobiography about you, your work as a freelancer and your hobbies. This is exactly what we mean when we saying "using Wikipedia as a webhost". This is content that is suitable for your own website or blog, it is not an article draft for an encyclopedia. We don't have editor profiles in the main space of the project and your User page should not be used to promote yourself or your interests. It is okay to have a limited amount of biographical content on your main User page but it should concern your editing activities on Wikipedia, like a list of articles you are working on, it's not intended to be a social media profile.
Feel free to recreate your Sandbox but please use it either for a) article drafts or b) information you might need for editing, like template codes or links to different editing resources on the project that might come in handy in your work as an editor. We are really serious here about keeping content on User pages reserved for editing content and not using Wikipedia as a social network. I hope this explains helps explain my decision to honor the CSD tagging and delete the page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft

No don’t delete OllysTV draft Wiki power creator (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wiki power creator: If you want to continue working on the draft, you may list it at WP:REFUND, and an admin will restore it. However, you will need to continue working on it, or it will be deleted again. Wikipedia will not host unused material indefinitely. Thanks! Ovinus (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for attention

Liz, my apologies, it has been many years, and it seems the only way I cross paths with distant colleagues is when a misunderstanding or disagreement occurs. Thankfully, it does not often happen (which adds to the time elapsed between points off contract).

At issue is a huggle-driven assessment of an extensive corrective edit as being vandalism, that original edit being driven by an article clearly in violation of WP:OR and (esp.) WP:VER. The article was a physics glossary, all but devoid of citations.

The bot/tool having identified the edit as possible vandalism, the editor then mistakenly affirmed the tool's catch, and reverted the hours of work on the edit. (In the communications between this original editor and the reverting bot user, see links below, and then this editor and the admin supporting the tool-inspired reversion — these make clear the extent of the edits, which go far beyond anything that could be considered vandalism. You can see these in the links that follow. "An edit that in part or more substantially, another editor could disagree with." Possibly, yes. But vandalism contrary to the aim and history and spirit of WP? No.)

Following the original edit, and that initial reversion, I contacted the tool-driven editor, pointing out the case for their misinterpretation of the original edit. I then made a mistake: instead of walking away, and waiting, thinking my communication to that reverting editor was sufficiently explanatory, I reverted their original reversion. This is the only step taken, between the original edit and what followed, that I regret. I should have given the initial communication the time needed, so that the tool-driven editor had time to reverse their own action.

At that point, I would say, the edit and its responses took an unhelpful turn. An administrator joined the fray, returned the tool-driven reversion, and issued a two week block of this editor. (The block appeared in two places, one as a two day block, the second as a two week block, the latter apparently being what took technical efect.)

That block was unnecessary—insofar as the easily applied but extreme restraint miscast the original edit as true vandalism, and this editor as a true vandal/miscreant, rather than the original edit being an earnest attempt to improve WP, and this editor a longstanding contributor dedicated to WP, and its important policies and guidelines. A simple communication with me would have accomplished the same, and wasted less time of all parties involved. Moreover, with a view toward fairness and justice, and a better encyclopedia, it would've allowed us to move toward understanding and a better encyclopedia, rather than shutting down communication and leaving the violation-ridden article in place, as it stood before all this began.

So, I'd ask you to look in, or have another fairminded editor (or editors) look in, and decide if the original edit was reversion-worthy—as opposed to being a bold edit that we all, IP-editors included, have always been encouraged to make (even if it needed to be modified by a further build edit!).

Then, second, I'd ask the same attention to the decision to block—was that single reversion (which I've admitted to having been a mistake) sufficient to issue such a block? Along with that, was the reason for the block that was given, in is very abbreviated form (no reference to WP policies or guidelines), and pointedness (to the point if being uncivil) — is this in keeping with current expectations of WP administrative action?

Third and finally, I'd ask what expectations one questioning a block might have. Perhaps by this time, the challenge to the block that I wrote has led to a reply. But after several days (and because work put me on the road again), I have seen no response to the appeal, and so lost hope of an easy, fair review of this matter.

And in this last paragraph, we arrive at what I think was the only real (and unfortunate) outcome of the tool-driven reversion of the source-checking and policy-noting original edit: that an article was returned to its clearly problematic, policy-violating state without any hint of the issues, and that this editor, dedicated to WP and its ideals, policies and guidelines (if not it's oversight apparatus and practices), is all the further disallusioned.

So, I request you have a look at the following links, which are presented in rough order of the interactions related to this question.

With regard, a former regular, note occasional editor (and professor).

50.224.57.42 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_physics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Discospinster [See the Talk section entitled, "The edit you just rolled back is not vandalism...".]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Glossary_of_physics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111977506

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111983553

Hello, 50.224.57.42,
First, if you are blocked in any way on Wikipedia, you shouldn't jump to a different IP account and edit. This is called "Block evasion" and you would not be looking at a two week block but an indefinite block for any IP or registered account you edit with. So, please wait out your block and don't contact me again until your block is over.
Second, I have never reverted a block by another administrator. What I have done is that your unblock request was inappropriately closed by a regular editor, not an admin, so I reversed their edit and reopened your unblock request. I haven't studied this, but I think unblock requests for limited duration blocks like this one are unlikely to be approved.
Finally, I don't really understand why you were blocked. I think that the admin who reverted your edit should have responded to your inquiry about why you were reverted. I will say that large edits/content changes by IP editors are usually scrutinized and you went overboard placing source tags on this page and, to the average editor, that would raise suspicions. You would be better off in the future to do smaller edits. It is so much easier to revert a questionable edit that selectively undo just parts of the edit. I probably don't need to tell you this but while IP editors are just as valid editors as those with registered accounts, their edits are subject to more review than registered editors, especially ones that have been active for years. I think you would not run into these situations if you created an account.
I realize that my answer is not the vindication you sought but I did read your entire appeal and it is not my nature to go to battle with another admin over a questionable block of an unregistered editor who I don't know. I think you'd be better off not editing until this block is over, registering an account and engaging the Wikipedia community with an identity that admins and editors could learn to respect and trust. If instead you choose to go to battle over this perceived injustice, you will find yourself forever in conflict which doesn't serve you or the project. It's your choice. I'd let this one go if you want to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

SPI dupe sig

If you don't sign the initial report, you won't see two sigs - it automatically signs it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Bbb23,
Thank you but it's strange, when you fill out a report, it says you need to sign it in the instructions. But, in the future, I will omit it. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you're reading the wrong part of the instructions. It says: "Enter your evidence below. You do not need to sign it - it will be signed for you."--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha. You think I'd have it all figured out by now. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Noam Manella

Hello, after my article was moved to a draft I added many corrections and citations, and I really think it is a good article. It is a translation of the HEbrew article on the same write of book that won a FIDE prize. Could you please check it and write to me what is the problem? Yoavd (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Yoavd,
I do a lot of different things on Wikipedia but I don't review draft articles. Your best bet is to submit it to Articles for Creation and one of their AFC reviewers will evaluate it and give you their opinion. Their primary job on Wikipedia is reviewing draft articles so they are the experts.
Also, The Teahouse is a great place to go for advice, there are experienced editors there who might offer an opinion on it. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, I did not keep my work about Noam Manella so if you could send me the last version I will try to continue the work. Since then the book was translated to many languages so I could add this to the draft. Thanks! --Yoavd (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Please send me a copy of the deleted article so I can continue to work on it. --Yoavd (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thallumaala (soundtrack)

Hi Liz. Hope you are doing good. I want a clarification for your reply to my vote and striking. You said I already express my vote before. Thats not true. Please check clearly and please remove the striking. Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jehowahyereh,
You voted twice. That's apparent to anyone looking over the AFD. You can only vote (a bolded "Keep", "Delete", "Merge" or "Redirect") once on an AFD discussion. Look at your comemnts in this discussion, you were the first comment on this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Blake (entrepreneur)

Hello, you relisted this AfD[7] and then you deleted it after two days without any clear consensus[8]? Can you please clarify? Thank you. Haueirlan (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Haueirlan,
You are absolutely correct, I relisted this AFD discussion and then closed it hours later. That was a mistake. I have reverted my closure, restored the article and I'll let another admin/editor to close this discussion. I appreciate you bringing this oversight to my attention so I could correct it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, appreciate it. Haueirlan (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The Sandbox

Hey, Liz. I see The Sandbox (blockchain platform) as a redlink in my watchlist and didn't realize there was a deletion discussion. Since it was closed a little bit early, would you be willing to re-open so I can make a comment? CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CNMall41,
I don't see that this AFD discussion was closed early and the consensus was pretty clear to Delete this article. The majority of editors participating thought there wasn't significant coverage of this company and only one editor disagreed. I don't think your vote of support would have changed the outcome so I'm reluctant to reopen a discussion that had a clear consensus just to allow you to comment on it.
However, I might consider restoring this article to Draft space where you could work on the article and submit it to AFC for review. Do you realistically see yourself wanting to devote time to improving this article in the time you spend on Wikipedia? Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
That would work. Can you put it in a subpage for me (User:CNMall41/TheSandbox)? I will work on in whenever I have a chance. I am not sure that editors did a thorough BEFORE as Google Books turns up a bunch of information. I guess I disagree with people saying that it isn't notable when significant coverage could be presented. However, I completely understand your position as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
While I have you, can you assign permissions such as "Rollback"? Going to try using Huggle and need those rights. Not sure why I don't have them yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, CNMall41,
 Done and  Done. You are an experienced editor so I probably don't need to tell you this but I will any way. If you move the The Sandbox article back into main space, even after you have improved the article, it will likely be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. Please submit it to AFC for review to ensure that the problems that the participants in the AFD found are no longer an issue. I think reviewing the AFD discussion would help with sourcing and foreseeing any problems that might arise with an article about crytocurrency.
Regarding rollback, please review Rollback policy, particularly When to use rollback and remember to not use it when reverting a good faith edit or when there is a disagreement about content, it's primarily intended for reverting vandalism.
If you have questions, please ask me or any other admin you have a good working relationship with. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I truly appreciate it. As far as The Sanbox, I will probably discuss with editors involved with the AfD. I also probably won't have time to even look at it for a month or so. Take care. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

deletion of user:adacable

Hi

Seems my user page was put up for speedy deletion at 8:37 on sunday(by Minorax) then deleted 8:42(by yourself), under use of web hosting. The deletion notice on my talk says to contact the deleting admin, not the proposing admin, so I've come here to figure out what's up. I certainly didn't intend to be using wikipedia as a host.

Seemingly I messed something up with the content- I tried to put a breif introduction so people would know who was editing and what my focuses were, but i've no interest in a random out of context bio and I've not pointed to the page from anywhere else. While my own web hosting is(ironically) undergoing downtime right now, I've got access to web hosting and domains if I want to use them.

Can you advise on creating a talk page with a similar spirit which doesn't come across as using it for web hosting? Adacable (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Adacable,
Over the past few years, I've come to trust Minorax's judgment on speedy deletion tagging and so I just spot-check a few of the pages they have tagged for deletion because they typically are very accurate in their tagging. But I think this CSD tagging was mistaken and I'm glad you came to me about it so I could rectify it.
We run into a lot of editors who use their User page as a personal profile page as if Wikipedia was a social network but in your case, the information you shared has to do with your editing work and interests on Wikipedia and you were not using the platform as a webhost. I've restored the page and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Feel free to remove the warning from your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@Adacable: Hello. Seems like it be an oversight on my end. Apologies to both. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with incivility

Hello, Liz. I hope you're doing well. I just have this small issue here with an editor who seems that they aren't aware of their actions which is disruption of WP:CIV.

The user Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs) had reverted my edits on the Tara Sutaria page. The edit summary stated words like "reductant crap" referring to my edits. I took this matter to their talk page. And instead of coming to a consensus, I get replied by a warn which makes no sense. And added to this, they deleted the message on their talk page.

I'm surprised that this editor has various permissions as well. I hope you'll look into this and just guide me. If I'm mistaken anywhere do let me know, because it seems the other editor is least bothered to do this.

Thanks  Rejoy2003  12:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rejoy2003,
To be honest, neither of you comes off as being very civil. That was a glib edit summary Krimuk2.0 left on their edit on Tara Sutaria but your message on their talk page wasn't a neutral warning, you called them arrogant, questioned why they had been given advanced permissions and bordered on being insulting to them. You can't expect civility from others if you are not going to practice it as well. That is, you can't warn an editor about being insulting by being rude yourself. I'm just glad you stopped edit warring on that article before either of you got taken to WP:ANEW. If you care that much about the content of the edit under dispute, you should stop talking to each other in edit summaries and move to a discussion on the article talk page.
I'm not giving Krimuk2.0 a free pass but you will find editors that have been editing Wikipedia for 10+ years can be very blunt and to-the-point in a way that might not seem civil to a new editor. The ideal of Wikipedia as a collaborative editing project is that editors will treat each other with respect, patience and politeness, even when they disagree. But human nature being what it is, every editor, especially those who have been doing this for a long, long time, can be cranky. Maybe by the time you accumulate 45,000 edits like Krimuk2.0, you will find yourself being grumpy to editors who have been editing for 2 months, too.
For Krimuk2.0 to face a sanction over this, they would have to have a record of being rude to multiple editors over time and not just leave one ill-tempered edit summary after a disagreement with one other editor. On Wikipedia, conflicts between editors is very common and if you are going to stay an editor, you will need to develop a good sense of what conflicts require intervention and which conflicts you need to just walk away from. Most editors who have been doing this for a while develop a thick skin and just move on from the majority of disputes because escalating them to, say, WP:ANI, can end badly for both parties. I know there are editors/admins/arbitrators who have been here for decades who avoid dealing with certain people they have had past conflicts with and that's not a bad way of dealing with other editors you just don't get along with. I'm sorry you had a bad experience and I don't mind you coming here to talk about it but I would hope you could just move on from here and not let this get you down or become a feud between you and Krimuk2.0. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Liz. I'm glad I got a third opinion in this. But regarding warning me, doesn't it seems that they kind of misused their power?

I mean to be honest, I have applied almost 4-5 times for permissions on Wikipedia which I've been declined and such petty warns over small issues, I personally feel was uncalled for. And which will in return not so help me while asking for certain permissions. Do let me know what you think

Thanks  Rejoy2003  19:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, you are a very new editor, Rejoy2003, and it's a bad sign to admins that you have only been editing for 2 months and you have already asked for advanced permissions 4 or 5 times. I would deny those requests as well. I would say that you need a track record of 4-6 months of regular editing before I would grant you any permissions. Please focus on becoming a better editor and not on "hat collecting".
I'm sure that with each refusal, the patrolling admin told you exactly what I'm telling you now and by reapplying so quickly, it looks like you are ignoring their advice. Ignoring the advice of one of the few admins who work on the permisions noticeboards is a guarantee that you are unlikely to be granted rights if you make requests soonafter.
I'd also advise you to read Wikipedia:Indentation and learn to indent during a talk page discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Liz, your reply still didn't answer my question about Krimuk2.0 warning me here User talk:Rejoy2003. Could you brief me about it as well? Also Just to make myself clear about this, I never really considered of "hat collecting". You can go through my perms applied you can check I have applied for the same 1-2 roles as I felt I'm ready. Also about ignoring the advice of patrolling admins, I never really did that. On the contrary, there was one of the patrol admins that told me to apply after a month, which I did to only get rejected again. Maybe I'm not the best with words or like you said, I'll try to sit out for 3-4 months as I feel it's appropriate as well. Also about the indentation, that's actually my first hearing that and me being a mobile editor, Indentation has always been difficult and "too much of work" I'd say then to those who own PC or a computer. Nevertheless this discussion really has helped me alot to understand what areas I should be working on.  Rejoy2003  09:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz (talk · contribs) just pinging you incase you missed this.

See page on the President of the Macedonian Academy

Dear Liz, as for your last comment on my talk page, please see pages Ljupčo Kocarev, Talk:Ljupčo Kocarev. Reagrds, Academician.NYAS (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Academician.NYAS,
This was not a personal message that I left for you. I delete stale drafts, drafts that go longer than 6 months without an edit and in the process of deletion, Twinkle, the editing tool that we use, sends out a deletion template notification and posts it to the talk page of the page creator.
So, among the hundreds of drafts I deleted today, one was Draft:Ljupčo Kocarev that you apparently started and you were notified about this deletion. I have no opinion on this draft, I was just notifying you. If you would like it to be restored, please make a request at WP:REFUND and it likely will be undeleted. That's all I can tell you about this situation. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Best regards,Academician.NYAS (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Question on the type of revision done to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Theatre_organ

Hi, I need the help of a seasoned admin. Can you explain to me what type of revision was performed on Theatre organ? It was performed by Lettherebedarklightwith no prior talk page discussion, whom I have just contacted about the issue. I'm more concerned (wondering) about the type of revision that can hide all the revisions back to 2013, and I have no way to revert any on them. Seems like an admin level thing to be able to do, but the editor is not imho •Bobsd• (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bobsd,
When you see mass revision deletions like this on an article, it is because of a copyright violation. In this case, the content was originally added in December 20, 2013 and at least some of the content remained until now. Lettherebedarklightwith might have removed the content from the article that violated copyright rules but it was Nthep who actually did the revision deletion of the different versions which you can see when you look at the page logs (check the link in the page history). Having to remove access to all of these edit versions is a hassle to do but it's because there are legal consequences to having copyright violations on the project which is taken very seriously.
Nthep is experienced dealing with copyright violations and I would ask them about specifics in this case. We have about half a dozen admins who have a focus on remedying copyright violations and I am not one of them. It's a time-consuming job and some of the investigations looking into copyright violating editors can last months or even years. I hope this answers your basic questions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Liz, thank you for the reply. That helps my understanding of the process. Here is what I replied to Lettherebedarklight
@Lettherebedarklight: I couldn't tell what the process was, but as I now understand it, you did a manual cleanup to the current page, removing problematic copyright sections, and then Nthep performed a revision deletion back to [Revision as of 10:15, 4 November 2013] when the violations started.
Your edit comment (it's a copyvio! that explains a lot.) was helpful, but (why?!?!?!?!??!!? ), (why would anyone trying to learn about theatre organs care about this!?!? ), (wtf is this article), were less so and at first, sounded to me that you had personal opinions about what previous editors should or should not have found relevant to the subject matter, and took an ax to it.
But with such a large cleanup in mind, shouldn't a discussion have occurred for consensus on the talk page? I understand that copyright violations should be handled immediately, but not everything that you removed were violations.
An irony is that the San Diego chapter of the ATOS uses the Wikipedia article as their "history" page. [9], so how do we determine the provenance of each sentence ... i.e. who borrowed from whom?
Anyway, thank you for managing the copyright violation cleanup, but I do think that in the future, some type of explanation, at least after the fact, should be placed on the talk page so that past editors of the article can know what is going on.
Regards, Bobsd •Bobsd• (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you!

Trout

Hi Liz! Following up in case you missed the ping here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb,
 Done. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Dejan Ferdinansyah was deleted at AfD and has been re-created

The article on Dejan Ferdinansyah was closed/deleted at AfD recently, but it's been recreated again in mainspace; what's the procedure for something like this? Do we open a new AfD, re-open the old one, unsure what happens now. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Oaktree b,
If the new version of the article is substantially identical to the previous article that was deleted after the AFD discussion, then it gets tagged CSD G4 and the tagger provides a link to the deletion discussion so the admin who reviews the page can look at the AFD discussion. Do you use Twinkle? IT's an editing tool that many editors and admins make use of to tag articles, start AFDs, report vandals to noticeboards, and it makes things like this very easy to do. It will also keep deletion logs for an editor which can be handy to review so you can improve your tagging skills. If you run across instances like this one in your work on the project, I encourage you to try Twinkle out.
As for this new article, I'd prefer to let another admin review this recreated article. I don't like to do multiple deletions of an main space article unless there is vandalism or sockpuppetry involved. I don't like editors to ever feel targeted. Unfortunately, CSD G4s can sit around for a while until an admin comes along to review them but I don't think it's hurting the project to let this new article hang around for a while. Thanks for the notification! Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Page Deletion Query

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

Hi Liz,

I'm just messaging about the recent deletion of the Lucy Chege (nutritionist) page on my account User:DanielMaithya (talk) 02:32, 06 October 2022 (UTC). It was cited as being deleted for violating G4. The notice I received stated the following: ' If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below'. As this page content is very different from the previously deleted page over one year ago, only the page name is the same this time round please help retrieve and restore it I continue editing. Also I would appreciate if you suggest some changes I should make to the article. DanielMaithya (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Kind regards

Hello, DanielMaithya,
Sorry for the delay in replying. I'll review the old and new versions of this article and see whether CSD G4 fits. I believed it did when I deleted the page but it can't hurt to take a second look tomorrow. I'll have more information for you then. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
Just reaching out to find out if you managed to review the page. Thank you! DanielMaithya (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
Did you manage to review the page? I will appreciate if you helped me out. Thanks! DanielMaithya (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, DanielMaithya,
No, sorry, I haven't but thank you for the reminder. I'll take care of it within in the next day. Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, DanielMaithya,
I just reviewed the first version of Lucy Chege (nutritionist) along with your version and I think they are basically identical. It's a totally self-promotional article with terrible, unreliable sources to support claims in the article. Even if I restored it to the main space of the project, another admin would soon delete it for speedy deletion CSD G11 for basically being advertising. By Wikipedia's standards, she just isn't notable enough to have an article on the English language Wikipedia.
I agree with the unanimous decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Chege (nutritionist) that this article should be deleted. Please review this AFD so you can see what problems editors had with the earlier version of the article.
If you disagree with my deletion decision, you can make an argument at Wikipedia:Deletion review that the article shouldn't have been deleted. You should be able to argue that this article does meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. I can restore the deleted article to your User space so you can review it but if you move it directly back into main space, it will be deleted again and this time it will be more difficult to restore.
I'm sorry not to have better news but creating a new article is the most difficult task to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. I hope you can find other ways to contribute to the project. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much @Liz for your response, and also for taking your precious time to review the page. Please restore the deleted article to my User space so that I can review it. Thanks! DanielMaithya (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Weaver Junction

Hi Liz,

Please reconsider your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaver Junction. While numerically the keep votes are in the majority, they without fail are all either drive-by votes with no real rationale, or are seriously flawed with respect to policy. I did a thorough analysis of the article and sources, showing why the article did not meet GNG, and no editors were able to refute my analysis. I realize I'm borderline asking you to supervote here, but I quite simply cannot see valid rationale for keeping this article when no examples of significant coverage can be found. I've tried to find some, but was unsuccessful. I queried multiple keep voters about what they thought was significant coverage, and all either ignored my question or responded with vague claims that "we've kept stuff that was pieced together from a bunch of trivial mentions before". I believe a keep close is inconsistent with the strength of the arguments presented in the AfD, and you should reconsider.

On a wholly unrelated note, I've noticed you're a lot more active in closing AfDs in general, and I do appreciate you helping keep this area of the project running smoothly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Trainsandotherthings,
I read over the discussion again and while you did provide a good source analysis, I think the editors advocating Keeping the article offered substantial opinions and were not all "drive-bys" votes. At most, I could change this to a "No consensus" closure but I don't think that would provide you with the decision you are seeking. I'll admit that, as a closer, I am also infuenced by the amount of improvement an article undergoes in the time between the AFD nomination and the discussion closure and this article was heavily edited during the past weeks. That is a sign to me that there are editors here that are willing to continue to improve the article to address problems brought up by those wanting to Delete the article.
Like most discussions that are far from unanimous, this was not an easy decision and in my time this year working at AFD, I've observed that it is a lot easier to get an article Deleted than to get an article Kept. But I thought, at the time of closure, that the Keep editors had some good arguments and seemed committed to improving this particular article.
If I were you and this really, really bothered me (you did put a lot of time into your participation in this AFD), I'd renominate the article in a few weeks. I'm sorry that I'm not willing to revert my closure but I've seen different AFD discussions have greatly different results depending on who decides to participate. I guess that's a flaw/benefit in the AFD process. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Draftify

Hello, Atsme,
I don't know of any extenuating circumstances that would let this draftification bypass the "recently created" guidelines of when it's appropriate to move a main space page to Draft space. It looks like the moves have led to improvement in the article though which I think is the goal. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Liz, to what guideline are you referring for "recently created"? Atsme 💬 📧 12:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi.

You might notice that I reverted a bunch of your edits, but not because there was anything wrong with them; that was just the most efficient way to restore a large number of links to a re-stubbed article that was previously deleted as a copyvio. I would note, however, that since the subject was clearly notable (a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice), per WP:REDBIO it also would have been permissible to leave the red links in place. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412,
Thanks for letting me know but I don't monitor those types of things so I didn't know it had happened. If the edits were reverted, I'm sure you had a good reason to do it. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
👍 It's an unusual confluence of circumstances. BD2412 T 20:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Driggu

Hi Liz. I'm curious as to what happened with Driggu? It was at AfD and you moved it to draftspace... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,
I just deleted a redirect from main space to Draft space. If you look at the page history of Draft:Driggu, you'll see that you need to ask User:Moniiquedecastro who moved it to Draft space. This was inappropriate considering there was an AFD going on so I'll revert it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, right, got it. Bit of a slow bear, see. I did think it was all a bit odd! Thanks! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request for the redirect page SBS Mobile 24 and other related redirect pages.

Liz, can you please delete the redirect pages SBS Mobile24, SBS Mobile 24, SBS MOBILE 24 and SBS MOBILE24 because they aren’t mentioned in the target article. Thanks. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,
These are subjects of RFD discussions. I'm not a regular at RFD, I think you should ask one of the admins who regularly closes discussions there to intervene and close these early. I'm more likely to let the deletion discussions continue until they close at the regular 7 day time. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Also Liz, I originally nominated this redirect page on RfD on the 28th of September but it was relisted on the 5th of October by CycloneYoris. Bassie f (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WT:CSDAdministrators' Noticeboard which may be of interest to you. The thread is WT:CSDAre CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?. Thank you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 14:49, 8 October 2022)

Hello, Shibbolethink,
I appreciate the notice. Thank you for telling me about this. Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Shibbolethink,
I don't see a thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion by this title. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for the confusion, it is now at AN, the original venue. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Request that a request be made

Liz, @User:Drmies restricts Talk at that page to registered users, apparently, so I cannot go direct with this request. Could you request there that the article glucuronic acid be examined, and that whatever is believed to be the minimally necessary WP:VERIFY reader warnings for an article in its state, that those be placed, so I can see? (You are welcome to express your view via an edit as well, but I really do not wish to make substantial extra work for you.) The first citation in the main body of that article does not appear until the second main section, and therein, the second subsection. Moreover, most of the rest of the second section is unsourced as well, and none of the unsourced content I've reviewed is sky-is-blue information.

Given the fact that edits at WP from IP addresses that warn readers we are violating our own rules about sourcing now risk reversion, at least, I would like to see a clear example of what WP Admins believe to be a sufficient addition of templates to an article in that state. I would add: it is likely, given the overall paucity of sourcing there, that the lead, while perhaps adequate in beginning to summarize the article — that it is nevertheless derived from content that is not based in any source appearing, and so likewise deserves an edit introducing that further warning. Cheers, thanks in advance for whatever you might choose to do. 2601:240:CD06:74E0:C9A9:6475:CF47:41A2 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Postscript: If you can direct me via a reply here to the instructions that exist for contacting you by email, I will send you a brief reply to your earlier post to me. There is a little yet to be said — in addition to the thank you for a further case of your always very clear communications, and for the fairness with which you approach your responsibilities, which I can freely say here. Cheers. 2601:240:CD06:74E0:C9A9:6475:CF47:41A2 (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Ulises12345678 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookie, Ulises12345678! Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thanks! Ulises12345678 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
more? Ulises12345678 (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Kolhi

Hello, i noticed that Ramparkashkohli have moved the Kolhi to Kohli but Kolhi is a seperate Dalit caste of Sindh and Kohli is a clan of Khatri caste. So please revert all edits made by Ramparkashkohli. 106.204.112.248 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 106.204.112.248,
I think we got this sorted out. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible categories to move

You know categories better than I do. These cats might need to move to use "c." instead of "ca.". – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jonesey95,
I deal with content categories and categories that hold categories, I'm not very schooled on template categories or content dealing with different languages. Don't we have a few industrious editors who love to plough through categories with pages that need small corrections and use AWB or some other tool to do some quick fixes? I can't remember who right now. Maybe BD2412 has some ideas. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Now that I read the message again, it may be saying that we should not move the category, because the official name of the language is inherited from somewhere. I notice that the name also ignores our MOS:DASH guideline as well. Maybe PrimeHunter, who created this cmbox template, knows more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Using "c." versus "ca." is just our style convention. I'm glad to do the category moves (there really aren't that many), but I would consider this a pretty low priority for the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 23:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: The categories use the ISO 639-3 names of languages. For example, in Category:Articles containing Middle Dutch (ca. 1050-1350)-language text, "Middle Dutch (ca. 1050-1350)" is the name of a language (see https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/dum. "(ca. 1050-1350)" is not a term made by Wikipedia to describe the language. The categories are populated by templates using ISO 639-3 language codes to generate those names, in this case dum. It would be a mess if we made up our own language names just because the real ones deviate slightly from our manual of style. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
See also User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 37#Category:Articles containing Old English (ca. 450-1100)-language text. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, BD2412 and PrimeHunter who clearly know what they are talking about, much more than I know about ISO language codes (which is nothing!). Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: I appreciate the education, I did not catch that the date range was part a set phrase. In that case, these should not be moved at all. BD2412 T 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I have added documentation to the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Not sure what to say but i wanted to reach out. This whole Athaenara affair is sad and brings me no joy. Odd as it may sound, i'm sorry for your loss. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, EvergreenFir, this is unexpected. I felt like I'd be criticized for my point-of-view. It's just difficult when you work alongside another editor/admin every day and then they do something completely out of character. I just feel like there has to be more to the story. This talk about "cancel culture" when airing an obviously unacceptable comment is just bizarre. I understand why action has been taken, it was necessary. I don't see how this can be resolved in a positive way though. We'll see what the arbitrators have to say, it's in their court unless there is an unblock request. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I understand and sympathize. There certainly could be some explanation; Doug Weller, for example, was experiencing post-operative delirium the other week and was acting very odd, but at least we know why. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Sigh

It was quite a lapse in my judgment to re-state that personal attack, so I came to thank you for removing it. You know, it's the kind of situation that prompts reaction before reason. Needs work on my part :) —VersaceSpace 🌃 05:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, VersaceSpace,
Well, at the time I removed that comment, it was the first time I had seen it repeated and the content had been revision deleted on the RfA so I thought the content should be off-limits. But it's now right in the middle of an arbitration case request so perhaps I acted too quickly myself. I was just thinking of the possibility of it reoffending people and wanted to remove the words without removing it from the page history. Let's both live and learn, okay? Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

John Mateer

Hiya. This is a new one to me, so wanted your advice on quite where it goes next. I nominated John Mateer for deletion as a fail of WP:GNG and the author clearly got into a state about that, posting walls of text in the AfD. You kindly suggested draftspace was their friend and I said I wouldn't object to you draftifying it (remember this one?) as there was no other vote on the AfD. The author then took it to draft themselves, changed the article title and slipped it right back into mainspace. So now we have John Mateer (filmmaker) in mainspace and a redlinked AfD that's not closed. I'm not sure the article is any more WP:GNG-worthy than it was before, but the modus operandi struck me as a tad, well, egregious? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,
Oh, my, what a mess. And, unfortunately, it is 1:15 am where I am and I'm heading to bed soon. I think you should copy what you just told me (or part of it) and include it on the still open AFD discussion along with links to both the Draft page and the new main space article. Has there been much participation on the AFD yet? Has it been relisted? Nevermind, I can check it myself! Don't worry, this is inappropriate behavior and it will get sorted out in the next day, either by me or another admin who is patrolling the AFD area. But you should definitely mention in the deletion discussion that there are multiple versions of this article now. Sorry for not taking immediate action on this problem at this moment. Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha. 'night! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Alexandermcnabb,
I think this AFD is back on track. It's been moved out of Draft space and I have replaced the AFD tag to the article. I have also warned the editor not to be so disruptive. I have made my opinion known so I won't be closing this AFD. Thanks for alerting me to the chaos. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz - it's been a tad messy as AfDs go! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You won't believe it, Alexandermcnabb, but that editor just asked for their User pages to be deleted. I guess they are leaving the project. I'm sure lots of new editors find all of the rules and policies here hard to work around. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
They did leave a 'you are all bullies' line on the AfD! I'd feel bad that someone felt harried off the project, but at the same time I can't help noticing that this was the one article they had dedicated themselves to (beyond reason, IMHO) and that taking it so personally was maybe linked to it being, well, personal (AGF and all that). I remember when I started out having a hard time about changing the name of the place I lived back then, which was spelled wrong on WP - but I also remember taking it easy, asking for help and not going around moving pages and breaking stuff. That wasn't meant to be sanctimonious but you don't arrive at a party screaming blue murder if you want to be handed a drink. If that makes any sense at all! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
User account recreated, the Mateer AfD discussion blanked (reverted by another editor). A passing pang of regret wasted, it would seem! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Sign, Alexandermcnabb. There is a page somewhere in Project space called the Law of Holes which states that when you get yourself into a hole, you stop digging. There are some editors that get blocked that wouldn't have if they had just stopped digging. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

How Do I?

Good day Liz, I hope you having a great day.? Wanted to ask how do I get the wiki code to achieve section on my talk page. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabriel601,
Do you mean "archive"? I just create a new page for my talk page, call it "Archive" add the month and year, and then cut and paste a month's worth of comments in one edit. But there are more sophisticated ways to archive your talk page, using bots to do this automatically. You can check out Help:Archiving (plain and simple) and Help:Archiving a talk page for more specific advice.
I just found that the bot didn't work well with the way my talk page archives were set up so I do it myself after I have more than about 3 months' worth of messages on my talk page. Some editors keep YEARS worth of messages on their talk page while others keep only a week's worth of comments. You know, questions like this one are great to bring to the the Teahouse...I don't mind answering them but at the Teahouse, there are a lot more editors who can share from their acquired knowledge of editing the project. Someone there might have an idea or method I've never heard of! Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh great, thank you so much. I’m gonna check them out.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you please restore slide.com

... to my user page, or wherever articles go for rehabilitation? I'd like to take a look at its sourcing for clues as to establishing notability. Thanks much! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wikidemon,
As a contested PROD, I'm able to restore it upon request. However, if I were you, I'd move it to your User space, maybe a Sandbox page, and include the tag {{user sandbox}} on the page so that it won't be nominated for an AFD discussion. Good luck with it! At the time, I didn't think it had a great PROD deletion rationale. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I'll move it to my user space. So I would have to do the move, after you restore it? I'm a little rusty on Wiki process because I haven't been editing much for a few years. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Wikidemon,
Moving a page is pretty simple, just go to the Page tab at the top of the page and select Move in the Drop Down menu. Just be sure that you select the right namespace (User). Or if you give me a page title, I can move it for you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Done, many thanks. The article is pretty weak, it does need some help. But the company is a significant if minor piece of internet startup history. It may be a while before I get around to it but Wikipedia has no deadline as they say. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
There's the spirit, Wikidemon! As long as you don't add an AFC tag to the page, it can stay in User space until you are ready to work on it. User pages that have AFC tags are subject to G13 speedy deletion if you aren't actively editing them so don't add one unless you actually want to submit the article to AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philadelphia Folklore Project has been accepted

Philadelphia Folklore Project, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Take a look

Good day Liz, I hope you feeling great? Sorry to bother you but I would be needing your review of the discussion on the page Draft:Speed Darlington. It’s really annoying when the Wikipedia policy states its fact about articles and reviewers ain’t sticking to it but that doesn’t still make me over react because have got other problems in real life to solve. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabriel601
There seems to be some confusion here. I do admin work, I'm not an AFC reviewer so I won't be reviewing your draft. I leave that process to the experts. That is not a skill I have, I focus on other activities of the project. I can tell you that AFC approval usually down whether the article is well-written and the quality of your sourcing. If you don't have good references to back up your claims, the draft is unlikely to be approved.
If you have comments or questions about the reviewers' comments, please visit their talk pages or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for help. Also, you might get some useful feedback if you visit the Teahouse and ask for help. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You got me wrong Liz, I was talking about the discussion review not the page review but thanks for responding.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 01:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6

You G8 deleted Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6 in February. Template:Infobox actor was merged to Template:Infobox person, not deleted. The other archives are still at Special:PrefixIndex/Template talk:Infobox actor/ with an archive box at Template talk:Infobox person. I suggest undeleting. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PrimeHunter,
I saw your message this morning and restored this Template talk page. I'm not sure how I came to delete it, perhaps it was targeted as a redirect when I used Twinkle. Also orphaned talk pages can be subject to CSD G8 deletion so I created a blank Template page to accompany the talk page. Is there anything left to repair? I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you were right to delete Template:Infobox actor/Archive 6 in February. It was wrongly named with irrelevant content. I guess you checked a box in Twinkle to also delete the talk page but Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6 is an archived talk page of Template:Infobox actor. WP:G8 excludes talk page archives. We don't create non-talk pages for archived talk pages. It probably increases the risk that somebody deletes the archive again along with the non-talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

On moving List of DC Extended Universe films to mainspace

Hi. I've noticed you've moved the draft List of DC Extended Universe films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to mainspace. It seems to have been submitted to AfC but, while on a vacuum the article seems to stand on its own, it's actually an outdated WP:CONTENTFORK of the more comprehensive DC Extended Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), made preemptively while there were discussions of splitting this original, larger article. I think that this recently moved article should be moved back to draftspace, until discussions resume and a consensus to split the original article is reached, after which the move to mainspace and the restructuring of the original article would be coordinated. —El Millo (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, El Millo,
I'm not adverse to reverting my page move but I'd like to know where this discussion will occur. I don't want to move a page back to Draft space when it might just be moved back to main space tomorrow. I'll ping Numberguy6 who is the editor who requested this page move to hear his rationale for this move. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems that Numberguy6 proposed the draft to AfC without knowledge of this, given they've never edited either DC Extended Universe ([10]) or the draft ([11]). As for when that discussion will happen, I don't know. There have been many discussion about it over the years, but none came to a consensus to actually split it (Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 3#Split in 2018, Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 5#Time to split? in 2019, and most recently Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 8#Length concerns in 2021). —El Millo (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like a move back is appropriate in this situation but first, I would like to hear from Numberguy6 before doing so. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure, there's no rush. —El Millo (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter

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

Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here.

Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here.

Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here.

Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can.

Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all!

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

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

Baffle☿gab 03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Lost Mysteries

Hello, Liz. I wish to inquire into your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Mysteries#Lost Mysteries. I'm a bit confused as to why you closed an AfD that had just been relisted, and should have been allowed to expire before closing the discussion. Also, WP:AFDFORMAT says that a vote does not constitute a discussion (2 + author, against 1). The two editors defending StarTrekker's article, offered very little justification in their vote, and you did not comment on the closing itself... but you did provide a recommendation (see below). Are you taking a neutral standpoint regarding the justifying citations being called into question? Was there an issue with the process?

The article could benefit from a lot more, but if noteworthy reliable sources are used to populate a § Reception, then I would agree that this would satisfy WP:GNG. But in short, I don't believe this process was given its due fairness because of the early closure sans brief explanation for the keep decision.
Thank you for your understanding. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CJDOS, Sheridan, OR,
First, it is very unusual for an AFD nominator to relist a discussion. It just looks like you relisted it because the consensus was going against your position. Please do not do this with future AFD nominations. There are plenty of editors and admins wandering around the AFD area and they can relist a discussion if they think it is warranted.
Despite the relisting, I thought there was a consensus among editors to Keep this article. You were definitely the only editor who wants the page deleted. However, I'm not adverse to letting a relist run its course so I have reverted my close and the AFD is back and open for input from other editors. But remember, an AFD discussion only has to last 7 days and even when relisted, it can be closed at any time. You might be having this same conversation with another AFD closer before the next week is over. I hope this satisfies your questions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply—I'm sorry about the misunderstandings. Is there a page where I can read further about the relisting process? I'm suspicious that the votes were merely to prop up the author, but I feel that I've already done all I can. I was hoping broader community input would clarify things... but, if I took it further than only 1 relisting (i.e. directly soliciting users to view the AfD), it would give the impression that I was having to resort to vote-fishing. Expert analysis of the notability of the article and citations used to justify it, was what I was looking for. If that analysis demonstrates that the article is notable (albeit in need of repair), then I'm satisfied.
I see that while I was composing this reply, someone asked about "a source analysis from the nominator". I thought I was specific enough about the source materiel, having directly visited the websites in order to compose said rely; could you explain what they're wanting of me? the commenter has since replied to my inquiry with guidance. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 06:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC))

Draft:Prince (2022 film) - thank you

Hi Liz, I tagged this draft for G5 deletion and you rightfully declined it because there had be edits by other users. I know better but my brain was was operating in a fog at the time. I also noticed you filed an SPI, which is what I should have done. Thank you for going the extra mile. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, S0091,
I understand completely. When one has been working for a long time on Wikipedia, you can get into a "zone" of acting without taking the time to think things through thoroughly. It happens with me, it happens with any editor who puts in hours on the project. No editor is perfect and if you look at my talk page, you'll find instances where I've made mistakes. You just try your best, learn from your mistakes and become a better editor in the process. Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wildfires

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:2022 North American wildfires etc Hugo999 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new article (collaboration)

Liz: There is, in the German encyclopedia, an article for a young vocal artist named Cat Burns. if you follow the wiki link just inserted, you'll see that it takes you to a single from this artist, rather than to an artist page per se (and so the links to the artist within that page are circular, returning one to the page for the single).

If you could create a workspace, with a link to it here, pasting in the content of the German article on this artist — I would enter that workspace, do the translation, check the sources, etc., making it ready for introduction as a new article. (I think her notability is clear, or I would not suggest this.)

I ask this collaborative venture because of my experience in seeing major, bold efforts from this IP being reversed without due consideration or discussion. That is, I'm willing to put in hours of work on major edits, but not alone, given the history of such work resulting in reversion and blocks.

Thanks in advance, if you can create that workspace and link to it here. If your time does not permit this, I would understand, and the English encyclopedia will have to do without an article on this English language artist, for the present.

Finally, in tracing you in anticipation of leaving this message — I'm on the road, traveling — I came across a mention of a diagnosis. I am both sad to have seen that, but very happy to see you here, and will remember you and yours in our prayers as we remember you, and think of this past, and possibly ongoing challenge.

With regard, I am

2600:1008:B064:D41:D998:5A4E:CD26:86A6 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why to delete a Draft:VC Nagano Trident page?

I'm going to add more contexts to it. That's why it's moved to draft. What's the reason to delte a draft page? Ojvolleyball (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

== Deletion review for Draft:VC Nagano Trident ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:VC Nagano Trident. 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. Ojvolleyball (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ojvolleyball,
I didn't delete a draft article, I deleted a broken redirect to a deleted page. The article is still there in Draft space at Draft:VC Nagano Tridents. Check your contributions before panicking and if you look at the deletion tag on a deleted page, it will tell you why it was deleted. It's at the top of the page, in pink. Liz Read! Talk! 17:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Caylee Cowan

Hello Liz. Since the article creator and nearly all of the "keep"s at WP:Articles for deletion/Caylee Cowan(actress) are now blocked in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Elbatli, is there some way to review the outcome of the AFD discussion? Or would I need to start another AFD? The most recent new SPA contributor to the article also has several similarities to the Elbatli accounts. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Storchy,
Well, this is a coincidence, I was looking at some old AFDs today and noticed a few where most of the participants are now blocked editors. They weren't all sockpuppets with the same sockmaster but we definitely have had a lot of sockpuppetry going on in deletion discussions over the past few months.
I don't really know of any circumstances that would allow me to reopen an AFD discussion a month after it has been closed, so I would just open a new AFD. I think it is fair in your nominating statement to report of the sockpuppetry going on in the first AFD so that participants would be alert in case it happens again. But just because there was bad behavior in the first AFD is not a good deletion rationale for this article in a second AFD. It's just a notice that AFDs can be a target for sockpuppetry, that is not a good reason why an article should be deleted right now. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Admin inactivity(Your BN query)

If the account you mentioned in your BN post is the one I think it is, the user behind it is in fact very active; they just normally edit using a non-administrative account. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Deleting PRODs early

Hi Liz,

Thanks for your message re the above. Having now reviewed the facts it appears, to my mortification, that you are correct. The deletions were in fact slightly ahead of the 7 day deadline, albeit by around 40 minutes or so. I have no real excuse for this, other than I'd had a long and quite stressful day. Not really good enough though, and I'll try to take more care in future, so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I think the likelihood of a last minute "rescue" for these articles was quite slim and I do try to check links before deletion and try to deal with those "of consequence" such as Wiki Projects or other articles etc. My apologies if I failed in this instance. I was originally an opposer of the PROD procedure but, given the appalling standard of some material that creeps into mainspace, I now support it. Thanks again for the notification.

Best wishes, -Cactus.man ✍ 14:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for always being the best kind of helpful: direct, but kind. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Liz,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

A kitten for you!

Random act of kindness from someone who's been through stuff.

LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 03:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LilianaUwU
Yes, women on Wikipedia are certainly getting their share of abuse this weekend. It doesn't last forever. But the trolls don't seem to go away completely, they just focus on other targets. What a sad, sad way to spend your time. Thanks for the cat! Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the rollback

Apologies for the rollback, the watchlist on mobile sometimes "jumps" when I don´t expect it and then I misclick. Obviously I had no reason to rollback you. Fram (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Fram, your apology is lovely and appreciated but I don't really track my notifications so I was unaware of this. AGF and all of that. All editors make mistakes and I expect, going on straight percentages, the more active one is, the most mistakes one will make. All the best! Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Massacre

I think that the lesson learned is that New Page reviewers should be reminded to check the history of a page before draftifying it. Some reviewers always do this, some usually do this (including myself), and some don't seem to care about details like page history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon,
I agree with you but I think this was an unusual case. First the other editor unexpectedly moved a long-standing article to a new title. At that point, Wikipedia's bots should have changed all of the redirects to point to the new target but I think the other editor immediately created a new article at this title so the bots didn't take action. But they didn't act that fast. So, when you moved the article again, the redirects were broken. But I'm sure the page that you moved to Draft space didn't look like a 12 year old article. I think it's safe for patrollers to assume that brand new pages do not have redirects yet. But ones that have been around for a decade, especially on a popular topic like mobile phone models, is likely to have accumulated a lot of redirects over the years. So, it was a sequence of unlikely events that probably won't happen again on a regular basis. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Demagogue (song)

I moved it to draft because whilst it charted there was no other supporting references, apart from Discogs (an unreliable source) - felt that it still needed work. I'm not certain what happened with the re-creation of the article in mainspace - clearly that wasn't my intention. Apologies if it cause extra work trying to merge the two histories. I still feel that it needs extra supporting references but the fact it charted in both the Netherlands and Belgium just gets it across the line. Dan arndt (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dan,
That's all I needed to hear. I was surprised to see this mixup happen because you work so hard and I never have to question your judgment. I'm sorry if I came across as harsh and didn't take into account the 99.99% of the time when everything goes according to policy. Thanks for your message. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
That's okay but I really have no idea how I re-created the original article. To make up for it I'm going to see if I can find some additional references to satisfy WP:NSONG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how that happened but I have seen something similar. It happens when an editor moves a page and either a) the Talk page isn't moved even though the box indicating this is checked off or b) the Talk page is copied to the new page title but also remains at the old page title. So, there are two identical Talk pages and the original Talk page has to be deleted. Maybe there is a bug with the page mover tools. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy-deleted category

Hi Liz!

I see you've deleted Category:Apple Inc. articles needing attention only to referencing and citation. It's one of the cleanup categories we use at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Apple_Inc., and shouldn't be deleted even if empty; it's also used in the WikiProject template. I don't believe we had a disclaimer at the top of the page saying not to delete even if empty, so I'll go ahead and add it to our other categories. Could you undelete this one? Best, DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

To be more precise: it's an autopopulated category. DFlhb (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, DFlhb,
 Done Some pages are difficult to restore and others, like empty categories, are easy. I believe there was a second Apple category like this one but it's getting late (or early) here. I'll look for it in the morning. Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Good memory! Checking the deletion log, I believe that was Category:Apple Inc. C and B Class articles with incomplete B-Class checklists but the autopopulate seems broken for that one, and I'm too much of a newbie to have the faintest idea how to fix it; it can stay deleted. Thanks, and good night! DFlhb (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Cheruppancode/sandbox and Draft:Cheruppancode

I suggested G6 on the former since it is a duplicate of the latter and appeared to have been created in error. Your call. I'm content either way. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fiddle Faddle,
I appreciate your fuller explanation. CSD tags discourage any words beyond the criteria codes. Editors often keep a copy of a draft in a sandbox and so I'm going to move that page back to User space. Personally, I don't understand the frequent moving User pages into Draft space, especially because, unless the page is submitted to AFC, a User page is protected from CSD G13 deletion. I encourage editors to also tag their own User page drafts that have not been submitted for review with {{user sandbox}} so that they don't get deleted accidentally as stale drafts. But thanks for letting me know about the duplicated pages. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I think they feel Draft: is some sort of promotion. I incubate the articles I write in my user space until I'm ready. I wish they would do the same. But people are people.
When I see a submitted userspace piece I often move it to Draft because that is grist to the mill. Usually but not always I review it upon arrival. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

New York Weekly

Good day Liz, I hope you good in health?. It looks like you a citizen of the United States. I would like to ask about the article New York Weekly. Is the New York weekly still a newspaper? Because the article said it was a story newspaper and never said what it was now. I hope you understand my point. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabriel601,
First, I live several thousands of miles from the state of New York. But more importantly, the article states, twice, that the newspaper was published under a variety of titles until 1915 so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

NumFOCUS moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, NumFOCUS, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). Right now there is no in-depth coverage of this group from reliable, independent sourcs. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 11:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

The Special Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your care, thoughtfulness and Wikipedian approach. I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the Battle of Kut (2004)

Hello Liz, I Am Ayman from Iraq, I Would like to discuss the deletion of the Battle of Kut, the Battle of Kut was indeed somewhat misworded and maybe even under-sources, but it did happen, and you can even check the Arabic article to confirm so, which gives you 10 sources! During the Mahdist Revolution against American Occupation by Sayyid Al Qa'id Muqtada Al Sadr Many cities went into complete revolution, some harder then others, Al-Kut's Coalition headquarters was besieged and bombarded with Mortars by the Mahdi army, Ukrainian-American Joint Occupation of the City was ended soon after as Coalition forces ran out of ammo and had to retreat from the city, American forces would then launch harsh bombardment campaigns on the city which inflicted more casualties on Civilians then it did on Insurgents, the Killing of several schoolgirls in a bus the Coalition forces thought was an insurgent bus also occured, the mentioning of these events is important as to not underplay the suffering of the People of Kut under Coalition forces, and I Hope you understand that.

Sources: (Copied from the Arabic Article) [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] You can try to translate them, if the links dont work for you let me know

Thank you and I Hope this reaches you Ayman the man (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ReplyLiz to the teahouse forum invitation message sent to meJ.zht

Thank you for your invitation：In fact I'm really new to editing,just like English Wikipedia Teahouse One of the landlords posted in his page column a sentence “I don't usually edit Wikipedia、I love reading and learning new things”me either After this period of observation the price of freedom to give up his freedom of exercise To achieve the freedom of the comprehensive，““All are born equal、no class””*Citing international human rights conventionsActually, I'm busy sorting out (WMF)/Strategy 2030Compilation of investigation reports，I often drop by while reading articles bottom edit timestamp see your name often Seems to be in meta - Wikimedia.org It is more common to see you participate in discussions,or maintenance bulletin A cup of coffee for your hard work☕ It doesn't matter if that article can be deleted All titles and content are out of date I live in East Asia The time is now 10:30 in the morning I've been busy all night, it's time to rest, bye39.13.98.3 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, J.zht,
First, try to always log into your registered account when editing on the project. It's confusing to other editors when you edit with an account and a variety of IP addresses. If you hadn't mentioned your name in the heading here, I wouldn't have known it was you. Also, using an IP reveals information about you to others, like where you are editing from so you have more privacy if you use your registered account.
However, I don't understand much of what you have written above. It's great if you want to offer your input on WMF subjects but you must go to the WikiMedia or Meta website to do this, the English Wikipedia might be the largest project on WikiMedia but those who work at WMF don't hang out here and read comments. You must go to where these subjects are discussed if you want to be heard. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Charter 91

Hello, Liz! I've noticed that you moved Charter 91 to draft. It was previously deleted as a copyvio, see here, and is IMHO blatantly promotional, Charter 91 is not a partisan endeavour comprised of members. Affixing one’s signature is the sole condition for acceptance of its guiding principles. This Charter is neither a pretext for establishing government, nor subscribes to a particular political orientation. We the undersigned do believe, however, that politics and the State should solely be concerned with earthly matters, and recognize that the latter must be subject to the will of the public. Raising awareness of the principles underpinning this Charter may only be achieved with the participatory support of the people of Iran. As such, it is incumbent upon us to pursue transparent objectives and to strive to assist individuals and civic activists concerned with advancing principles and norms referred to herein. Per WP:DRAFT (correct me if I'm wrong), a topic moved to draft should have some potential merit. I'm afraid I have to disagree that a G11-eligible article would have some potential. IMHO it's probably not eligible for A7 given that it has one ref. If you could elaborate that would be great, many thanks for your time and help again! VickKiang (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: See also User_talk:Mehrloo#Speedy deletion nomination of Charter 91- disclosed COI. Many thanks for your help again! VickKiang (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, VickKiang,
You are very observant. Unfortunately, I'm heading to bed soon but I'll review this decision in the morning. I sometimes move articles tagged A7 to Draft space as I think they could be improved there with more time. I don't like the recent tendency to tag new articles very soon after they have been created. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply! Another note- an identical version of the article was recreated. I removed the A7 as there's one decent source, but IMO G11 still applies. WP:NPP does allow tagging spam quickly, but usually A7 is given at least 15 mins. However, G11 is the main issue here, after looking at it IMHO this is not eligible for A7 as explained above, but is still blatant promo and potentially a copyvio given the prev dels. Thanks again for the reply! VickKiang (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, VickKiang,
Well, I forgot about this issue when I got up this morning and it looks like, in the meantime, Primefac has deleted the draft due to copyright violations so the problem is taken care of for the moment. Let me know if it gets recreated. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

are you a administor

My article Antennagate got nominated for copyright due to a copyvios report. But i did not violate copyright because i did NOT know the following text from iPhone 4#Bumper was copyright infringing. Since you are a administor, can you review the report? SMBMovieFan (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi SMBMovieFan. I tagged the copyright issues I saw in the article, but I know they weren't your fault. I normally post templated warnings at the talk pages of people who copy and paste copyrighted material, but I saw this was pre-existing content you copied over from iPhone 4. I suppose we could expect that editors check all Wikipedia content that the copy for copyvio issues, but I'm not sure that's realistic. FYI, yes, Liz is an admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, SMBMovieFan,
First, you don't have to know you are violating copyright rules for it to be a copyright violation. If you took a product from a store and walked out without paying, that would be stealing whether or not you acknowledged that you didn't have a right to the property. You may not have introduced the content orginally to Wikipedia but it doesn't sound like you were charged with a copyright violation, it was the article that was tagged for BEING a copyright violation.
Secondly, it looks like Firefangledfeathers has fixed the problems and an admin has revision deleted the violation so it seems that Antennagate is okay now. You might thank Firefangledfeathers for noticing the problem and fixing it.
You might review Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101 and Wikipedia:Copyright violations to educate yourself on copyright guidelines on Wikipedia. It's a complicated issue, one that I don't deal with often as an admin. We have several admins and editors who are very knowledge about the law and I leave enforcement to them. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

902 Bus

Hi Liz,

I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route as a redirect. The page author appears to have done a cut and paste move to 902 (PTV Bus) which has identical text to the article that was redirected. I'm not sure the procedure here - I was going to tag it for CSD G4 and then realized a redirect is technically not the same as a deletion. This seems to be the page creator trying to evade the AfD process. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Marian Collier CSD G6

Hello, The CSD G6 request for Marian Collier was to make room for the disambiguation page which is currently Draft:Marian Collier. Did you think it needed something additional for the G6 criteria? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PigeonChickenFish,
Do you use Twinkle? If not, you should become acquainted with it. If you do use Twinkle, go to CSD>G6 Move and then in the field, put the title of the page you want moved. This allows the admin to see the page you want to move and, if they agree, they can delete the page and move the other page to this title in one step. That's kind of what I'm used to. Using the standard CSD tags doesn't let you add much information and G6s can be very ambiguous. Try again, requesting a move and listing the article to be moved and see what another admin does. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you, I appreciate your feedback on this. I normally use twinkle for this but I forgot where it was this time. I just re-did the request. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hey, I'm the person who created Category:Protist articles by quality. I can't seem to find the button that says "Contest speedy deletion" but am in favour of speedy deletion. The category was meant to be Category:Protista articles by quality, for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Protista, but the first time I created it I made a mistake and wrote Protist instead of Protista. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 08:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, hello, Snoteleks,
If you just leave the page alone, it will be deleted a week after it has been tagged if it is still empty. Since you are actually requesting it be deleted, I'll delete it now as a CSD G7 (page creator requests deletion). If you want to learn more about different types of speedy deletion, you can review Criteria for Speedy Deletion which will fill you in on the strict criteria that are used and the codes to tag pages. Most of us use Twinkle, an editing tool, to tag pages, it has a lot of very handy features which make tagging pages and posting talk page notices easier. Of course, this will take you away from the work you are doing with templates but I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks for visiting my talk page! Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the info! ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 19:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Moved from top by Dennis Brown

User:Ksherin/TalkPageSpeedydeletion Hi Liz: user:ksherin. Can I ask for a pause on speedy deletion of article Skip Shea? His work was noted by daytime Emmy and Rome film festival. Sexual abuse by clergy is an important topic. T
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksherin (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello,
Looks like I missed your message...on Wikipedia, we put new messages at the bottom of Talk pages, not at the top or in the middle of the page.
Skip Shea wasn't deleted by speedy deletion, the article was deleted after an AFD deletion discussion which you can review at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skip Shea. You were notified of this deletion discussion on your talk page on October 8th.
The only way I know to overcome a "Delete" decision in an AFD is to create and work on a draft version on this article subject and submit it for review to Articles for Creation, addressing the problems that were brought up during the deletion discussion. If you just recreate the article that was deleted and put it back into the main space of the project, it will simply be deleted again so please work in Draft space with AFC reviewers.
If you have questions about AFD discussions or deletion policies on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you and, again, sorry for not seeing your message sooner. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned you at ANI

I mentioned you at the ANI discussion WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AFDs for top Mexican football league. (even though I think the close was correct, based on the information provided in the AFD). Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nfitz,
Is this the right link? Thanks for the notification. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
It's the right link - though I may have fixed it after you read it, but before you replied! Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleting articles

Hi Liz, I placed a Db template on the Talk:Łaszków-Kolonia and Talk:Czajków-Kolonia pages. You've removed them both. Could you please explain what is the proper way of getting these two articles deleted? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kiwipete,
Well, first, you placed the CSD tag on the talk page which makes me think that you've never done this before. Deleting articles is a serious business and pages won't just be deleted because you say they are unsuitable. There have to be policy-based reasons to delete a page. For these pages, you should nominate them for an WP:AFD deletion discussions and put forth your reasons why you believe they should be deleted and see if other editors agree with you. You should probably look at some AFD pages so you know what you are doing.
If you have questions about deletion policies on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. They have more collective knowledge than I do. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, can you please review it?

Hello @Liz , can you please review it (after editing) Draft:Angel_Valeriev_Tsvetkov

Thank you in advance! Angel.Valeriev.Tsvetkov (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Angel.Valeriev.Tsvetkov,
No, I won't review Draft:Angel Valeriev Tsvetkov because I don't review draft articles, I leave that to the experts, our AFC reviewers. Secondly. you should read the messages on your User Talk page because experienced editors are telling you to stop trying to write an autobiography of yourself to get on Wikipedia. It will not be approved and if you persist, you could end up blocked. We are here to work on articles on subjects other than ourselves, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, a place where you can promote yourself and your career. This draft will probably get deleted before it ever gets reviewed as it will be seen as self-promotional. You do not meet our standards for notability. Maybe one day you will, but not yet.
I'm sorry if that discourages you but there are 6 million other articles on Wikipedia that you can contribute to that aren't about yourself. We would welcome your help on some of those articles.
If you have questions about article creation, conflict-of-interest policies or draft reviewing, please bring them to the Teahouse where you can receive a second opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Note: Passing by this discussion after requesting speedy deletion for the draft- deleted by Jimfbleak, editor indef blocked. VickKiang (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, VickKiang,
Thanks for the update. I just prefer for another admin to block when an editor has come to me for help. I knew it was coming though. Liz Read! Talk! 09:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Punith Nandakumar (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Large swathes of the submission are unsourced.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough

It was borderline. It does need oversight, or deletion, though. I guess I'll ask for oversighto 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seraphim Rose (book)

Hello, Liz! Would it be okay if you could fix the relist template here? I tried to fix it but when I open the preview it says I'm the relister. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, VickKiang,
I tried several times to relist the discussion and it does appear on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 26 but I can't get the standard relist notice on the AFD. I've left a comment though, hopefully that does the trick. Sometimes there is a glitch with the editing tools. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I think if this is entered:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So we have some editors advocating a Redirect/Merge to Seraphim Rose and those who would prefer a Redirect to Cathy Scott.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VickKiang (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

it should work. However, entering this would automatically display the username of the person who last edited it somehow. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try this out. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It worked! Thanks, VickKiang! Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD Close of Patrick Wilson (New Zealand Actor)

Dear Liz,

With respect to your close of WP: Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor), I believe you may have cast a supervote. There were five votes to Keep the article and two to Delete it. Yet you closed the AfD with a Delete. You had previously relisted the AfD when there was already a clear consensus to Keep the article, and noted your concerns with regard to WP:SIGCOV. And when you closed the article as a “Delete”, you argued that there was no WP:SIGCOV, which suggests that your own personal view that the notability standards weren’t met took precedence over the consensus, which was that such standards were met. I kindly ask you to consider re-opening the AfD and allowing another editor to determine the consensus. Thanks,

Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dflaw4,
An AFD isn't a strict vote count. The primary Delete voter had an argument where the Keep voters just claimed that he had some movie roles and didn't provide any evidence of SIGCOV. The article was like a profile on IMDb. It doesn't matter how many editors say Keep if they have no policy-based arguments or sources attached to them. As for super voting, I don't care whether or not there is an article on this person. I was looking for SIGCOV but that isn't a supervote, that is what every closer looks for. The only sources this article had was a link to IMDB and this source which wasn't about the actor but about a character he played. This source you provided in the AFD was decent but SIGCOV requires more than one decent source.
You're next step is either to create a new, superior article that is well-sourced. Or you can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and present an argument for why my closure was unacceptable. But I'm not going to revert my closure because you are unhappy with it. It's your decision. Since there was so little content of any value, I'd start a new article if it was a decision for me to make. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Dflaw4,
I do have a compromise. I will restore the article to Draft space and you can submit it to AFC if you want to go that route. Let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_4&oldid=1120450758"