This page was last edited or modified by Timtrent (talk).
Note: When emailing me, please also post a {{You've got mail}} template to this page. I check my Wikipedia email account infrequently.
Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013 Well said!LizRead!Talk!
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.
While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)
If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply. And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.
Hello Liz! Thank you for all your hard work. I am new to wikipedia. I edit athletes pages for weightlifting! I just created a page for Shania Bedward. The information is the most current and is now cited. I was wondering how to add her athlete headshot and medal summary? Please let me know. Thank you so much!
Hi Liz,
I saw your comment at AN—I'm so sorry for your loss. Grief is so difficult, and I hope that you are doing alright.
Best wishes, ꧁Zanahary꧂01:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message of sympathy. Since the end of April, my sister, brother and I were caring for my mother who was put into hospice care. I'm glad for the time I got to spend with her but it was very sudden and unexpected when she was diagnosed with cancer and it upended our lives. She passed away on June 21st so it's been a lot of taking care of her things and getting back to our old lives that are now changed. But through it all, taking care of routine editing tasks on Wikipedia were kind of the way I handled my stress but I neglected requests on my talk page. I hope to be more responsive from here on out. Thanks again for your kindness. LizRead!Talk!05:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, you must have been too busy deleting empty categories to notice my request at CFDS.
You deleted several pages that needed to be moved. These were some of large group of categories that need to be moved together, because they are populated by templates.
Your deletion log entry stated that the categories had been moved under C2, but although the former contents were already populating the redlinked target page, the category page had not been moved pending nomination of the rest of the hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon12:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to respectfully request the recreation of the Wikipedia page for Akuma Saningong. I understand that the page was previously deleted and I appreciate the efforts of Wikipedia editors in maintaining the quality and accuracy of content on the platform. However, I believe that Akuma Saningong holds significant notability and relevance, and I would like to address any concerns that led to its deletion.I am committed to ensuring that the content is neutral, well-referenced and adheres to Wikipedia's standards. I am open to any feedback or suggestions you might have. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your positive response. 41.89.125.3 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus there was clear, IP41 and the article is not eligible for restoration. You're welcome to start a new draft about Saningong and put it through AfC. Please declare your connection to the subject. StarMississippi17:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!
Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
Hello Liz, I have a lot of new information and quality sources about the Boukari Laouali Chaibou page that you locked, can you please unlock the creation so that I can recreate it with all the new sources? Best regards, Wikipedien28 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, it really helps if you provide a link to the page you are talking about. But if this is a protected main space page title, just create a draft article and submit it to WP:AFC. Once the draft is approved, the protection can be lifted when the article is moved from Draft space to main space. LizRead!Talk!04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted the page Applied Minds in 2022. Right now information on the company is split between sections on both founders pages, which makes it hard to link to. Could you restore the page, I will try to improve it, otherwise I'll turn it into a disambiguation page that links to both founders articles for convenience.. — (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
That's not how I interpreted consensus in that discussion. But if you want to change the Merge target on the tag in your role as an editor, you can bring it up on the talk page. Also, if you are willing to do the merge, you can merge content to wherever you think is appropriate. You don't need permission to do so. LizRead!Talk!04:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very good point that there's a difference between summarizing the discussion, and coming to a conclusion that makes sense! I think that the discussants didn't read to the bottom of the list. My approach with other discussion, in such cases, is not to close the discussion, but rather to join as a discussant and point out the problems. Regardless, I'm very happy to manage this on the talk page of individual articles where the target seems inappropriate. Klbrain (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Would you be open to relisting this? I had just done so as I don't think the Keep !votes have full policy behind them since a merger is viable outcoome and the argument being made. Totally understand if not and of course TY either way. @Qwirkle, I didn't revert your post close comment, but would you if Liz doesn't reopen? StarMississippi12:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, it wasn’t closed when I started editing it. Had the closure been a little fuller, addressing the WP:NOPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFF, I might have won that race. (Yeah, almost an hour is a long time, although you never know with server sync issues.) Qwirkle (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The reason I relisted is they didn't IMO refute the nom that a standalone wasn't required. But it may close as keep in the end. Hope you're hanging in as best as possible @LizStarMississippi12:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a decision to remove a page's categories, I use XFDcloser to close AFD discussions and I guess it is programmed to remove all content from an article page that is changed to a Redirect. I'm sure you'll find the same result from any article that is changed to a Redirect through an AFD discussion as almost all discussion closers use XFDcloser to close discussions. But I'll look into re-adding the categories. LizRead!Talk!02:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Liz. Hope you are well. What is the process for withdrawing an AfD where there are no keep !votes? Another user has suggested a better alternative to my recommendation to merge, which I agreed with and implemented accordingly. Please see the discussion here for more context. JTtheOG (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient math problems speedy deletion - i do not agree
"This criterion applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven days" - SEVEN DAYS
i created this category 24 hours ago. i think this category helpfull for categorization Ivan191navi (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your closure of this AFD discussion, the {{afd-merge to}} that you added to the "Michael Larson" page says, If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. Now, I'm not in any way advocating for haste, or chomping at the bit, or up in arms about anything. I'm just asking: in your experience, how long qualifies as "promptly"? As I said in the discussion, and mentioned in the merge-discussion I began, I don't think there's any actually mergable content that isn't already at the target article. Given enough time and unparticipation, I'm inclined to again just redirect the BIO1E to the event article, but I absolutely don't want to take undue haste in anything. I've just never partifipated in this sequence of events before and don't know how long is typical or expected. Many thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= |17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think editing your talk page is lagging my browsers? Not sure if it's templates, length, or anything else, but I'm not experiencing this at any other pages—for what it's worth.
I found a couple of better reliable secondary sources that can improve the Kamal Gray article but it might take me a day or two to do that so please don't end AfD discussion at least until tomorrow afternoon EST. Note it will still be an edge case but both sources I found have more coverage about Gray. Nnev66 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only closer so you might post this update on the AFD itself so that others see it. There is no obvious consensus right now so unless there is a sudden influx of editors coming into participate in the AFD (which doesn't happen that frequently on relisted AFDs), I don't think you need to worry about an early closure. Just keep participants informed on your progress. LizRead!Talk!16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi! How's it going? I was meaning to ask: I remember a deletion nomination where you pointed out to watch out for the correct citation of WP:BEFORE. From what I understand of what you said, it isn't an argument to argue to keep an article, but rather something that should be considered before starting a deletion discussion, is this correct? Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I've just been notified that I have been given access to wikipedialibrary tool. This is the first I've heard of the wikipedialibrary and appears to be a superb tool for newcomers creating their first few article drafts. I wish I'd known about this sooner. Are there any other tools that you might be able to recommend?
cheers, Rockycape (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I noticed you deleted Draft:Yang Ming (basketball) for CSD G8 (Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page). I don't mean to criticize you or anything, but as far as I know it was a draft that was awaiting review by the AFC team. If you can view the draft's history before its deletion, would you like to review your decision, and by any chance, restore the draft to where it should be? Regards. 23.165.40.219 (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You'll note that not one of the redirects were valid; each and every one was for a species article that does not exist, redirecting to a misspelling of a genus name that redirects to a valid genus name - but that's a genus that none of those species are placed in - so they very much should not point there, as your reversion is now making them do. Yes, really, not one of those species is in the genus Stylochirus, and there is no genus "Stylochyrus". Regardless of what happens to them, there is presently nowhere for them to point that is either a valid species article in Wikipedia, or a valid genus article - yes, I pointed them to redlinks, but at least those redlinks are where they would point if those articles existed, or if someone creates them. As it stands, they're all orphans, and will probably always be, since they are all based on misspellings and incorrect genus combinations. Whoever created those original redirects created a problem for every future editor to have to contend with. I'd be very happy if, instead of reverting them to point to articles they shouldn't point to, you know the proper way to speedily delete them, given that they have presently have no viable destinations to point to. If you know how to initiate a speedy delete, let me know and I'll happily vote to delete them. There's no easy fix for it otherwise. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you undid all of the redirects, including the ones pointing to actual Stylochirus species like giganteus. Either delete them all, please, or let them all point to redlinks; the present situation is not viable. Dyanega (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a redirect points to an inaccurate target article, you can change the target article but please do not change it to a red link or it will be corrected or deleted. LizRead!Talk!01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to the page you are talking about. I don't even know whether it is an article or a draft. Then I can tell you why it was deleted.
It was an entire page of my figure skating career and coaching career. I attempted to go back and edit with new details about my career and it is no longer clickable. You had removed a dead link to a page connected with Tim mckernan, aka barrel man, as we have the same name but no family connection. 5.30.140.63 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I wanted to edit with updates to my new career in Dubai and also list the page on my CV and low and behold, it is gone :( 5.30.140.63 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done In this instance, with a deleted PROD, I can easily restore the article. Please know that it might be sent to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. But as for now, it's up and present on the project. I encourage you to register an account and if you are Timothy, abide by our Conflict-of-interest guidelines. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!02:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Liz, I'm a newer editor who generally works on IE linguistics. I've been having some issues with a more established editor on a page about the originator of a 'new religious movement' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abd-ru-shin_) and I believe this editor's objectivity is, at best, severely compromised regarding that specific topic. This editor, tgeorgescu, posted in the administrator's noticeboard to which you replied very recently (I'm not sure how to link that). Since I am new and don't quite understand how things work here, I was hoping that someone could arbitrate (or at the very least, read) the discussion on that article's talk page, as this editor seems to embody the quote at the top of your page:
Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position
The biggest issues:
a) The editor misrepresented several WP guidelines until I read them and challenged those notions.
b) The editor claimed that dictionary definitions are WP:SYNTH or OR (which I don't believe they are, but please correct me if I'm wrong).
c) The editor also, on my talk page, explicitly stated that they "[weren't] a fan of [the individual about whom the original article is written]." After I asked the editor to clarify, instead of doing so, they went to the admin notice page thingy and blatantly lied about my desire to have them 'indeffed' (which I don't actually understand the meaning of).
d) It appears that everything added to that article must conform to this specific editor's viewpoint on the matter or it will be deleted.
I think it would be prudent for a moderator or administrator (however these things work) to simply read the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abd-ru-shin; I think it would be abundantly clear that the editor in question's objectivity is questionable on that specific topic. All I was recommending on that page was that a dictionary definition should be added but the editor claimed that could not be done because it "sounds odd and contrived." If you could please let me know how these issues are resolved I would greatly appreciate it as I honestly feel that it's getting close to cyber-bullying, viz. harassment from an established editor to a new(ish)comer and I am absolutely sure this isn't the first time this editor has behaved in such a manner. If I am in the wrong place here, I would also appreciate a point in the right direction.
You are asking for a lot. First let me state that tgeorgescu has been editing for over 21 years which is almost from the very beginning of this entire project and racked up over 51,000 edits. So, they have been around a long time and are probably very familiar with the majority of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Of course, this doesn't mean that they are perfect.
Secondly, disputes between editors are very common here, it's the nature of a collaborative editing project. You will have disagreements with other editors about content and interpretation of policy. This is especially true for all editors, even editors who have been around for a long period of time. So being in a dispute with another editor does not make headlines here and shouldn't be taken to ANI unless there are serious allegations being made that are supported by evidence. We encourage editors to talk out their differences.
I'm willing to look over this talk page over the weekend but I don't tend to take sides unless I see policy guidelines being violated and even then I typically issue warnings. I am an infrequent blocker unless I see vandalism. So this request will not result in sanctions against the editor you are in a dispute with unless I see something very, very wrong which I don't expect to see.
You can go to official arbitration but if you want to pursue this next week to take advantage of one of our other dispute resolution processes. You can learn more about these by asking at the Teahouse. Some new editors expect that admins will step in and remove the other editor from the discussion but that's just not how it works, you need to find a way to work with or around editors you have disagreements with unless we are talking about trolls, vandals and socks. LizRead!Talk!00:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can often help in these situation is to get other editors involved in the discussion which eliminates the "me vs. you" part of a dispute. Is there a relevant WikiProject where you can neutrally invite other editors to offer their opinions? Just having 1 or 2 more editors as part of a discussion can often clarify what the problem is and diffuse a situation. Just a suggestion. LizRead!Talk!00:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Hi Liz, thank you very much for your response. I just wanted to clarify that at no point did I request that this individual be blocked; I simply stated that I think that their objectivity in this specific matter is compromised and that it would be prudent for someone to take a look at that article's talk page because it seems to be this editor's personal fiefdom and everything must conform to their POV (even though it is a low-importance article). It seems that this topic is very near-and-dear to this editor and I think it would be a manifest absurdity for an editor not to have personal feelings about one of the 21,000 edits they've performed -- I believe that this topic is one of those personal matters for this specific editor. Vindafarna (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was described at Wikipediocracy as "Wikipedia's resident religious fringe fighter". And yup, I have edited with criticism about other gurus, such as Rudolf Steiner and Gregorian Bivolaru. In respect to Bivolaru: I was never a fan of him, and, by and large, I did not read his works (except for his anti-Masonic review).
You never asked for me getting blocked? Somewhat more than a month ago you wrote You should have your privileges to edit on this website revoked.[1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning my friend. Hope you're enjoying a relatively quiet weekend after your rough months. I'm happy to perform the merge here, but as closer would you mind if I rev del'ed the copyright violating text before doing so? Didn't want it to appear as if I was end running your close. No worries either way. Thanks! StarMississippi12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We moved all of the furniture two days ago and now have two more days of clearing out my mother's apartment before we turn in the keys on Monday. So, it's been a lot of cleaning, sorting and packing her things up for the past three weeks. Next Saturday, 7/27, we have a "party" (that's what she wanted it called) for her and life will begin to return back to the way it was back in April before she entered hospice care. And I'll remove the "stress" tag from this page which I don't think most editors even noticed!
As for the "merge", I don't do merges myself so if you could take care of this, it would be some welcome help. Thanks for the offer. LizRead!Talk!02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rev del done.
A party is a wonderful way to celebrate a life well lived. Glad you're able to honor her memory that way. I hope the packing and cleaning has been as stress free as is ever possible. All the continued love your way StarMississippi14:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My User talk page is not appropriate place to have a battleground argument. Don't come to an admin's talk page attempting to get another editor blocked. It can backfire on you. No one comes off looking good here. Consider whether you are making allies or enemies when you make accusations and counter-attacks. It can matter if you are ever brought to WP:ANI which is a very unpleasant experience, believe me. Remember, Civility is policy, too. LizRead!Talk!02:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am writing to address the concerns and accusations regarding my contributions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I have reviewed your feedback and would like to clarify a few points @Gabriel601. I have been going through your user contributions here on Wikipedia and seeing your negative feedback on editors.
Firstly, I have made numerous contributions to Wikipedia, including uploading pictures to Wikimedia Commons. Some of these pictures have been removed, and others have been added to various pages such as the "Enchanting" article and others. The sources of these images vary, including screenshots, images from the internet, and Facebook pages. I have always aimed to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines when uploading and adding images.
I understand there have been accusations of sockpuppetry and other violations of Wikipedia's policies. I assure you that I have never engaged in any activities that violate Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are specific issues with the images I have uploaded, I encourage you to address these concerns through the proper channels within the Wikimedia Commons community. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could provide concrete evidence to support any claims made against me.
I am committed to continuing my contributions to Wikipedia in a manner that upholds the community's standards. If there are any misunderstandings or if further clarification is needed, I am open to discussing them constructively.
@SafariScribe have asked me to ignore and overlook this false accusations but i cant if @Gabriel601 keeps trying to tarnish my image here on wikipedia his not the only editor here and definately not an admin here Stop Personal attacks and Disruptive to my contributions. Afrowriter (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regarding the conflict of names, I understand there have been concerns about editors using similar names. Unfortunately, I do not have the power to control or choose the names that other editors decide to use on Wikipedia. If an editor is attempting to impersonate me, I assure you it is without my consent and beyond my control. If this is a significant issue, I recommend reporting it to Wikipedia's administrators for appropriate action. and its absolute non of my business honestly i dont know whats your problem is with me first you complained about the draft i was working saying because am from a certain region am not suppose to edit or create articles that has to do with people from other region, who made those laws or rules ???? wikipedia is not your personal blog or platforms where you get to choose how or what topics an editor gets to edit or create
Secondly, I would like to address the comments made about my ability to edit or create articles related to regions different from my own. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where anyone can contribute to any topic, provided they adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. There are no rules that restrict editors from editing or creating articles based on their regional background. I believe these comments are unfounded and do not align with the principles of Wikipedia, which promotes a neutral point of view and open collaboration from all contributors.
I have always strived to follow Wikipedia's guidelines in my contributions, and I am committed to improving the quality of content on the platform. If there are specific issues with my edits or drafts, I am open to constructive feedback and willing to make necessary adjustments. Afrowriter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my final response to the accusations of sockpuppetry and paid editing. These allegations are both unfounded and distressing.
Accusing editors of collecting money for editing or engaging in sockpuppetry without evidence is not only unacceptable but also damaging to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Imagine if similar baseless accusations were made against you—it would be equally unjust and disheartening.
I urge you to refrain from making these deceitful claims. Your actions are making Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment for editors. Please remember that you are not an administrator, and such serious accusations should be substantiated with concrete evidence and addressed through the proper channels. Afrowriter (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe I will advise you say what you know and don't say what you don't know. What happened to the images? or has wikipedia turn to a community where COI are now being welcomed and not disclosed by such user. Why didn't you say anything about that. Also make sure you read User_talk:Gabriel601#Personal_attacks_to_my_contributions_and_false_accusations. I have no issue you being accepting the article but you have a mistake over there and you know that now. So you can either take care of that or you over look that and stop shutting me up of what I know and if you need evidence then provide your email. Gabriel(……?)16:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to engage in conflict or use any inappropriate language, but your actions are pushing me to my limits. I have the right to edit and make contributions to Wikipedia without being subjected to unfounded accusations and harassment.
Please stop making baseless claims and allow me to continue my work in peace. If you have legitimate concerns, I urge you to follow the appropriate Wikipedia processes and provide evidence which i believe you have done, there was nothing to match both account also u can go ahead and cook up your lies. damn this is not the first time you are accusing an editor for such. Afrowriter (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrowriter I have not provided any evidence. All what you saw was just a report. The main evidence I kept them for any administrator who cares to look forward according to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Keep acting like you don't know what am talking about. Until an admin cares then I will forward everything I have and know against your account. I don't have to start uploading here as they don't suite the Wikipedia guidelines for uploading. I have never accused anyone for sock. All your fishy grammars to make editors believe you are cool and of course you can edit in peace but don't forget I have never provided any evidence even if I have them. I am ready to forward all evidence via email for the community to take a look and then come back to finalise this case. Gabriel(……?)17:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe You also said have been going around to other administrators. Can you point out any administrator have been going around except being here. Bunch of lies. Something I cant just put on my laptop and start typing if they ain't a truth. I vow to always accept what is right. Gabriel(……?)17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You vow ? similar to how you have been attacking other editors. I must remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, not a personal blog where one can make unfounded accusations.
Your initial claim that I was switching edits using the draft "Samklef" as a reference against me was unfair and not neutral. I have always aimed to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and contribute positively to the community.
If you believe there are specific issues with my edits, I urge you to address them through the proper channels.
this is 21st century, where anyone can fabricate evidence with the help of AI or computer-generated images, I want to address the accusations against me clearly and unequivocally.
I categorically deny any allegations that I have ever collected money for editing or that I am associated with the account you claim is mine. Despite any so-called evidence you might present, the truth remains that I have always adhered to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. baseless accusations and fabricated evidence are not only unjust but also detrimental Afrowriter (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just hold on till an administrator gives me the rightful email to reach out and I will forward all the evidence starting from day one I nominated the article Willie XO. They haven’t been any evidence so far I have uploaded. So just hold on. And if I am lying to the community I should be blocked permanently after providing those evidence. I see no reason you responding to all my statement if you are clean. If I was you I would have been encouraging the other editor to go ahead to forward all evidence to the community via the appropriate email. Gabriel(……?)17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to AI evidence. If I ever provide any AI evidence to the admin community my account should be blocked permanently. I look forward to the admin email to contact. Gabriel(……?)18:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol you are funny so the admins should believe you and not me because you are who ??? founder of wikipedia anybody can cook up lies,swear, and at the same time say shiiiit about other people that doesnt change the facts that my contributions here have been from a neutral point of view. like i said earlier i would stop responding to your baseless accusation and focus more my edits here. thanks have a nice day Afrowriter (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What actually happened there is that an editor vandalized and then page-moved a real article that had already existed since April, so I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted all of their vandalism and put the page back where it was before they tried to crap on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for figuring it out. I couldn't figure out what was going on because it looked like the edits had been done by an experienced editor, not by a vandal. I think it was a couple of days ago so the details are already fading in my memory. But I appreciate the update. LizRead!Talk!22:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It confused me too, to the point that I actually reported it to WP:ANI because I couldn't figure out whether it was a good editor gone rogue or a good editor who had been hacked. But they ended up doing something else that got them editblocked shortly afterward, which kind of resolved that mystery (or at least rendered it irrelevant). Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: @RedParrot, we can't have two same draft and article at the same time. Why should yours be accepted and another editor's work moved to draft. Fwiw, you are the one at fault, and please, always check whether there is an existing draft or article before creating new pages because from the page creation dates, the draft was created earlier, and because yours has a better content than Imsaneikigai's, hence my move. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!07:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this is wrong, I created the page first with production section as well. Why to credit the page creation to some one else. Please consider @User:Liz @User:SafariScribe. I have waited patiently to improve the article and then seek permission to move to mainspace. I think my article should be credited.Imsaneikigai (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not watching, so please ping me if anything needed. You can disregard the AfC headers of course, that's a factor of the draft script. StarMississippi01:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this was deleted on my watchlist and didn't remember it being nominated in the first place. Up until just about a week ago, this was a full-on article with citing 19 sources, then it was converted into a redirect (admin-only link) (which I did miss at the time) and now deleted. I think it should probably be restored and discussed on its own merits. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the recent deletion of Hatim Zaghoul's Wikipedia page. Hatim Zaghool is a highly prominent figure in the wireless internet industry and has made substantial contributions to the field, deserving recognition on your platform. His achievements include:
Pioneering WiFi Technology: Hatim Zaghoul was instrumental in deploying some of the earliest WiFi networks in Calgary, in collaboration with WiLAN, the inventors of WiFi. This pioneering work has set a foundation for modern wireless connectivity in the region.
Given these significant achievements and his substantial impact on both the industry and community, I strongly believe that Hatim Zaghool's Wikipedia page should be restored. His contributions are of public interest and importance, deserving of proper acknowledgment and documentation on your platform.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey, the issue has been solved now, so please do not worry about the email :)
I just saw on your page that you are dealing with a lot of stress. I am so so sorry to hear that. I really am sending you all the best and well wishes. I really hope things get better. *Virtual hug* DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help explaining why we remove unreferenced material?
Hi Liz. I might be wrong in admonishing an editor at User talk:Therealangelo1177#Reverting back unsourced material but I have the feeling that they just don't understand how referencing works. They have reverted me a number of times with difficult to understand rationales, including [2]. Over here they reverted me a second time, and introduced a source for a table of over a dozen people that only mentions three of them. Again here with an edit summary that doesn't make sense to me as an English statement. There may be language issues as well as policy-comprehension issues.
This is a heavy beauty pageant editor... they have a number of talkpage warnings about sourcing and other issues. Maybe a third opinion from an administrator at the conversation would help them? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I really apologize. I know very little English. I have contributed a lot to Wikipedia and other family sites for years (19 years). But I really wanted to have an English version of this article. I do not find it acceptable to delete the page in line with this policy you developed. I am currently making this comment again via Google Translate. I am getting more and more disenchanted with contributing to Wikipedia every passing day. Therefore, I do not find the permanent deletion you have done justified. But you are one of those people who do whatever they want. Therefore, do as you know how. I am very upset. I am really upset. My faith in Wikipedia is shaken. In fact, it is finished. You, the people who know best, do not see the help that others give here. You do not want to see it. I hope that one day you will be face to face with the truth.
The Growth team released Community Configuration at all Wikipedias. You can access it at Special:CommunityConfiguration.
This new special page replaces Special:EditGrowthConfig. For now, all Growth features can be configured using Community Configuration. Configuration for AutoModerator (T365046) and other features will be available in the future.
We will add a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version available to beta wikis. We will conduct an A/B test at our pilot wikis using the new Metrics Platform. We still welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.
As part of the Growth team 2024/2025 Annual Plan, the Growth team will explore various ways to increase the percentage of newcomers who successfully start editing.
Editing a Wikipedia page requires too much context and patience. It means many trial and error for newcomers to contribute, meaning a steeper learning curve and potential discouraging reverts. To support a new generation of volunteers, we will increase the number and availability of smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows (E.g. Edit Check and Structured Tasks). The Growth team will primarily focus on Structured Tasks, while working closely with the Editing team to ensure our work integrates well with Edit Check.
Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
Hey there, welcome to the 25th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 March 2024. We've got a ton of wonderful editors taking back their pitchforks today. Don't worry, for they come in peace, to forcibly fix and extend existing scripts you use with sheer passion. There's so many, them forks have got what's basically their own column now! gift us with some rows before it's too late Aaron Liu (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
An easily configurable script to add a link to the #p-vector-user-menu-overflow portlet with a name, target, and icon. This one should be a relatively easier one. I would do it myself, but I'm too busy rotting away on Celeste (video game).
After the ＲＩＩＪ update, Aaron Liu: Watchlyst Greybar Unsin has a dismiss button that allows you to mark an item as read in one click and cycle to the next Watchlist item.
Lordseriouspig/StatusChangerImproved is just like Enterprisey's script, except you select your status from a dropdown instead of cycling through them with a button. The WMF operates out of car-centric infrastructure anyway. Shame!
Aaron Liu has created Duplinks from Evad37/duplinks-alt; his fork adds a config variable to automatically highlight duplicate links on the loading of any page where the portlet link would've appeared.
Tired of staring at a bunch of filtering text and waiting for darn filter logs to load? Msz2001/AbuseFilter analyzer can parse abuse filters into a visual syntax tree and evaluate locally on-demand!
Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences finds references with the same link and displays the number of them along with a button to add the {{duplicated citations}} tag under the references section. Being lazy has never been easier!
fastest gun on the net Ponor/really-quick-block really quick add to contribution lists three buttons awesome
I can't restore a page created by a sockpuppet. And if you are a sockpuppet, please stop editing because any pages you create will also be deleted and your edits reverted. Go back to your original account and submit an unblock request. LizRead!Talk!08:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping i might ask you for some guidance on how to handle something I noticed. There was a photo on an article by a user who has been blocked for, um, lets just refer to it as turkish-nationalist editing tendencies. The caption provided said that it was "indian troops departing Samsun." However, I did some digging because something about the image didn't strike me as correct, and the original image had a caption of its own dating it 5-6 years prior to the event alleged in the article and stating that the soldiers pictured were in fact Ghurkas in France. I have concerns that whoever added the image was making an intentional misrepresentation, but I am not sure if it is ANI worthy. I figured the best course of action would be to reach out to an admin for advice instead. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, an article that you moved to Draft space earlier this year has (sort of) had an attempt by the author to move it to main space - it is now at Wikipedia:Charles Corm II. Though it has citations I doubt the subject has been proven to meet WP:GNG. I'd be inclined to nominate it for deletion, but because it isn't an 'article' yet, that might be complicated. Do you think the best thing to do would be to move it back again to Draft space? Sionk (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk, I have deleted the draft on the project page. Also, there' no need to nominate the draft for deletion because the author has draftified it and it's now on the draft space. I added an {{AFC draft}}, which will help them submit it for review via AFC. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!12:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Because the article didn't agree with your suggested new article title. We can't move an article to a new title unless the content of the article agrees with the new title name. The article stated the name was the original title not your suggested new title. Changes to the article should be done and approved before a page move not after. LizRead!Talk!05:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Because of a system lag of almost 100 hours, we haven't gotten updated bot reports that alert us to pages like broken redirects. LizRead!Talk!07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I noticed that you recently closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownstones Coffee discussion as speedy delete per G11. I'm guessing that this was simply a cleanup action following Seraphimblade's speedy deletion of the article during that first day it was listed at AfD. That's where I first noticed it and started to fix it just before it disappeared. After discussing the matter with Seraphimblade, and with his permission, I went ahead and recreated the article with sources in the most sterile and neutral tone I could muster. I'm just wondering if anything needs to be adjusted now on the Afd page, and how it will reflect on the article's talk page. StonyBrookbabble13:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've only made 6 edits. That's not a sign that you are even going to stick around. Get some experience editing first and come if you have any questions. Better yet, bring them to the Teahouse, that's a place for new editors to ask their questions about editing. LizRead!Talk!08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about not "sticking", but perhaps that could be averted by posting a message on their user talk page explaining why the article was redirected and what (if any) options they might have if they disagree with that consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged as a Proposed Deletion. Editors had a week to consider the deletion and no one removed the tag. So it was deleted. Just because someone is rich, doesn't make them notable. But if you want to work on this article, you can ask for it to be restored at WP:REFUND. LizRead!Talk!08:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I see your edit notice and I apologize for adding to your stress, but ... your second response to Bloodofox suggested that disparagement of neopagans is not on the same level as "discrimination faced by members of established religious groups". I'm not sure it's useful to imply a comparison to discrimination when Bloodofox's complaint was about incivility. I'm very sure it's not useful to imply that neopagan religions—what the insult in question referred to—are not worthy of the same respect as "established" religions. I'm sorry, but that's prejudice. Please don't imply that some religions are less than others; what are neopagans to think of your trivializing their religion in passing like that, whether or not you were responding to one? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I find this outrageous. Open discrimination against any religion should have no place on Wikipedia, nor should any user engage in such conduct. This is simply not the place to express one's personal disaste for any group of people. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Yngvadottir, I saw your message earlier, I just didn't know how to respond or what you were asking of me. If I was insensitive, I apologize.
In hindsight, I should have not commented in this complaint. It's just the circumstances of this incident, where the edit was almost immediately reverted and the editor stated regret for making the remark, seemed less serious than an incident I just dealt with, where an editor told another to "stop pushing muslim pov". That edit was not reverted or apologized for and I told the editor if it happened again, they could face a block. LizRead!Talk!02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking about it and for getting back to me. You have every right to comment in an AN/I section! But I hope you can now see that one religious-based jibe being worse in your mind doesn't mean another religious-based jibe is ok?
I am curious about your reasoning for the relist of Mark Malecki. Since the last relist, there were four comments (including mine), in support of keeping the article because sources exist and no other positions were taken during the discussion (or refutation that the sources meet GNG). Thank you - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Why did you delete the article Yaroslav Kysil? Imho the article is ok, so it can stay on wikipedia, and will be grown and better over the time. Is there a copy of the deleted article somewhere on Wikipedia? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The first page you provided does not qualify for G8, even if it has redlinks. The second page is in the user namespace and does not qualify for G2, and I don't think it'd qualify for G8. Rusty🐈14:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Falls under G6 redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended. The addition of "(film)" by a subsequent editor to a page about a novel was obviously done in error, it was moved away accordingly. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I know you hang around AfD a lot so I was hoping you might be able to help me with a question. In doing a RS search for a currently-nominated article, I found zero evidence of notability for what's currently in the article (very positive, philanthropist, etc) but at least 3 RS naming the subject as someone who was willing to meddle in US politics on Russia's behalf, among other allegations. I was confident in my vote after checking the currently cited sources, but now I'm flummoxed. The article would need a complete rewrite and I can't see how it could be anything but heavily biased against the subject, which feels wrong. Do you have any advice? Thanks for reading, and I wish you an excellent day! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I’ve notice that you’ve closed several debates for which I’ve commented on. In several of those, I didn’t vote, but merely discussed the pros and cons. Are my comments useful to you? Bearian (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
yesterday (2024-08-16) you have deleted the article Roman Savchenko (footballer). I found some references ref-1 and ref-2 that I think can be considered as having significant coverage of the subject. Especially the first source is in my opinion a good one if we talk about significant coverage.
What do you think about the references, especially about the first one?Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't restore an article deleted through an AFD (twice) to main space or it will just be deleted again as a CSD G4. I can restore it to Draft space where you can work on it but you can't move it into main space or it will just be tagged for deletion. You have to go through an AFC review so the reviewer can see that the problems that caused it to be deleted don't still exist. Would you agree with this option? LizRead!Talk!22:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz,
I don't know what is an AFC review, and how it works. I can imagine to go through the review, but it does matter only if I would have answer to my question: Does the ref provides WP:SIGCOV or not, if we talk about the above article? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon this before seeing this message because you created a lot of broken redirects through your page moves. Somehow, a main space article wound up at Draft:Move/Teenage Dream so I moved it back to main space along with its talk page. I'm not sure what move you were attempting to do. It's just that this is a well-known song and shouldn't be in Draft space. Does this take care of your problem? It seems like these round-robin article page moves often end up with extra redirects or unpredictable messes. LizRead!Talk!22:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Utopes. We can end up with these pages when Robert does a round-robin article page move which can involve extra, unnecessary pages in his User space. I see them tagged CSD G6. LizRead!Talk!23:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz and @Utopes, thank you so much for the help. Yes! The intended changes are now in order. I’ll have to be EXTREMELY cautious next time. Once again, thank you. Best, Reading Beans02:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, I think that page mover is the most underrated privilege on the project. New editors tend to focus on rollbacker or extended confirmed status but there is more potential damage that can be done with improper page moves. That's not the case here, this was a mistake, but I see a lot of page move vandalism and it can result in valid pages being deleted. But in this case, I'm glad we got everything straightened out. LizRead!Talk!02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to do. XFDcloser, which we use to close AFD discussions, should have removed all red links when the discussion was closed and the article deleted. Are you saying that they still exist? Because I can use Twinkle's "Unlink" tool to remove them, just let me know if this is what you mean by "backlinks". I do sometimes have to use "Purge catch" on individual pages (like CSD categories) because, especially categories, do not always show all changes that have been made to them. If you are asking me to do something else, you'll have to explain a bit more. LizRead!Talk!00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Backlinks" means "What links here". Did you click at plenty of backlinks?. When you remove an item from a template the backlinks to articles listed in this template live for a long time. I was thoroughly confused when I run into this for the first time: I saw the page backlinked, but I could nit find the link in the page itself. --Altenmann>talk00:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being busy, you misunderstood me :-) The "what links here" resolved itself; it just too time until your change in the template propagated all across wikipedia. My question was whether you know how to speed this process up, like "Pure cache". --Altenmann>talk07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that a recent edit in the Nearby Share article added a link to a malicious website. Would be greatly appreciated if you could delete their revision; I already reverted it.
Acidananas (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I see you deleted the article Soe Win (general) because Appes900 moved it to userspace the same day. I am not sure why they chose to move the article to userspace, but it is a very important article about the second-most powerful man in the country and we need it back. Not criticizing, just need it back thanks. I am not sure if there’s a new title, but all the internal wikilinks including at Soe Win (disambiguation) are red now. TEMPO156 (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of you not following me. And what do you want to achieve? I know don't worry. But how you manage to put us on the same scale is remarkable.
== Request for comment ==
Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you submitted the draft Draft:Quarry Amphitheater on behalf of User:Quarry Amphitheater. I just declined the draft, but I feel like the author(s?) could definitely improve it to a good state if they provides the sources they used to get to the state it's in. I can't tell by the user talk page - was there a rename request granted? Or did this user just disappear to the aether after writing their piece? Reconrabbit20:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the draft creator has been blocked since December over username issues. It's just that I look at expiring drafts every day and if I see one that seems promising, I submit it for review, even if the editors are long gone, just to see if it will pass or to see if a patrolling editor takes interest in it and works to improve. Submitting it to AFC also takes it out of the "drafts to be deleted", even for a few months. I'm sorry though if you thought it was a waste of your time since the draft creator is blocked. I probably submit 1 out of 500 drafts/sandboxes I review so it doesn't happen that often. Most old drafts are in pretty bad shape but sometimes you come across one that is well-written and referenced so I try to give a shot. Thanks for reviewing it. LizRead!Talk!20:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Knowing that the draft creator probably isn't coming back to finish their article, I may just finish their work - there look to be some okay sources out there ([4][5] and surely some on newspapers.com). Reconrabbit20:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Reconrabbit, that is great of you to spend time doing that. Draft space doesn't get much attention from experienced content creators so cleaning up this article is appreciated. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!20:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GCSD, these apply to every type of page ... and so apply to articles, drafts... WP:G4 says that it excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement. I don't see why it wouldn't apply to AFC drafts. I suppose it might not be sufficiently identical to the deleted page, but how would I know? Srnec (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not accusing you of anything. I guess it's more of a custom among admins patrolling CSD categories to allow attempts to rewrite articles in Draft space that have been deleted in AFD discussions rather than anything written in policy. But it's pretty standard among administrators. In many of my AFD closures, I even advise editors that I will restore a deleted article to Draft space where it can be improved and all of these attempts must get AFC approval before being moved to main space. That is mandatory. And I know admins who work at WP:REFUND will restore deleted articles to Draft space, especially if it is okay with the admin who closed the AFD that led to its deletion.
Think of it this way: If we didn't allow people to write better versions of deleted articles in Draft space then AFD decisions would last forever and I don't think that's what the community wants. We want more well-written, well-referenced articles about notable subjects in main space and if there is crappy article in main space on a subject and the consensus in an AFD is to Delete, then we delete that version. If an editor says, "Hey, that was a terrible article but I believe the subject is notable and I found some new references that show that", rather than going to DRV and arguing, incorrectly, that the AFD wasn't closed properly, we direct them to Draft space so they can write a much better version of the article and submit it to AFC for review so we can be sure that this new version is better than the deleted version. If it's not, it's declined or rejected, if it is accepted then, hooray!, we have a better version of an article that had been deleted. All in all, it's a much better solution than for editors to try and slip it into main space where it WOULD most likely be eligible for a CSD G4 speedy deletion.
There is an accepted exception to this "No CSD G4s in Draft space" unwritten practice. If an editor, often UPEs, just keep recreating the same article over and over again and it was deleted in an AFD discussion and maybe in a few CSDs, too (probably G11s), then I've seen admins use CSD G4 as a deletion rationale, even if the article is in Draft space. But the custom has been to allow well-intentioned editors, especially those with good content creation backgrounds, to be able to write new and improved versions of deleted articles in Draft space. LizRead!Talk!20:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have made a mistake in the close decision. I feel that the consensus was a redirect, rather than a merge, as the article has no sourced content TO merge.
In response to your comments closing the AfD I started, I'm actually not satisfied. Yes, sources were provided with the AfD, but the commenter did not add them to the article, which was part of the reason the AfD was started anyway. I won't add them myself, because I don't speak the languages they're in, and I don't trust any online translator to be 100% accurate. TrueCRaysball💬|✏️03:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I see you were the closer for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Harrity. Given the discussion I'm not sure why the article wasn't draftified rather than deleted as elected members of a large American city council often have a Wikipedia page provided there are reliable secondary sources and some of the commenters suggested this. While my main purpose here is to restore the draft so it can be improved, I also want to understand what was missing from AfD discussion such that it was deleted rather than draftified. Note Philadelphia City Council member Anthony Phillips (politician) stayed as a draft for a while before finally being reviewed and moved to mainspace, although it went through AfC. Nnev66 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about Frytown, Iowa - the state is not a "useless dab" but actually a rule of our naming conventions - WP:USPLACE states "When weighing a US city against other possible primary topics, the US city should never be considered a partial title match if the base name of the city is the same as the term being considered. For example, Nashville, Tennessee, includes the state name in its title and is also the primary topic for "Nashville" alone, which redirects to the city's page." and "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named "City" unless they are not the primary topic for that name." Frytown is not listed in the AP Stylebook, therefore it needs the state dab. Are there any other articles you have made this kind of change to, so I or you can fix them? Also, can you please consider clearing your talk page? Writing this caused my computer to lag incredibly. wizzito | say hello!23:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, sorry about the length of my user talk page. I'll archive it this week. Thanks for the prompting.
Second, I need a reference for your remarks about "Frytown". Does this concern an AFD or some other action I took? I make hundreds of edits a day and this isn't ringing any bells. I need more context to understand exactly what you are asking me to do. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've come back to review my User talk page, I can't remember which editor this is about but I think I replied to them last night. I spend too much time on Wikipedia and all of those expired drafts, CSD-tagged pages, AFD discussions and ANI debates start to blur together in my mind after a few hours passes. Thank God for my contributions lists because otherwise I'd never remember who I talked to yesterday. LizRead!Talk!03:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"New phone, who dis?"
I so know what you mean. They narrowly missed the boomerang at ANI. They wants charter and verse after your reply to them about having their user page deleted. They still smell of duck to me. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Today, after adding the "criticisms" section to the article on the Innovation Agency, which operates under the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport of Azerbaijan and is one of Azerbaijan's major state agencies, I realized that I had mistakenly edited the ministry's page instead of the agency's page. However, I later realized that the Innovation Agency's article had been redirected to the ministry's article, and since I accessed the article through language links, I was automatically redirected to the ministry's article. The issue is that this redirection was done without any discussion, and moreover, the content about the agency was not transferred to the redirected article. The user who carried out the redirection, Thenightaway, similarly redirected the articles of other Azerbaijani state agencies and committees to the respective ministry's article without transferring the content, simply deleting it instead. (State Agency for Compulsory Health Insurance, State Fund for Development of IT, State Service for Registration of Plant Varieties and Seed Control, State Agency on Renewable Energy Sources,State Service on Property Issues, Academy of State Customs Committee, Azersu Open Joint Stock Company) Despite my investigation, I couldn't find any discussion or consensus for this action. As a result of this action, information about more than one organization has been lost because no content was transferred during the redirection, only deleted. There is also no consensus. Generally, I should note that I believe the said user (Thenightaway) is not neutral toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. Previously, the same user accused two administrators of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia of a conflict of interest without any evidence, and both administrators have been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia since then due to this accusation without any evidence. (you might find this discussion interesting as well). As an administrator of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I have been familiar with the activities of both administrators for years and am confident that the accusations are unfounded. The user even did not provide any evidence. I had already noticed that Thenightaway was not neutral regarding Azerbaijani topics, but this action, redirecting articles without discussion and deleting content, is also against the policies of the project. I suggest applying a topic ban to the user. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how these things are handled on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but topic bans are generally imposed after discussions on WP:ANI (see this discussion for an example on this subject). Alternatively, you could look over Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and approach an administrator who is familiar with disputes in this subject area who is listed on this page. We all have our areas of expertise and mine ISN'T contentious topics and topic bans. I think if you approach an admin who is knowledgeable about disputes in this field, you might have more success here. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!03:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m trying to create Actor Amod Jande Wikipedia Page.. but my article deleted why nd how i create New Page About Amod Jande (Actir) Amod474482 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m trying to create Actor Amod Jande Wikipedia Page.. but my article deleted why nd how i create New Page About Amod Jande (Actor) Amod474482 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First scenario: Article is nominated for deletion, a single participant provides a valid delete !vote, and a second participant provides a valid keep !vote. Article gets hard deleted.
Second scenario: Article is nominated for deletion, a single participant provides a valid delete !vote. Article gets soft deleted. Later on, a second participant requests undeletion at RFU. Article gets refunded.
This seems like system gaming to me. "Don't participate because it will allow a soft deletion which can then be refunded." What are your thoughts? In the AFD I link, the RFU requestor is the article's primary author. - UtherSRG(talk)12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the user responded to the AFD notification and had some conversation on their talk page about the nomination, but did not participate in the AFD. - UtherSRG(talk)12:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page deletion - List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria
Hello Liz, I would like to request a review of the deletion of this very page since it was a very useful resource in researches about the history of the Ottoman Empire. I believe that it didn't violate any policies. I am more than open to discuss what can be done in this situation.
The creator of that nomination copied another AfD and switched the signatures to mine. Previously, I closed several of their AfD nominations for also being copies and repeatedly warned them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of redirects were deleted as broken redirects because, for some unknown reason, most page movers don't leave a redirect behind when they move a page. Regular editors must leave a redirect when they move a page but page movers can opt out of that and, I don't know why, most of them do opt out. So, we end up with a lot of broken redirects, especially with mass page moves like what happened with the ARS archive pages. Broken redirects are ordinarily deleted as CSD G8.
Feel free to recreate any redirects that might be useful as long as they point to an existing page and are not broken. You can find the master list here at this page(. It's quite a lot of broken redirects but I don't think they all need to be restored. Maybe other editors who participate in ARS could help out, too. And if you come acoss another situation like this, where bad page moves are reverted en masse, please tell the "fixer" to either check "What links here" or leave a redirect when they move a page back. I mention this dilemma a lot to page movers (sometimes more than once) but the message hasn't really gotten through yet. LizRead!Talk!02:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I've recreated those that needed to be restored (the shortcuts and the one with /Article list instead of – Rescue list). Thanks a lot for the advice! I personally always leave a redirect except when it fits one of the redirect suppression criteria (in this case, the two moves I did were a {{db-move}} and a WP:PMRC#3). If there's any essay about page movers needing to be careful with suppressredirect, I'll be happy to share it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a question about my page mover user right that only occurred to me after placing the {{db-g6}} tag (which is why I didn't bother doing it myself). But in the future, could I have simply moved the redirect myself (given it does not have a substantial page history) to the draft space in a swap and retargeted it to the article so that the end result is the same: an article in the mainspace and a redirect left behind in the draft?
I'm glad you asked. But there are two answers: While it is technically true that you could have made some round-robin move, and we have some long-time editors that I can't persuade to stop doing this, I prefer doing a Twinkle CSD>G6 Move request. It seems to me when I've seen round-robin moves, there is always an extra page leftover that was the orginal redirect that ends up being tagged for speedy deletion. I don't like deleting these pages because there might be some page history there before the page became a redirect. With a G6 Move, the redirect gets deleted but all of the page history stays at that page title instead of being on a deleted page in Draft or, worse yet, User space where it is generally lost forever. It could be that this page history is never examined but I like having it all in one place in case questions come up.
Plus Twinkle CSD>G6 Moves are very easy to handle. I have to explain to some editors who are AFC reviewers how much easier they are than tagging a redirect for deletion and then providing a mention (not an active link but just a mention) of the draft name in a CSD tag so that the patrolling admin has to cut and paste the draft page title in the search bar, go to the draft article and look it over, delete the redirect, then move the draft. The Twinkle way is so much easier, it presents a live link to take you right to the draft article and the page move and deletion happen in one edit. Presto! LizRead!Talk!23:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be writing this had you not acknowledged that it would get you in trouble....
My experience is that articles about Wikipedians are created with more rapidity than they are for equivalent levels of notability in other fields. This is for the obvious reason that Wikipedians have a conflict of interest (so our judgement is impaired), a great deal of subject area knowledge (so people are hyper aware of who has gotten press) and lots of skills at writing articles on Wikipedia. Given all of this it's not surprising that most Wikipedian articles are created when a person just barely has or just barely does not have notability and thus would be nominated for deletion more than most new article topic areas. Anyhow I said a version of this as a participant in the discussion rather than bringing this bias to administrating the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Since I offered an opinion, in a round-about-way, I will not be closing this AFD. I try to be neutral in my relisting comments but sometimes, an observation peeks through which could lead to an accusation of bias or preference. Best to let another closer handle these cases. LizRead!Talk!22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You left a cryptic/opaque reply in the article-for-deletion thread for Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik. What, specifically, are you "shocked" by? I'm unable to reply there, because the deletion has been enforced, so the thread is closed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you left a rather curt/snarky comment in the text closing the AFD. If this is due to the difference between my writing that "I haven't read the article" and "I haven't read the article in detail', then by all means, I guess that's a failure on my part. Did you read the article in question, top to bottom, before tendering the castigation? It was larded with unsourced material, lots of narrative on what amount to trivia and irrelevances. It was written by a user who sockpuppeted in order to vote, and what parts of the article I did read were written like a fan page. It doesn't take a deep reading of a new article with numerous red flags, overriding a decade old redirect, and a complete absence of said article since the murder of Cassie Jo Stoddard, to propose it for deletion, not in my opinion at least. I think it's inappropriate as an admin to insert an opinion in the closing text of the AFD. Do a little deeper investigation on the genesis of the article before telling an editor not to nominate articles for deletion or to comment within same, please. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.23:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, a closer is not assessing the article, we assess the discussion about the article and about its sources and determine if there is a consensus on what to do with it. You should know this if you participate in AFDs.
Secondly, I stand by my comments. I have closed thousands of AFDs at this point and I am truly shocked that you nominated an article for deletion that you admit you hadn't even read! That is just bewildering to me. Please read WP:BEFORE for the obligations on what a nominator should do before nominating an article for deletion. Did you review any talk page discussions? Did you evaluate existing sources and look for new sources that could help establish notability? Did you follow all of the required checks as outlined in BEFORE? Reading the article is just the start of what you should do before filing a nomination and tagging an article for deletion. Follow these guidelines with every nomination.
Assuming good faith, my only conclusion is that you DID read the article and your remark was perhaps referencing a citation that you didn't read. Did I misunderstand your comment and you actually did read the article? LizRead!Talk!02:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>"that you admit you hadn't even read!"
Did you not read the second sentence of my comment?
I stand by my comments as well. There's a fine line between 'due diligence' and 'obsessive-compulsive'. If you're unwilling to verify what I wrote regarding the content of the now deleted article (if that's even possible once deleted, I don't know), I think you're being a bit unfair. If a cursory review of a new article reveals: it fails WP:N, fails WP:RS, fails due to WP:NOT, is larded with WP:OR, violates WP:BLP, reveals no new information about the subjects that would lend them notability, fails WP:MURDEROF (while acknowledging it's an essay) was written by sockpuppets, replaced a functional and appropriate redirect that was in place for ten years, had a snowballed deletion vote...I don't know, to me, indulging a sockpuppet with a tedious examination when the article had gross failures in multiple ways, seems a fool's errand. I'm pretty sure most people would agree that WP isn't (or at least, shouldn't) be a playground for fetishists of murderers get their jollies. We don't glorify or lionize murderers, which the destination article existed to do.
The impression I get is that you started to review the AFD, and the moment you read my admittedly very badly expressed 'didn't read', you immediately stopped reading, dropped your comment in place and proceeded with the deletion, without reading any of the other comments and arguments in support of the AFD - by me or others. It was basically a snowball, and yet you've determined that I performed no due diligence somehow because of a casual error in expressing myself.
Yes, I've been a bit heated about this. I'm a longtime editor, I keep a low profile and have learned to stay away from drama (as much as is humanly possible), mostly wikignoming, and I don't propose article deletions on anything resembling a regular basis, unless 'two or three times, maybe, in the last two decades' meets 'regular basis'. All that said, aaaaalllll that said: I apologize for the heat I've generated. There's no question that it was idiocy to express myself so unclearly: "I haven't read the article" was shorthand for me that I haven't pored over the article with a fine-toothed comb, because it's so glaringly not an article that should exist based on numerous policies. For that, I'm to blame, and I can guarantee I won't make that mistake the next time I start an AfD, probably around 2029... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.02:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2024 Canada railway shutdown. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — I would like to add that you do great work at AfD and I'm glad that you do; I just read this one differently is all. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask how you came to conclusion of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Antònia Mínguez as keep? After you relisted it, the only comment was a vote to redirect, citing BLP1E. None of the keep votes - one which had no reason at all, natch - addressed the fact that the BLP subject does not receive meaningful coverage as a notable individual. Worse, the main keep advocate tried to defend this by adding personal information. I don’t know how you came to a conclusion to keep when there were no convincing arguments, either source or policy wise, and after you asked for more input and that input was to redirect. I implore you to revisit. Kingsif (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw more support for Keep than Delete or Redirect. I respect the opinions of all of the editors arguing to Keep, especially Cielquiparle who typically works to improve sourcing on articles whose AFDs she participates in. I specifically said that editors could discuss the possibility of changing the article to a Redirect on the article talk page and I think that would be a better use of your time than spending a week debating the closure at DRV. Would you have preferred a No consensus closure? LizRead!Talk!22:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred a closure that acknowledged the lack of sources proving notability, not one that merely vote counted, regardless of the opinions of editors who don't know that BASIC says primary sources cannot be used to show notability. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also invite you to look again and notice that there was not more support for keep than redirect, even being that you were just counting. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Liz: I would like to retrieve the deleted material for the above article you deleted for improvement and I equally want to request for its undeletion, again. hola19:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. I'm sorry that my explanation of my closure here was not sufficient. I have responded on the deletion review page. LizRead!Talk!18:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry it’s being dragged out, but it’s from a place of, like, your explanation just gave me more questions and as someone who is not an AfD regular (i.e. no real collegiate understanding with a closer), that gives you doubts about judgement. FWIW, I am realising DELREV is clearly the wrong venue, I wanted (still want) a decision that a reasoned close should be given, while the AfD regulars are focused on if the close outcome was blatantly unreasonable. As I believe you’ve reminded me before, I can’t control what direction other users choose to take a conversation, but I don’t think the purpose of my request is going to be addressed.
With that in mind, can I again implore you for a reason here. You said at DELREV that when you saw more support for keep, it was the strength of arguments, but you still didn’t (as I would expect in a longer explanation) point to what the arguments were or why some were more convincing. This is asking for interpretation of the whole AfD, no particular sides, BTW. I especially note that when you relisted, you acknowledged there were unaddressed concerns, but don’t seem to have given judgement in the close on whether those would need addressing. Thanks for reading, Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Often pages tagged CSD G6 provide some additional information included on the tag that explains the error that caused it to be a G6. Can you retag the page if you haven't already? Thank you. LizRead!Talk!18:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You recently left a notice on my talk page that you have deleted my draft, Misao Okawa, because I have not edited it in 5 months.
This is simply not true. I made an edit yesterday (unless I messed up clicking enter or whatever), and I added at least 4 new sources to the article. Did I mess up making an edit or was this a mistake on your end?
No mistake on your part, I had the draft open in a tab on my browser and I should have refreshed the page before deletion and then I would have seen the recent edits to the draft article. So, it was my mistake. But, to be honest, usually pages that have gone unedited for six months don't see edits on the day of the G13 deletion date if no one has been working on the article, in this case, since March. But, obviously, it does happen as it did here and I apologize that you had to come and inquire about it. Draft restored and lesson learned. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This situation happens quite a lot with this content creator. Draft:Janaki Sabatham was moved to Janaki Sabatham. Kailash29792 was the editor who a) created this article, b) moved this article and c) tagged the draft redirect for CSD G7 speedy deletion. Ordinarily, we don't CSD G7 redirect pages when the editor who was the page mover tags the redirect because the page mover is usually not the same editor who created the article that was moved but in Kailash29792's case, it was. I'm not sure why Kailash29792 doesn't create articles directly in main space (they are very experienced) or why they don't like Draft space>main space redirects but this is the pattern with the articles they create. I hope this explains what happened. LizRead!Talk!17:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing. Do you have any idea how widespread this practice is?Why would we have the G7-criteria worded in a way that, in these cases, allows the individual user to tag a draft namespace to main namespace-redirect after page move for deletion, when there is longstanding and clear community consensus that we retain such redirects? SamSailor16:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 of the National League System (level 10 of the English football league system), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria. How does this not make them notable? The club has news articles from accross the country, has played in the FA Cup has a Premier league player as manager and sources from the BBC. I urge you to please reconsider your decision. It's taken me lots of time to create. I am an avid follower of non league clubs and this is quite frankly putting me of being an editor on this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblethebible (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As they have posted similar on my talkpage, I thought I'd mention that what Iblethebible says is untrue. The club has not played in the FA Cup, nor any of the other competitions mentioned. Number5715:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the criteria are from the WP:NFOOTY essay (which only says meeting criteria makes it likely you meet GNG, and, you know, essay), IMO it's not that clear on men/women.
It's a LTA (longterm abuser) that closes AFDs even though they are editing as an IP account or brand new registered account. For all I know, it could be you. We revert all of their improper closures and issue short blocks. IP accounts and new editors should not be closing AFDs or any RFCs or deletion discussions. If you are the LTA, please stop doing this. LizRead!Talk!16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm appalled that Ota Kohoutek's page was deleted, even though 3 people in the discussion spoke in favor of keeping it, as well as deleting it. How should I understand this? Page discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ota Kohoutek Pospeak (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. ‘Recently Active Admins’ says you’re on. What do you make of These 2 contribs? Reads to me like a spambot, where its creator didn’t have a clue where to send it, after it was reverted?
literally in the AfD queue. Sorry to have been MIA for weeks, hope to be able to help you again with the backlogs. Hope you had a good week and better end of summer than your start. StarMississippi22:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there. I assume real life has kept you busy. But it would be great to get your help at AFD. You can be more decisive than I some days. We've been seeing some new admins coming to help out, it's nice to get some new perspective in there beyond the half dozen regular closers who handle the bulk of the closures. OwenX has been taken to DRV a lot recently for taking on some controversial closures, I'm really grateful for his willingness to review those discussions. LizRead!Talk!05:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was traveling a lot this summer and have never had an interest in phone editing. But mostly back now and able to help. I think DRV in some ways is more pleasant than AfD, but I'm not there as often. Happy weekend! StarMississippi13:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know I've revision-deleted a discussion you had with Wellington Bay on his talk page. I'm sure you probably didn't due it intentionally, but you repeated the very matter that resulted in a prior revision-deletion on a BLP article. Perhaps if you feel it's necessary to include more information about the revision-deleted BLP violation, you might want to consider using "email this user" so that it doesn't appear again on Wikipedia. Just a thought. (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my goodness, I didn't make the connection. I don't know how you even came across this talk page comment but I'm glad you did and took care of my mistake. Thank you for your vigilence. My apologies. LizRead!Talk!05:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Liz. We all suffer from periodic programming glitches. Wellington Bay recognized the situation and emailed the oversight VRT queue. They recognized your point was correct. :) Risker (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFD on Committee for a Workers' International (2019)
Hi Lix,
Thanks for your ruling that the above article should be merged into Committee for a Workers' International (1974). Unfortunately one editor, who argued on the AFD for deletion is reverting any attempts to merge content
into the 1974 article and is resisting a rename of the article to remove the now unnecessary disambiguation suffix. Could you possibly pay a visit to [[9]] to clarify your ruling on the AFD, and ask the editor in question to respect your decision. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I heard from a user that information on deleted articles are never lost, and that I am able to ask a admin for a copy for a deleted article, is it true,i want to ask for a copy for the deleted article [[List of Lufthansa destinations]], thank you! Metrosfan (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting you because of a post made by @Gabriel601on my page after nominating my article Paul Oluikpe for deletion. He made no concrete points on the reasons why the subject is not notable. I have responded and refuted his point of view. However, I am not happy with a post he also left on the page accusing me of colluding with @Maradmomi12 whom i notice has been banned or blocked from Wikipedia due to vandalism. I looked up @Gabriel601 talk page and noticed he had been disrespectful to other users in the past and also blocked in the past. I am concerned that this user is a menace to the community here. I also request that his malicious action on the article Paul Oluikpe be reversed.
I understand the "novelty" part, I didn't know what "distro" referred to. The article talked about a "distribution system" but that didn't make sense to me. Thank. LizRead!Talk!01:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I forgot that not everyone here is a techie-ly nerd like me, lol. TL;DR: it's an operating system.And here's the long version if you want it: Linux is frequently cited as an operating system (which recently passed 4.50% in desktop market share, a fabulous achievement). In reality, it's a bunch of operating systems masquerading as one. The trench coat is made of their common Linux kernel, which decides the core system questions—of how to allocate which resources, handling which instructions, that which programs throw into the ballpark. Making that kernel was already hard enough, so Linus, the evil creator, didn't work on the other parts of an operating systems. Thus, core utilities, the command-line terminal, graphical desktop mode, really basic desktop apps we take for granted (like notepad, a browser, and the file explorer) were not developed and weren't included in the definition for Linux, the kernel. A bunch of enthusiasts loved the idea of a fully libre kernel and dreamed of a libre operating system where they could break all the system components they wanted. So, they found, tweaked, and ran existing software on top of Linux to create an operating system. As a result of this arrangement, Linux OSes can be formed in many different ways depending on which pieces of software you choose to make up the OS. You could make windows spin around in a 3D cube and perform rituals to hear the windows scream and wail as they disappear into flames, or you could just have them disappear without an animation when you clicked on the close button. Every collection of such software to make up an operating system is termed a software distribution.Hope that helps! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I figured this might be a mistake, but if not, you def want to change this from speedy delete to just delete, as the former does not actually reflect the consensus of the discussion and there is no CSD tag that applies here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vanderwaalforces, at this point I've closed thousands of AFDs and I don't think I've ever closed one as "speedy deleted" unless the article had already been deleted via CSD by another admin. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention so I could fix it. LizRead!Talk!01:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; apparently I'm supposed to add each sub-category again to its corresponding category. I think that fixes it. I'll fix the categories as soon as I can get on my computer - OpalYosutebito (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all of those CSD C1 notices on your User talk page. You can just delete them. We recommend that editors don't go on a category-creating spree unless they intend to fill them right away. You were creating a quite lot of categories yesterday and I wasn't sure when you would get a chance to put articles and categories in them. The category C1 tagging is a formality as it starts a 7 day waiting period until the categories might be deleted if they are still empty.
But thanks for your help with categories, it's a very niche area of editing and many of our editors who used to create and work with categories have retired over the past few years (actually it started during the pandemic). If you are interested in doing work with categories, you might review some discussions at WP:CFD. There are a small group of editors participating in these delete/merge/rename discussions but they really know a lot about categories and how they should be organized and named. LizRead!Talk!02:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP address 125.160.107.180 needs a block. This is the very IP that was reported over at the ANI thread § Ban-evading IP editor which you had responded to before (although you seemed to miss my tagged reply regarding the latest IP here), and while it is no longer disrupting pages in the article space at least as of now, it is still continuing to restore those "diary"-like postings in the user talk space which you had reverted before.
Oh, and make sure to include no talk page access in the block too, as its very own talk page is one of the pages where disruption is happening.
I get a lot of talk page messages and I usually check this page at the end of the night. I also don't look at pings as I receive so many. I post a lot of messages on new editor pages and I find myself pinged a lot regarding basic questions. So, you were right to come directly to my User talk page with your request and it looks like PhilKnight got to this editor before I saw your message. I'm sorry that my response wasn't very timely but glad that this editor has been silenced. LizRead!Talk!02:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz! I'm sorry about leaving so many warnings. I was just trying to get the pages deleted as quickly as possible and forgot about the box that lets you notify the page creator. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks! —asparagusus(interaction)sprouts!13:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, when working with experienced editors, I usually find after a problem is pointed out, it doesn't happen again. Thanks for your patrolling. LizRead!Talk!02:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I had a quick question I thought I'd ask here instead of possibly polluting the ongoing AfD. Pardon my ignorance, but you mentioned that I have seen Speedy Keeps and there is a policy page on it at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. But there is no similar policy on Speedy Deletes — is that not simply WP:CSD? (Sorry if this a daft question or I've misunderstood something!) GhostOfNoMeme23:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct, I should have been more specific. Articles get tagged for Speedy Deletion all of the time and I've deleted ones that fit a CSD criteria. But I've never seen an AFD closed with a Speedy Deletion closure. Sometimes, articles that are the subject of an AFD gets tagged with a CSD tag and gets deleted before the AFD closes. But I never see Speedy Delete used in the way that Speedy Keep is used as a closure explanation.
Now could you do me a favor and let me know which AFD this was? I look at hundreds of these discussions every day and I'd like to modify this statement. LizRead!Talk!02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading an RfC before voting and noticed [10] this post. Is this okay? I'm unsure if information about where he went to highschool, etc. is widely published, and I don't know if this is something that Wikipedia should be concerned about or not.
Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.
Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive:Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.
Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Uhm Hello there would you please unblock users Bina.biny99 PickMe10 and CelesteCoutresi. they're not falsing information, users are they good editors. Celestecourtesi sends edit request for Miss Grand International 2024. Please unblock these users, they not falsing information Malincharanan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. I can move the draft to main space, it will delete the current page but keep the article's page history. Why did you do a cut and paste move? That's something we scold new editors about. LizRead!Talk!06:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amanda439 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Hello, I hope you are well. "Editor Thenightaway has posted several personal attacks on DAMAC Properties page. They are posting false, vandalizing information without a reliable source, and every time it gets deleted they add it again."[reply]
I see no discussion at ANI about this article subject. Did you mean a different noticeboard? Please know that messages like this could be seen as canvassing which is against our guidelines here at Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk!06:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are well. I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia.... so I apologize in advance for anything I might have misunderstood.
I noticed that you had deleted an article about Uzma Beg the Pakistani actress. I wanted to ask you how I can go about providing the right information so that the decision to delete can be reversed.
I understand the desire to ensure that articles are well referenced and to maintain a high standard. So I'm happy to work on the article to improve it.... and any guidance you can provide would be gratefully received. Uzma Beg has acted in many TV serials and also one movie. She became a household name in Pakistan for her role as Bakhto in Chupke Chupke and also had a prominent role in the hit TV serial Hum Tum. She has acted in more than a dozen other TV shows and also acted in a movie called Dum Mastam. I would like to take steps to restore the page that was deleted. The page that was deleted had links to many references including magazine articles and interviews of her.
Can you help me understand the additional information needed to be provided to fulfill the rules for allowing restoration of the article? Also is there a way to find a draft of the article I had worked so hard on - so that I can use it as a starting point to add further details?
Thanks for your patience and your ongoing selfless contributions.
I review a lot of articles for a lot of different reasons every day in main space and draft space. Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article page so I can see why it was deleted? Thank you. LizRead!Talk!18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I think we should ignore the request from SPA because they joined WP just to write about this actress and have even stated on their user page that they have a COI. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have mentioned it in the AfD, although Paora already stated my thoughts, but Manurewa#Religion seemed like the best target to me. The subject is already mentioned there and it wouldn't be undue as most mosques are not mentioned in the article Islam in New Zealand and it would seem weird to mention it there without a proper section on the Ahmadi sect. Traumnovelle It might be best if I mentioned it on the Islam in New Zealand talk page and ping the AfD participants? (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to reopen this AFD but you are free to merge content to multiple articles and you can discuss a change in the article's redirection's target article on the talk page. The redirection can occur after any merges are completed. I don't think you will face much opposition to a proposal but it would help to ping the AFD participants as you suggest. LizRead!Talk!19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a backup of the Kaluthara Balika Vidyalaya's Wikipedia page
Dear Liz,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to in hopes of restoring the Wikipedia page for Kaluthara Balika Vidyalaya. I recently found out that the page was deleted. The page is an important source for our community and visitors who wants to learn more about the school. I would greatly appreciate if you could consider restoring the page.
Best regards. Jhazy99 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz! Would it be possible to restore this article? I forgot to remove the PROD tag with my last edit(s)! I had added about 6 new sources and was preparing to make a larger edit this evening. Please let me know, thanks! Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to authorize creation (by another user) and/or recreation (with editing by another user) of this topic? There is obvious notability that was previously agreed upon in 2023 and the notability has increased since then. A Google search quickly verifies this as well. Specifically under the athletics category. In the past there had been some "troll account" involvement and more recently some level of misunderstanding; but to my understanding not at all related.
A different user had also developed a draft previously in November. I'm not sure if that can be retrieved but nonetheless, appears that a mainstream established user could rapidly create a page and that conclusively 100.0% rules out any COI related concerns of any kind.
First, thank you for providing a link, that helps a lot. The situation about Draft:Khashayar Farzam is complicated though. It has been deleted as a stale draft, CSD G13 which could be restored but it was also deleted as the work of a sockpuppet, CSD G5 and that can't be restored. May I ask what brought you to Wikipedia and what your interest in this article is? Have you edited Wikipedia with any other accounts? Thank you for providing some additional information. LizRead!Talk!05:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response.
I'm interested in expanding Powerlifting, and especially Canadian Powerlifting. Similar to some strength sports, there's lots of room for growth online and that's the trajectory right now as strength sports grow.
Through 2015-2018 & parts of 2022, I had some sporadic editing on Wikipedia with 2 (and later a subsequent account) prior accounts; though only minor editing.
The goal here of course would be to ensure there is no remote possibility of any COI related optics. So as someone proposing, I would not want to be involved. This would ensure 100% of the rules are followed. Maxeran (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
It appears the page is unlocked now.
How would I go about suggesting this topic and other similar topics for creation, but without being directly involved in editing as to avoid any remote possibility of COI optics.
These categories were repopulated and had their tags removed on September 11. They were populated for three days before being emptied again and tagged for deletion less than 24 hours ago. The timer is reset and they must once again be empty for seven consecutive days before deletion. Your original deletion was out of process and you reverting my restoration has resulted in you wheeling warring.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'm surprised by your redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1940–41 Primera Fuerza season; this is for the highest league in Mexico! I don't see the consensus there to do anything other than keep. Especially with the three additional sources[1][2][3] raised by User:Svartner. I doubt that even the sole dissenting "vote" (User:GiantSnowman) would disagree about those 3 sources. Can you please change this to a keep?
^Galindo Zárate, Jesús (December 2007). Historia General del Fútbol Mexicano (Primera ed.). México: Francisco J. Camargo. pp. 84–85.
^Calderón Cardoso, Carlos (July 1998). Crónica del fútbol mexicano: Por amor a la camiseta (Primera ed.). México: Clío.
^Ramírez, Carlos F. (June 2010). 11 décadas de fútbol mexicano (Primera ed.). México: Octavio Antonio Colmenares y Vargas.
More fundamentally - I am concerned that we'd ever seriously consider deleting the seasons article from a 100 years ago from any major league in the world! WP:NSEASONS applies to teams, but not leagues - but if NSEASONS allows for 1941-42 articles for every team in this league - then surely the season article for the league itself is unquestionable (which does surprise me with User:GiantSnowman's redirect). Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the 'keep' !votes came after my comment, and nobody pinged me, so I didn't re-review. Had I done so, I would possibly have !voted 'keep' as well, subject to Nfitz clarifying what the sources actually cover and their detail. GiantSnowman18:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources in the Spanish-language Wikipedia article, User:GiantSnowman. The closing statement said that no sources had been provided - and I was highlighting that they had. Obviously two of them are offline; but the third (a 286-page book) can be reviewed at https://archive.org/details/oncedcadasdeftbo0000ramr. Aspects of the season are discussed in Chapter 9, particularly starting at page 77.
Well, I'm not sure if any editor had brought up sources from an article in another language Wikipedia in the discussion. I won't close this discussion as Keep but I'm willing to revert my closure and give the discussion a final relisting and let a different closer handle this closure. Now, the nominator could very well come here to complain but I have more editors challenging my closure than supporting it and I don't think this needs a trip to DRV. Will this next step suffice? You'll have the opportunity to bring additional sources into the discussion, LizRead!Talk!03:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. Those sources had been the basis of the Keep from User:Paul Vaurie, and he explicitly mentioned two of them. Perhaps I should have pointed to them as well, but the other two keeps already had. Nfitz (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to state that I concur with User:Svartner and User:Nfitz above: the offline sources back up the claim of notability. I was also surprised by the decision to redirect. Good to know that the AfD is back up and the sources have been more properly displayed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You vandalized 1940–41 Primera Fuerza season article
SinisterUnion, I've been editing Wikipedia for 11 years and am an administrator, you're threatening to block me? Did you not understand the message I left on your User talk page? Ignoring the results of an AFD closure could lead to a block for you. LizRead!Talk!04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh User:SinisterUnion - at worst Liz hadn't noticed you'd improved the text, rather than just restoring the close. No one gets blocked for that kind of thing! Liz is a good and conscientious admin - there's no reason to die on this hill! Also, by assuming that it was vandalism(!) you are acting in bad faith. This violates WP:Assume Good Faith and also the 4th fundamental principal of Wikipedia Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility. That's about as serious a thing one can do wrong. Please assume good faith, and please be kind. We really need help improving these articles, and you have been doing that. I want editors who do improvements like this to stick around! (11 years?!? How did that happen - I feel very old suddenly). Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand @Nfitz, but it's hard to see someone going to your talk page threatening you for an improvement you made. Imagine the situation: you make the improvement, receive a threat of blocking on your talk page and the article you made the improvement to is restored, believe it or not, without your improvement. I'm sorry, but no one has the blood of a cockroach.
"Do you know who you're talking to?" That's what it looks like to me when I see a message like "I've been editing Wikipedia for 11 years and am an administrator". I don't care about your background at all, let's discuss the situation at hand and make Wikipedia always better, that's why I'm here for, we lose time talking about other stuffs.
Request for recreating Deleted AfC. Draft: Olusola David Ayibiowu
Recently, l was trying to create article about a visual artist Olusola David Ayibiowu on Wikipedia AfC draft. But the draft was first declined by an Editor who asked me to improve on it. As l improved on it and resubmitted. Another Editor suddenly rejected it. Finally another Editor tag the draft for speedy deletion.And later it was deleted. This is the deleted draft link as the draft no longer exist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olusola_David_Ayibiowu
on 16th September 2024, but how can l create or request AfC About it again or reinstate the draft that was deleted, so that l can continue to edit the draft by rewriting and resubmit. Is it allowed? Eecogru (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eecogru (talk page watcher) I think you would be better to start from scratch. First find the references that verify notability, then create a storyboard from those references, and then write in you own words what the references speak about in a brand new draft.
That’s great and l like your opinion. Thank you for your words of kindness and encouragement.
For better understanding. Can you provide me the link to find references that verify notability and Link to the storyboard for example for me to follow as a guide if any?
I agree with Timtrent here: from the version of the draft I have available, it would likely be easiest to start from scratch. Make sure to avoid using sources that are published by the subject or their affiliates: they generally are not usable to establish notability. Also, see WP:BACKWARD. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Guessitsavis, l really appreciate your opinion. Big thank you.
But If l May suggest this example below for Article for Creation.
Articles for creation!
Please, let me start from the scratch with this easy process below:
The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor with creating a new page as a draft article, as well as submitting their draft article for review.
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. Message added 18:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nice to see you around! Unfortunately, this category has 858 articles in it. I believe there are editing tools that can empty categories so you don't have to make 858 edits but I'm not familiar with them. I'm also not acquainted with how things work at WP:CFDW, the admins who close CFD discussions probably are and they could probably give you a faster response than I can. But this query gives me a good reason to look into it. Thanks for providing the link as a starting point. LizRead!Talk!23:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just went through the edit history and tried to tag editors who had contributed over the past few months. Want any possible decisions to reflect editorial consensus. - Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases where you have recently removed links to deleted categories, such as "Division I men's lacrosse records", you have removed the link but left the anchor text. However, in cases where those links are used in the "See Also" section of the page or similar location, the anchor text should be removed too or replaced with a link to a remaining category, such as NCAA Men's Division I Lacrosse Records in this case, when one does not already exist. For an example of the issue, see [13]107.77.203.55 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could point out the pages where this is a problem, like here, it would greatly speed up the resolution. I end up deleting a lot of pages and there are often dozens and dozens of links to each page so it is impossible to check them all when removing red links. Highlighting the ones you are concerned about really aids in the process. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!23:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you can't simply replace the old category with the new one either, because in some cases, links to both categories were already listed so if you do that you'll create duplicate links to the same category as you just did for this page [15] This doesn't really require any knowledge of lacrosse. You just need to slow down and actually read the pages that you are editing. (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be clear about expectations here. I delete hundreds of pages each day, mostly draft articles but some main space articles. They may have links to anywhere between 0 and 100 other pages, from articles to talk pages to User pages. I have two options when deleting an article, I can leave a red link or remove a red link. I can not check every single page that has a link to a deleted article, no administrator does this. There are just too many links to check. So, you can offer me your opinion on whether you would prefer a red link or no link at all. LizRead!Talk!02:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, leaving the red link in this situation would be preferred since it would make it easier so someone else to find and correctly fix the pages. Otherwise, there is no reason why a bot cannot made made to automatically remove the links to deleted pages. However, the ideal solution would be to improve the tool you are using to be able to handle the situation correctly, e.g. at a minimum remove the anchor text as well as the link for links in the "See Also" section and similar locations and optionally conditionally replace links and the link text in those locations with a suitable replacement. I am not saying you need to be the person to make this change to the tool, only that such a change would completely resolve the issue without leaving a red link, leaving bare text or duplicate links in the "See Also" section. 107.77.203.55 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I'm closing this as Keep as the deletion rationale is not true. The content of this article hasn't been merged to Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police which is a redirect, not an article."
I'm pretty sure that the nominator meant "The Daman and Diu Police is now merged with Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police" in real life. And should have said, for greater clarity, "The Daman and Diu Police is now merged with the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Police to form the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police". Either way it's not a reason for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz! Thanks for your work on the AFD for list of landlord members of parliament. I don't disagree with your conclusion about the consensus. I started the article - to help my editing in future can you help me understand what lessons I should take from the AfD in terms of P&G, or simply what makes a good/bad list article?
One of the comments, starting "The subject of MPs who are landlords may be notable, but attempting to keep a list that is accurate, up-to-date, clearly defined in scope and manageable, seems doomed to fail", seems to be the clearest summation of most delete !voters rationale.
This seems entirely reasonable, but I've struggled to find a very clear-cut way of making this distinction for myself. I guess that's what consensus and discussion is for? :) Your views appreciated! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to come back on this again, but it might even be worth revdelling the entire COIN discussion all the way back to the original post of the thread. I will probably be retiring in the near future so I'm not troubled either way (re: the content of the thread), but I do have privacy concerns about both the OP and subject of that thread - and those do, I think quite strongly, outweigh very heavily any discussion on the nature of COI. Axad12 (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axad12, I have revision deleted the first diff you presented but the two others just pointed to that diff and didn't reveal personal information.
DavidRJD, if you allude to the off-wiki identity of another editor, either by naming them or pointing to an online source of that information, you will be blocked. "Outing" is something we take very seriously on this project. LizRead!Talk!18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I'm not sure why they were deleted after less than 24 hours. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for deleting empty categories instead of waiting 7 days, but since when did we start doing that? Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "See also" section of an article is for links to other Wikipedia pages; if an entry points to a now-deleted page, the entry should be removed completely, not just have the link brackets removed, as there's nothing left to also see. Guy Harris (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not possible with the current way we handle page deletions. I have been removing red links to deleted pages but I can leave the red links if that is an arrangement that editors would prefer. I can not check every single article that links to a deleted page, there are often dozens and sometimes even a hundred links to a deleted article. So, it's either leave the red links or change them red links to text. Another editor has asked me to leave the red links so maybe that's what I will start doing, LizRead!Talk!00:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't xfdcloser have an option to remove list items entirely? (I don't use it myself, it conflicts with the twenty years of cruft I've accumulated in my javascript.) See-also sections shouldn't ever have either redlinks nor unlinked text. —Cryptic01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is done by a script, which is more or less the same thing. @Guy Harris, can you provide a diff? If the See also section was correctly formatted, my understanding is that XfD closer will indeed remove the item. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was rude and condescending in my remarks--I do think your signature is too much and non-standard--but you are right, it was inappropriate for me to mention it in an AN discussion. I should have posted that comment to your User talk page instead. I'm sorry about that and am glad that the remarks were hatted. LizRead!Talk!19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I wanted to ask about RodrigoIPacce who you seem to have had some experience with. He nominated a page I created for deletion but it seems a stretch and his account is littered with questionable behavior which he has been warned about. The page is NinjaOne and if he had done any search you can see there are weekly press sources on the company. I would let it play out but he used the exact reason word for word on another page he nominated. Basically just cut and pasted the reason for deletion. Seems like possible vandalism if you look at his talk page. Thx! SmileyShogun (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that I have seen your message and will look at it when I return from some errands. We are very careful when we use the word "vandalism", that implies that the editor has malicious intent and is purposely doing actions to hurt the project. That normally isn't true for nominating an article for deletion but I'll review the AFD and see if anything is amiss. I know it can hurt when an article you have worked on has been tagged for deletion but the best course of action in a case like this is to participate in the AFD and address any problem that is brought up. So, if the sources are not of the best quality, try to find some ones that are more reliable. But I'll look into this this afternoon when I return. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, after checking his editing history, vandalism might be too strong at this point but there is certainly signs he doesnt understand notability. SmileyShogun (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry because I believe you have told me this before. I will add your name to my mental list of editors who opt out of CSD C1 notifications. Again, I'm sorry for the unnecessary notification. LizRead!Talk!18:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I missed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Murray. It's hard to believe that the founder of two notable educational institutions (and president of a third) isn't notable. Anyway, I found a newspaper obituary that was evidently missed in the discussion.[19] Would you be able to userfy this for me? I'm pretty sure I can get it up to standard. StAnselm (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It turns out, looking at the edit history, that I created the article, back in 2015. I don't know why I wasn't informed of the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that you userfied this deleted article, Star Mississippi, but StAnselm, I think it was too soon to move it right back to main space after it was just deleted in an AFD discussion. I know you are a very experienced editor but we typically ask editors to go through AFC when they want to put an article deleted through an AFD back into main space or it could be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. And that could very well happen here.
As the article creator, Altenmann, who nominated the article for the AFD, should have notified you of the deletion discussion when they tagged the article. I see that unlike many editors, they don't use Twinkle which would have automatically posted a notification so the responsibility was on them to post a notice on your User talk page. I try to spot-check AFDs when I review them to make sure this has happened but I didn't notice in this case. LizRead!Talk!18:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I didn't want to ask you before (for fear of committing a WP:OWN violation) but is it worth re-opening the deletion discussion? I have certainly provided the references some of the editors were asking for, and I would have added them to the article during the discussion if I had known it was happening. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be reopened @StAnselm. I think if Altenmann or another editor feels your edits aren't sufficient, another AfD can be opened. Just my opinion, not policy. StarMississippi01:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, sorry to disturb you, but I noticed that yesterday you edited this page Expressways of Henan by rolling it back to the May version and gave the reason of damaging edits. The edits in 26 and 27 September were made by me and I want to make it clear that I was NOT damaging the article. What I did was to update the outdated information. The changes I made and the redirects I added to the article have absolutely authoritative sources which you can check on this website (https://jtyst.henan.gov.cn/2024/07-18/3023621.html). This is a government website of Henan Province in China so it's in Chinese, and you may translate it into English using Google Translate. Then you'll find that I did nothing wrong. Maybe you consider my edit as not so valuable, but I just want to make my hometown be known more to the world. Actually, the version that you rolled back to was also edited by me. A few days ago I spent many hours to edit the article, and now I beg you to restore the page Expressways of Henan to its version at 15:22, 28 September 2024, or I'll have to spend another 3 or 4 hours to edit it again. Thank you! And best wishes. Greencarp (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I don't think there was consensus for a merge here or that a merge is appropriate as an ATD. As I pointed out in the discussion, we shouldn't be merging over OR in-universe description of the character, and that point wasn't really responded to by the merge !votes. I think the character can be properly summarized in the list, but the material in this article as written isn't really merge-able at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you don't agree with the closure. This is the typical closure outcome for AFDs for articles aout characters from movies, TV series, video games even novels, we normally Merge them to the artistic work. A merge decision allows great leeway to the editor doing the Merge, they can add as much or as little (or none) content as they feel is appropriate and turn the page into a redirect. LizRead!Talk!04:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for letting me know. You can always tag any unnecessary categories you no longer want CSD G7. Tagging pages for deletion is made easier if you learn to use Twinkle. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Health benefits of Curcumin a phytochemical of Turmuric
I see you are currently deleting a bunch of draft UK road articles created by Roads4117 (talk·contribs). Are you aware that he has been following your actions and re-creating the exact same articles with the exact same content? e.g. Draft:A1032 road. This is tendentious behaviour by a largely problematic editor. Might I suggest you look at every single-sentence draft created by this editor then just delete all of them regardless of whether they hit the six-month limit? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I guess it technically is early but the standard monthly practice has been to delete empty monthly clean up maintenance categories on the last day of the month. If there have been no pages put in this category for 29 days and 20 hours, I doubt that one will be in the last four hours of the month. It's easier to do it at some point during the 30th or 31st day of the month than waiting until midnight UTC on the 1st. But your point is taken. LizRead!Talk!21:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have been indefinitely blocked for using multiple accounts at the current martial arts Afd discussions. Today a new IP showed up to make the identical arguments. Is it possible to limit new editors there? Also, is striking out the edits of the now blocked users permitted? Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't strike their comments because they weren't tied to a sockmasters, they are just socks of each other. So, as far as I know, they were not evading a block. Most admins use a script that shows that editors are blocked by striking their usernames so trust that the closer won't put much weight in their arguments. I was even thinking of looking for other AFDs they participated in to see if I could close them. I'll try to get to it later tonight. LizRead!Talk!05:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was particularly thinking of striking BL70's comments since he was named as a sock of IE23. I'm glad you closed most of those discussions with a reference to the socking that was going on. I didn't really want to have to post rebuttals to those walls of text. Thank you for your help, both with my question and your handling of the AfDs. Those socks seemed to focus on just those few articles, though it might have been worse if they hadn't been quickly identified. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect a non-admin who suggested linking an account…
“Oppose Attention should probably be given to his usual coterie of enablers as well. 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9, if you are going to cast aspersions at some unidentified people, you should log into your regular account. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]”
If the user were to log in and “claim” the IP edit, the practical effect would be the same. If the editor were to log in and leave the IP edit dangling, he could be accused of double voting. Bad either way. You might be right that “trolling” might be a better term to use; I’d hope that isn’t a normal part of the admin toolkit these days.2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, EvergreenFir. Yes, this is what I meant. If you are the same editor who commented at AN, you weighed in on a dispute with your very first edit. It is very very rare that we see an IP editor participating in discussions on WP:AN so I can only assume you wanted to comment anonymously so you logged out. I just was encouraging to log back into your account if you want to continue in the discussion because some editors do not take IP editors as seriously as registered accounts. I have no idea who you really are and I don't care to know so accusations of "outing" are completely off-base. It seems like you are just trying to be disruptive by purposely misreading what I said. LizRead!Talk!05:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could far more parsimoniously assume that someone commented anonymously because they’d forgotten to log on, no? In fact, that would appear to be what WP:AGF would suggest, an accident rather than skulduggery. 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi Clariniie! Saw you question. If you look at the top-right of your talk page, you should see a 'More' tab. in there is a 'Move' link. Click that, and a box appears asking you where to move it to; you want to add '/Archive 1' to your user talk page, which is prefilled in. Choose a reason from the drop-down (e.g. 'Archive talk page'). Then, hit the blue button. Th page gets moved to its new title; your actual talk page is now free to be restarted, like driven snow. Or I could do it for you if you want. Hope that helps! SerialNumber5412915:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the advice you have provided at this AfD. I do want to ask though: are there any avenues you'd recommend if I would like to improve sourcing or content on an article but can't find any myself? I'm just wondering, so I know what to do in the future. Thanks. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you recently deleted the article on the Prometheus ("high-IQ") Society and was wondering if there was a specific reason for the deletion of if there was some sort of copyright issue with the article. Thanks! (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2024 (EST)
I don't know if it's possible to connect a Wikipedia editor with an account on Reddit - no, it should not be done (unless the editor has explicitly made that connection on-wiki). If you see it, you should remove it and email oversight to have it suppressed. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About this, I considered doing this myself but was unsure partly because Liz didn't do anything but especially since it sounded like User:GorillaWarfare or others had dealt with it last time but that diff was still working although I guess it's probably just because it was missed.
More significantly, if I had done it myself I would have considered that removing the offsite username (especially since the site is mentioned) and post on the named offsite was more important than removing the (indirect) URL to that site. But I see you've left the username and full text of the post but just removed the URL.
I'm a bit surprised by this, were it not for a minor mistake, it would be fairly trivial for someone to find out what was being referred to by the username, is it just because of the mistake that you didn't remove the username or was mentioning it okay? Likewise the post doesn't seem to be indexed by Google at this time but I assume it will be. And once it is, it will be trivial to find what's being referred to by just searching for the text of the post. (Perhaps it's already findable by the site's internal search although when I tried it didn't seem to work.)
I always thought that what mattered was making the connection between a Wikipedia editor and something offsite rather than the URL per se. So accusing the other editor of being that offsite poster was the problem rather than just the URL. And in fact a general URL to the thread would likely be okay provided there was no explicit or implicit accusation that some specific Wikipedian was involved. I can see it's maybe fairly difficult or impossible now given all that's happened to mention that site without linking it to a Wikipedian, so why the URL might need to be scrubbed from Wikipedia.
Just surprised that the username and full text of the post is okay. Even more since the username is different from the wikipedia one. (Although I'd always thought thought that since IIRC I've never made the connection, it's not acceptable for others to mention there is a Nil Einne on any other site or any of their activity even without providing a URL.)
Actually while writing this someone else dealt with the username so guess it's just something you missed or didn't consider. Still wonder about the full text post though. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just missed the username. The full quote isn't necessarily as useful without the URL or the username (i.e. there's no context to find the original post). Primefac (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestling school and Wrestling School were both supposed to have been deleted when you closed this discussion (the third target was deleted but recreated two days later; now up for speedy). I'm assuming this has to do with me not tagging the redirects properly, though I did do so as soon as I saw your comment and that was four days before closure so I'm not 100% whether that should affect it. So can they be deleted? And is there a speedy criterion for items that should've been deleted by discussion but weren't for some reason? I thought there was something like that, but I couldn't find it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
Sorry to bother but there are a few things I'd like to add about that deletion.
Firstly, and most obviously, I recreated and redirected the page, as I was told many times I could in such cases, and as you indeed mention in your closing statement.
But, secondly, are you sure Delete was the consensus? I see one clear Delete. One non-updated Delete that might be have been considered moot. And, even counting the nominator's default !vote as a Delete, they admit: "No issue with a redirect". Even though I would have thought that to keep the page was the best possible outcome, I would say that a redirect/merge to the article about the director might have been considered, at least to keep the history of the page and allow use of found sources.
Thirdly, I do not mean to re-play the AfD here, but two users (myself included) thought the claims for notability were rather solid: the film was released, involved a notable cast, director, and music director (verified with sources). Received 2 local awards (verified with sources). Was mentioned in various books about the genre, in encyclopaedias, etc. Was a commercial hit (2 sources). Was deemed to have offered a memorable role for one of the actors (one source). Received, although not an English-speaking film, coverage in English. If that is not enough, sure, but then I estimate that more than 2/3 of articles about pre-internet non-English films should be deleted (I obviously don't think they should). In my view, this could establish an unfortunate precedent. A Deletion consensus is, in my view, when !voters agree or prove convincingly that, considering the required standards, the page should be deleted. Was this the case? For me, again (this time, in terms of content), no.
Lastly, the source analysis. You mention "But the source analysis is not successfully rebutted." I stopped replying after the last "source analysis", true, but added a note. I could have challenged the assessment yet another time (as I had explained before its formatting as a list, the idea that nothing in the coverage was significant is for me plainly absurd and exaggerated) but when I did so in similar cases, some relisters/administrators (clearly, not you) accused me of bludgeoning (I obviously disagree that it can be called that way, but that does not incite me to do so). For instance, I am truly puzzled when I read "Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage" when TWO reliable sources precisely state the film was a super-hit and when I just have happened to mention one..... It gives me the impression that words are useless and/or meaningless. Or the self-contradictory statement "passing mention of film critically and commercially acclaimed and one of the actor Jairam played memorable role in highest grossing film of the time. Not significant coverage on the film." (!!!!!) I was flabbergasted to read such a statement. I don't wish to be rude but it's like saying "The accused is found non-guilty of manslaughter, they only did stab 12 times the victim to death ". I mean, I could have said (or SHOUTed), respectively: "BUT YOU HAVE THE SOURCE for that" or "BUT, precisely, THIS IS what is SIGNIFICANT!! " But would that have been heard? I had indicated some sourced claims on the pages were significant per se but apparently that was not taken into account. It's almost a problem of semantics. Significantcan but does not necessarily mean two dedicated chapters in a book.....Sorry, I am rambling. To clarify, I am sure the user(s) who wanted this deleted are of good faith but I am wondering if their interpretation of the requirements/words/sources really led us to an improvement in the present case.
As I know that you know and as other contributors regularly mention, It takes a lot of time to look for sources and format and insert them in the pages or even to present them at AfD, much much much more than to dismiss them after having a look at the presented sources and saying "Nothing significant" (with the nice added touch "as expected", that I found rather offensive, by the way), or "not RS", "no SIGCOV"... and when some of the said sources are, in my humble view, obviously and self-evidently significant, it's very discouraging. I am not talking about myself in the present case because User: Morekar did all the work on that page.
Anyway, thank you for your work and patience. If you think a Relist will be helpful and other users will voice their views, or that overturn your own Delete to Merge or Redirect, in order to keep page history, is acceptable, I would obviously support that. But, to clarify, I am not requesting them, really not, and my message is rather to explain why I stopped replying to similar analysis and comments that I found inaccurate at AfD (sometimes even to replies or questions). I don't know if that is possible but would it be inappropriate for the closer or relister to indicate that some of the arguments, in such cases, are self-contradictory? Or at least to ask for a clarification? More specifically, regarding what "significant" means (both in "significant changes" and in "significant coverage"). Thank you again. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
PS- I realise I recreated the R page with the alt. spell. Ha Khel Savalyancha; apologies, that's confusing and was not on purpose.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)10:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts and because I am now trying to relocate the then-identified sources, can I ask you to refund the article where you think best so that I might merge the content into the page about the director? I will recreate the page with the other spelling but I would very much appreciate if that was done trough a restoration of the page (even if that is to immediately redirect it) with the page history restored and the original talk page history. Such a restoration would be helpful both for the merge (as it will provide the content without having to create a new page and transfer the text and sources, etc) and to preserve the history of a page that will be recreated anyway (as a redirect). Thank you again and sorry for the trouble. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm posting here what I posted on FormalDude's page. Please forgive me for not being super Wiki-literate yet. I was just looking for some help and noticed that FormalDude isn't an admin so I found your page, Liz:
Hi FormalDude. Could you take a look at the NYU Law Review's page? This user "Randykitty" for some reason feels the need to erroneously remove our logo from our page. You reversed him once already last year but he just removed the logo again (for the same reason you'd reversed him) claiming the logo isn't being used by the Law Review. Here is evidence of the Law Review using the logo that's on the Wiki page (that Randykitty will for some reason try to remove again): https://www.instagram.com/nyulawreview/https://www.linkedin.com/company/nyulr/https://twitter.com/nyulawreviewNyulrlogo (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz. I already reported this at the copyright problems board, but I wanted to bring it to your attention since it appears this could affect any number of articles (I'd guess anywhere up to 100, but it could be more), and I'd like to discuss possible next steps with an administrator whose experience and judgment I trust. I think I've stumbled upon a huge pool of taxonomic articles which were just completely plagiarized front to back. They were created by FoCuSandLeArN, who was permanently banned in 2017 for paid editing (what a stand-up editor).
So far, I've found Anguillicoloides papernai, Chaceon crosnieri, Chaceon bicolor, and Chaceon atopus, and this is just from maybe 10 minutes of looking. FoCuSandLeArN ostensibly created literal thousands of taxonomic articles, and I don't know how I'm possibly going to sift through all of them. The copyright violations aren't subtle, but for each one, it means I have to go digging around for the full text of the article's source (it's usually just sourced to one journal article but without a link to full text), confirm it's 100% plagiarized, and then nominate it under CSD. They clearly had no hangup with doing this so blatantly, and the only edits to them since tend to be maintenance like categorization, so I'm guessing it's in dozens of other articles if not many more than that. Do you have any advice? (Edit: I know you're out of town right now, by the way; just wanted to put it here because this is likely a medium-term issue). TheTechnician27(Talk page)00:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) It would make sense in this instance to file a case at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. The usual guidance there is to have five examples of copyright violations to establish a pattern that justifies filing a case. However, based on your finding of four blatant copyright violations from an undisclosed paid editor, it is highly likely the copying was used for padding edit counts and camouflaging the paid edits and so many more exists. If a pattern is established that this editor's taxonomic articles are all blatant copyright violations, then we can look at presumptive deletion. And thank you for digging into this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
kindly request to restore the article on State Karate Association of Bihar kindly check and request to restore it.
Thanks Dbgbr (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. I won't help you write an article. There are other resources on Wikipedia to help you with that. LizRead!Talk!05:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you had seen my messages above. If you have no time for a refund or, better, for restoring the page as a redirect and its history, would you please consider a relist, then? The page would be thus restored automatically and I could extract the deleted informations and text. After all, the AfD had only 2 resists and only 4 !voters and more users might be interested to express their opinion. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)06:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you left me a very long message which I haven't sorted through yet. I've been traveling since last Wednesday and am surrounded by relatives so my editing time has shrunk and happens in small bursts of time. But thank you for reminding me, I start replying to messages at the bottom of the page and can miss some messages in the middle. I will respond over the next few days. I'll be back home on the 10th. LizRead!Talk!19:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Liz, Could you let me have a look at this which you recently deleted after it was PRODded? I don't like to see British mountains disappear, and have found a few refs already which might be enough to rescue it. Thanks. PamD08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit actually deleted this PROD'd article but I can check it for you. This was actually a hill in New York state, U.S. and the entire content was:
"Hunt Hill is a mountain located in the Catskill Mountains of New York south of Andes. Hemlock Knoll is located north, and Mary Smith Hill is located southwest of Hunt Hill."
I can restore it for you if you'd like but there might be more than one Hunt Hill out there. We've had a lot of PROD'd articles about geographic features in NY state, apparently years ago, an editor wrote an article on every hill, mountain, lake and stream there. LizRead!Talk!19:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was one of those links in List of Marilyns in the British Isles which should have been a red link anyway - I do wish people would check their links, realising that just because it goes blue it doesn't mean it's right. Happens a lot with cast lists and sports teams. I might yet put together a stubby little page for the Scottish Hunt Hill, but will take care to avoid confusion with the NY one. Thanks. PamD19:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please revive the page Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 as show has started on television and i would add all necessary references alongside not duplicating any type of same page. Kaustubh42 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
You had blocked the 103.38.17.0/24 for a week based on an ANI report I had filed. Though it looks like the user is still actively disrupting pages from IPs within it.
Can the block be extended? I think a more apt period would be about an year or so as the range is exclusively tied to this user and their brand of enwiki disruption/vandalism. Gotitbro (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Hi Liz, I noticed that you deleted my page and would appreciate your help in restoring it -- I am an international peace activist and organizer and notable alumni of the New School and Santa Monica Community College. I am incredibly active in the international peace sector. I am a coordinator with the Progressive International, co-host and guest on political education podcasts, board member and thought leader with the most successful voter registration group in the country Headcount. The deletion claims that I am not mentioned in any articles since 2018 but that's simply not true -- I had a long form interview published in a popular Substack just the other week. I was a featured talking head in a documentary series "The Battle Of Florida" (translated from Dutch) aired in the Netherlands earlier this year. At one point my page had more references than Kamala Harris' so to be told I didn't have enough sources or reference links feels a bit strange. I am not well versed in wiki and didn't make or (I believe) edit the page but if there are additional sources I should pull and add to the page in order to make it more credible I am available to help. I guest lecture at schools/colleges regularly and usually send my Wiki as a bio/intro. Thank you for all you do to make information more equitable and available -- I appreciate your help and support in order to make this correction. NYG26 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I would like some advice on a merge request please.
I have made a request to merge on Council of the Nations and Regions but so far only two respondents myself and the article creator have commented. giving there is not consensus between us should I open a RFC or is the current talk discussion and merge template enough?. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Just wondering if you could help take a look at this case. Said user is persisting with wholesale addition of Tamil scripts without consensus (and displaying identical behaviour to a blocked user) and I feel it best to request urgent intervention on this. Thanks! hundenvonPG (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pls userfy International Credit Insurance & Surety Association
You deleted International Credit Insurance & Surety Association. Editors in the AfD discussion mentioned a variety of reasons: not properly sourced, advertising, etc. A friend of mine who knows the organization has asked me to look into it. Several useful sources were brought to my attention, such as this one, for example. I think the organization is notable and that there are enough sources for a decent article. I have no conflict of interest. Would you please make the article available in my user space for me to work on it? Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a pretty newbie, I'd love your kind advice on how the Jonathan Maxwell page might be improved. My view of the citations were that they included newspapers of national record, one of the most serious business papers (FT), etc rather than the many primary sources (speeches, panels etc) that also evidence what Maxwell has been doing for a long time. I've avoided copy such as "pioneer", but that is what he has been for 17 years, while environmentalists have focused elsewhere. If a completely independent source names him as one of the most important people in that field, does that not have value. Many thanks in advance, onwards etc, Helith049 Helith049 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Liz. I know you're busy and all, but if you have the time, can you please review my recent edit on Lil Wayne? I think I messed the article up. View here.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is not a platform for you to share about your life experiences. Get yourself a blog or website where you can write what you want and not have to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines which prohibit this kind of content. However, this project is concerned with writing referenced articles on notable subjects, not about personal sharing and expression and that includes your User pages which are for writing drafts of articles, not for hosting personal content.
@Liz: Well thanks for the response, Liz. I understand clearly. I know WP is not an expression platform, I just didn't have money for a blog or website creation (I thought of it to be expensive), but I will archive my topic ASAP. Again, my sincere apologies. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox)06:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I can see on his talk page that you have fairly recently criticized User:Allan Nonymous for listing too many articles for deletion. I have written a lot of articles on buildings in Copenhagen (several hundreds, over a period of several years). I have recently received criticism for including excessively detailed information and for incorporating information from census records. No new-page patrollers, page-raters or other editors who have edited the articles have seemed to have any problem with the approach until now, but the point about including too detailed information may well be correct. However, now User:Allan Nonymous has started simply deleting the entire History section of the articles in spite of the fact that they include lots of relevant information and other sources. So what I would really like to no is weather this approach is in accordance with Wikipedia policy? See for instance Nyhavn 17 for an example of an article with a deleted section. Sorry if this question belongs somewhere else. It is just a lot of articles that are involved, so I would really like to be sure that thus is handled in the wright way.89.23.235.183 (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz
Can you delete an article I created, but has attracted zero interest and is no longer updated. I am not even sure if the event is still in existence. UK Beatbox Championships Much obliged if you can. Thank you
(talk page stalker) You have said that since the female event was abolished, the article creator refuses to update this article, and it will be deleted if it is not updated by Dec 31st 2023. Are you trying to delete the article because you object to the recent behavior of its subject? jlwoodwa (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just a courtesy heads up although I don't think you'll disagree with the solution. (AfD 1 was you, redirect. Afd 2 was me, delete). Redirect was re-created and contested but ultimate outcome was same as your close. Let me know if you have any issues, but otherwise no action needed. Happy Friday! Hope your time offline was restorative. StarMississippi14:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, I was planning to start writing the articles for the 2025 Copa Libertadores and 2025 Copa Sudamericana as drafts given that there is some information that could be backed with references already available and it is very likely that more info will be confirmed within the next months, however I have found out that both articles had been already draftified and were deleted in June per WP:G13 as they became abandoned drafts. Since I don't know the content that both drafts could have had at the time of their deletion and I don't know how similar it could be to what I had planned to start those drafts either, I would like to know if I could create both drafts and start working on them from scratch as originally intended or if the best course of action in this case would be requesting their undeletion instead. Thanks in advance for your help. CodeMars04 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping a line because I spent the day editing Draft:Japan at the 2022 Asian Para Games to the point that I think it’s ready to go back on main. I notice that it was you that moved it to draftify after an AfD discussion in late 2023, and thought I had better check with you whether I can just move it back to main myself, or if there is a process to go through because of the AfD?
I'd recommend submitting it to AFC for review by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. That is what we recommend for any articles that have been moved to Draft space after an AFD closure although this AFD was almost a year ago and you've done some substantial work. It could be tagged for a CSD G4 by a patroller and it makes things less ambiguous if it has been approved by an AFC reviewer first before being moved to main space. Let me know if there are any problems with the draft review. LizRead!Talk!21:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, you declined a G13 nom here. @Chewsterchew asked on Discord why it was declined, since it seems to be eligible, but is presumably hesitant to ask you. Since I am also curious to know the answer, I figured I'd bring it to your attention. Best, Toadspike[Talk]20:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might have been mistaken here. If you look at CSD policy, WP:G13, and the three criteria of eligibility for stale drafts, it actually might be eligible because I see in the first edit summary on the page that they used Article Wizard and the third criteria states Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.. We just see this so rarely for User space pages that are eligible for G13s, they are almost always drafts with AFC tags (criteria 2).
For finding drafts that are eligible for CSD G13, we use the User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon list and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, it is really, really unusual for an editor to stumble upon a User page that is eligible for G13 that hasn't already been identified by one of our bots. And it IS common for editors, especially new editors, to think any User page that hasn't been edited in years is eligible for CSD G13 so that's how I identified the page when I came across it. Because the bots are so efficient, almost all User space taggings for G13s by editors that aren't already on the SDZeroBot list or in the AFC G13 category that patrollers come across are mistakes that need to untagged and I'm surprised that this editor is familiar enough with CSD criteria to be able to identify a User page that has used Article Wizard and fits criteria 3. So, give the editor my apologies and tell them that they should feel free to question another editor about a CSD decline because, who knows, they might be right!
I'd say that they can feel free to re-tag this User page but because I already declined it, the next admin might just accept my judgment on this matter rather than re-evaluating it themselves. LizRead!Talk!21:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the quick response and thorough explanation! Hopefully Chewsterchew will find the courage to re-tag the draft, and in the meantime I've learned a lot about how G13s are processed. Toadspike[Talk]21:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why the page for the Arkansas-Arkansas State Rivalry (see attached) was deleted when it had some minor improper sourcing (missing games and matches) that would've added to the now deleted article. I would argue that these games add to the near century long clash between the two universities, mainly for men's basketball. Women's basketball, baseball, and women's soccer also had not been updated to reflect the current scores up until November 2023 (?), at least until the article was unceremoniously deleted. I would also argue it best to preserve this article for the ease of viewing the matches Arkansas and Arkansas State have had together in the respective sports mentioned. Lastly, apologies if this does not sound professional, as I am new to Wikipedia and am just wondering why this article deserved deletion when it did not include information it sorely needed. Thank you for your time and consideration.
So, I gather, this is a request for restoration of the article deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Arkansas State rivalry? THe article was deleted as there was unanimous agreement to delete the article. Read over the AFD to see the reasons offered in this discussion. No one was arguing to Keep this article.
I'm willing to restore the article to Draft space where you can continue to work on it and submit it to WP:AFC for review by an experienced editor. IF they believe a new version has overcome the problems that caused the article's deletion, they can move it to main space. But if you move it directly to main space yourself, it will likely be deleted again via speedy deletion CSD G4. Would that be acceptable? LizRead!Talk!03:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you speedy deleted Ivy Wolk based on WP:A7 and WP:G4 due to a prior deletion discussion. Since I'm unable to see the deleted version, I can't compare this most recent article to the one that was in contention. However, the recently deleted version of the page has many references, including ones that are exclusively about Wolk, that were published after the deletion discussion took place and, at least based on the points made in the discussion, it seems like there are substantial differences in what I wrote and what was being discussed for deletion.
I think it would make more sense for the page to be restored and, if the editor who placed the speedy deletion notice feels it necessary, that another deletion discussion take place rather than having it just be speedily deleted, but please let me know what you think. Thanks! benǝʇᴉɯ15:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft being discussed there is pretty different from and scarcer in sourcing than the version that got speedily deleted. Is there any chance you could restore what was there to my userspace (User:Benmite/Ivy Wolk) so that I can at least take a look back at it and compare? Thanks. benǝʇᴉɯ15:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I was looking to redirect Kabza to Kabzaa (as an alt spelling). But looks like it has been salted.
If unprotecting is a problem, maybe rd with the protection intact. Do let me know, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the redirect upon your request but the page has been reprotected although without full protection. I hope this is what you were asking for. LizRead!Talk!03:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ma'am I want to tell you that I improved the Bigg Boss 18 draft so it's my request to you please check the draft as soon as possible 2000editor (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry sir please i already done it perfectly don't waste my efforts I am really sorry please I beg you don't give me that harsh punishment I beg you sir 2000editor (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Liz - It appears that User:2000editor doesn't know how to ask you what is needed to unprotect the title in article space. I think that I mostly know why you fully protected it, but would prefer not to explain when they can ask you. So can you please explain to User:2000editor what the next steps can be? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to a later message they posted on my User talk page tonight but when I did so, I hadn't looked into the history of this editor and this article, both in main space and Draft space. They have now been blocked on the project so any explanation I might make is irrelevant. But thank you for your efforts to help this enthusiastic editor. LizRead!Talk!03:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With your long AfD experience, closing and relisting...
...please will you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag (2nd nomination) which has, so far, and in my opinion, too few opinions lodged to give the eventual closer an easy task. If it remains in this state at the end of its first relisting period I doubt I ought to relist it again, the more so since I have offered a (neutral) comment or two in it.
I am trying hard to be careful not to influence you to !vote in the discussion, that is your choice. My request is simply for an eye to be kept upon it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'll do as requested, I review every relisted AFD discussion daily. I'm not sure what you want me to keep an eye on though, there has been a lot of discussion here and our standard problem in AFDLand has been low participation which isn't an issue here. Right now, it looks like the closure might be a Redirection. But I'll review it again tonight. LizRead!Talk!02:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Discussion was almost absent until yesterday. Whatever the outcome the creating editor has had some difficulties, and deserves a 'real' outcome, rather than lack of consensus. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ivy Wolk. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Oh, your message states that it was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion (AFD) so that's what I was referring to. I see now that you are actually referring to a CSD speedy deletion. LizRead!Talk!03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maam I have a perfect draft of Bigg Boss 18 so I want to please give me the steps to how to unprotected the article I am concerning because this show is most popular in india and this show is now in 18 season and every season has its own wiki page so that's why I created the page and now you deleted it okay so now I have a perfect draft but I can't move it to main space so it's my request to you please tell me the following steps to unprotected the space 2000editor (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main space page title will not be unprotected until there is a draft that has been reviewed and approved by an AFC reviewer. Place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft and it will enter the line to be reviewed. After it is reviewed, if you have questions, you can ask the reviewer on their User talk page or go to the AFC Help page at AFC. LizRead!Talk!02:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I left this message to you, I didn't know that you had already submitted a draft multiple times. And now you are blocked. If you have a successful unblock request we can revisit this discussion but I imagine a condition of an unblock will be that you stay away from this article you were so insistent about. LizRead!Talk!02:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have developed a page and also i submitted it now for review as i think it is ready for article space also i assure that page won't be without any references or any other things and also would try to minimise vandalism. Kaustubh42 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you However, was the admin-level protection needed? In my opinion, it probably should have been ECP-protected. However, intriguingly, @Kaustubh42 has stated "What is missing as we have added each thing now ?" in here. Tavantius (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator, I'm an AFC reviewer. I still don't think it deserves to be in mainspace yet, primarily due to the large amount of unsourced content. Also, you never did explain what you meant by "we"? Tavantius (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have to say that lowering protection gives me pause after an AFD just closed deleting an article at this page title and also given how this same request got another editor indefinitely blocked. But if this article passes AFC review, then I really have no reason to decline this request. LizRead!Talk!04:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is AFD: Mutual majority criterion. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Good day!
I'm a long time anonymous user and very new-time editor on Wikipedia, and I saw that there was an AFD request for the mutual majority page that you had closed discussion on before I could participate. For some context I was the editor who reverted the page back from the redirect back to the full article, and the reason I did so was because the redirect is only tangentially related to the original article and will mislead readers. It's an article that has been around since 2005 and there are quite a few other pages that link to it. Since I'm still getting the hang of the back-end of Wikipedia, I'm not really sure what the proper response is here. As of now, I've undone the redirect again and added my reasoning in more depth on the Talk Page of the mutual majority page, but if possible could you re-open the original AFD Discussion so that I could actually make my case there?
I see quite a few AFDs every day. Could you provide a link to the article and to the AFD so I can review them? AFDs are infrequently reopened once they are closed, especially if the opinion was clear. They aren't reopened just so that an editor who didn't get to the discussion can add their opinion. After I review the closure and get back to you, you can decide whether or not you want to take this closure to Wikipedia:Deletion review for reexamination but you'll need a strong argument about why the closure didn't occur according to policy and guidelines. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that policies and guidelines are descriptive of practice, how many more AfDs of clergy kept per BISHOPS do you believe we need before we consider it an SNG? Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my User talk page. I have no idea how to predict this in order to answer this query. All I can say, from my editing experience, is that we don't see many articles on bishops or priests at AFD. In fact, this recent discussion was the first I've participated in where I saw someone invoke BISHOPS as a reason to Keep an article. LizRead!Talk!01:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELSORT religion is one of the several I watch, so I would say I see most of them. We've had two within the past six weeks, IIRC, and I'm not being facetious when I say I've never seen a BISHOPS-relevant (i.e., major denomination where bishops oversee many local churches) bishop deleted at AfD. Of course, our AfD closers can't really pick and chose specialty areas like participants can, so I am probably projecting my own look-at-a-lot, comment-on-a-few take on AfDs inappropriately onto you. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:, I forgot to remove the PROD for the article you deleted Sahari Gultom because based on sources he clearly was notable figuire in Indonesia football but forgot to remove the PROD. WOuld you be able to restore the article? If not, could you draftify it for me to improve? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to respectfully inquire about the recent deletion of my Wikipedia page. I understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines, and I appreciate the effort moderators put into maintaining the platform’s quality.
Could you kindly provide me with more details on the specific reasons for the deletion? I would like to better understand where the page may have fallen short in terms of notability, citations, or any other concerns, so I can work on improving it in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.
If possible, I’d also appreciate guidance on how to address the issues and potentially have the page restored in draft form for further edits.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and hope to ensure the page meets the necessary standards.
You should read the notice that was posted to your User talk page which provides a reason. The article about you (which is not "your" article) was promotional. Editors are discouraged from writing about themselves because it is impossible to be objective when you have a conflict-of-interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with referenced articles about notable subjects, it's not a platform to be used to promote yourself and your career. You need to have substantial coverage of your notability by reliable sources like books, articles and mainstream news sources. If you can demonstrate that these secondary sources exist? Few people in the world have sufficient notability to have an article on Wikipedia.
Thank you once again for your response and the helpful guidance. I understand the importance of ensuring that my notability is established through independent and reliable sources.
I recognize, however, that more substantial coverage and a broader array of reliable secondary sources will be necessary to demonstrate my notability by Wikipedia’s standards. I will continue to work on that and will refrain from attempting to write about myself directly to avoid any conflict of interest.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback, and I look forward to improving my approach.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Liz, on this date an article on Pach Chhoeun was deleted, it says, by you so maybe you can reply with information. I'm writing to find out why. If it is a G8 reference link that may have been deleted which one? It can be fixed, perhaps a web site changed a link target. ALL information in the article has been carefully verified and referenced.
I'm asking for the the article to be re-posted and un-deleted to improve accuracy of the content. Many hours and months over last year spent to compose this historical document just to have it deleted unexpectedly for an unknown specific reason. Pach Chhoeun's life has historical interest for Cambodian culture and history.
We will add a new module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version on beta wikis and we will soon start an A/B test on our pilot wikis. This module will only display on the Newcomer Homepage if communities decide to utilize it, so learn how to configure the Community Updates module, or share your thoughts on the project's talk page.
One design concept aimed to increase constructive activation
After showcasing early design ideas at Wikimania, we conducted user testing of design prototypes. We now aim to engage communities in further discussions and plan to run a targeted experiment, presenting a structured task within the reading view to logged-in new account holders with zero edits.
This Community Configuration extension was developed to help communities customize wiki features to meet their unique needs. The Growth team is now helping other Wikimedia Foundation teams make their products configurable:
The Moderation Tools team now provides Community Configuration for Automoderator. (T365046)
Certain Babel extension settings will be configurable soon. (T328171)
As part of the Growth team annual plan, we will continue to investigate ways to increase constructive activation on mobile, while also working with Data Products to move forward A/B testing functionality via the Metrics Platform.
Growth team members presented Community Configuration: Shaping On-Wiki Functionality Together at Wikimania (slides). The session recording is available to watch on YouTube. This session provided an update on the Community Configuration project and introduced details about the upcoming features that communities will soon be able to configure. Representatives from the Moderator Tools, Editing, Web, and Campaigns teams shared their plans for utilizing Community Configuration in the future. Following these presentations, the WMF Growth team's Benoît Evellin and Martin Urbanec answered audience questions.
Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work.
If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
Hi Liz - I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor so apologies if this ends up in the wrong place. (can't see how to send you an email)
As far as I can tell, you will know what's happened to the wiki page for is this music? It's been sitting there quite happily for the past 20 years but I discovered that it had vanished (been deleted) a few months ago - I was doing some SEO stuff and Google said that it couldn't find a reference site when verifying it (previously it would have used the wiki page). I didn't see any notification since like I say I don't use wiki as an editor, and I can't even remember what username I'd have used to create it in 2004 (just made a new one just now)
Anyway, I really want to get the original page reinstated. If you can let men know why it was taken down and what I can do to get it back that would be very helpful (I realise there will be good reasons for this but hopefully you can suggest whatever changes would be needed to get it listed again. Thanks - Stuart (can't post my email address and not sure how I will see your reply otherwise!) Isthismusic (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isthismusic (talk page watcher) (edit conflict) It would appear that the article was deleted per a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is this music? (2nd nomination) over concerns about lack of sourcing. Our standards have risen over the years. On top of that, Wikipedia is imperfect in part because of how few volunteer there are, so it quite likely fell through the cracks. If there's enough sourcing, it's likely that summarizing those sources will result in a vastly different article, so restoring it would prove useless.
Just as an aside, if you do work for the company that made/makes "Is it music?", you need to declare it on your user page or risked getting blocked for violating the terms of use of Wikipedia. It's not something someone honest would hide, anyways.
Thanks all so far for chipping in with the info above. Particularly the comment about the higher standards relating to sourcing. Oh, I am an 'employee', yes, I quickly created the username so I could post here. I'll add that disclaimer to my page. As I say, I have no idea what I'm doing with this, just trying to get the page up again or get advice on what to do if this isn't possible. Does anyone know if the original page exists somewhere, I can't really remember what it said, so would be useful to see what was now deemed 'wrong' so any new draft could rectify the issues. Isthismusic (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was blocked so had to set up a new username (actually the one from 20 years ago). Any advice, if not on reinstating, then on viewing the original page would be very much appreciated. Smchughuk (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote above how a new draft might rectify the issues, but the issues aren't with the content in a way such that changing the content can resolve the issues. Instead, the topic is not eligible for being covered on Wikipedia in a stand-alone article. It isn't like your changes made to the content, restored or provided to you in any manner, can do anything about this intrinsic problem of ineligibility. —Alalch E.16:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the info, but I'd thought it was denied due to lack of sources - given that it was written close on 20 years ago and never updated there should be more sources available from across those two decades that cold be included? Smchughuk (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the deletion discussion linked above. It was deleted as not notable. It's not that there weren't adequate sources in the article; there are no adequate sources at all that can prove notability. Note that notability in Wikipedia standards is a very particular thing. - UtherSRG(talk)18:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
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.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
@Nfitz Hmm. Just looked at the discussion. Should've done that previously, sorry about that. It was closed a week ago as "redirect," an outcome I agree with. Perhaps you should devote time to writing some sort of draft and then taking this to DRV instead of trying to get Liz to respond. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)03:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that would be appropriate after an AFD that only lasted a week, with 4 participating, and only two calling for redirection (and none calling for deletion); one of which is notorious for drive-by delete voting, expecting anyone who actually does a before to notify him with references; while the second actually admits they didn't do a BEFORE! I feel it's important to discuss with the closer before going to DRV. There's no rush here - I'd suggest being patient until Liz responds. I can make some improvements and add references once the AFD is reopened. Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty dismal on responding to my talk page messages. If I don't respond to them immediately, it can take me a few days. But over the past hour, I've been getting notifications every 5 minutes so I'll get to it tonight. LizRead!Talk!04:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, after reviewing this AFD, I saw that there wasn't a strong consensus for this outcome (or any outcome) so I have reverted myself and relisted the discussion. Thank you for your patience. LizRead!Talk!05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to refer you to MSGJ. They have been going through the vital categories and tagging them for deletion. I've been carrying out the CSD deletions but MSGJ probably has a better understanding of whether or not they are necessary or if another category structure has replaced them. LizRead!Talk!07:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I thought that that this redirect at Skyscrapers in Santiago was eligible for G6 since the creator said in the edit summary that it was "Mistakenly created duplicate article of the List of tallest buildings in Chile", and that they moved it to the Template namespace to fix things. But I might've been misinterpreting things since I thought they might have created it at the incorrect title and really should have asked the creator JeyReydar97 if they wanted it to be deleted. Sorry about that, just wanted to make sure that I was getting the context right. Fathoms Below(talk)16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fanthoms. Yes, I'm sorry. I forgot to add the "Template:" namespace instruction before creating it. It resulted in a duplicate page of Skyscrapers in Santiago on the mainspace in the process which I didn't intend to do. Can the template remain like this or should I redo it? JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JeyReydar97 I'm really not that familiar with templates sadly but you could maybe G7 Skyscrapers in Santiago since you didn't intend to create the page in mainspace and you don't want the redirect left over right? WP:R2 which is the speedy deletion criterion for cross-namespace redirects doesn't apply to redirects to the Template namespace but you can still do G7 I think. Maybe I'm getting something wrong but you can G7 tag it if you would like for it to be deleted. Fathoms Below(talk)16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't have to G7 Template:Skyscrapers in Santiago (unless you wanted to, since you are eligible to G7 that page too). Since you didn't want the template in mainspace and only created it there by accident you would only have to G7 Skyscrapers in Santiago since that redirect is from the main namespace and you didn't want to leave the redirect behind right? I think that's what you were getting at? Fathoms Below(talk)16:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JeyReydar97 It won't take down the template, just the redirect. You can add the following in brackets {{db-G7}} by editing here and that should G7 it and an administrator will come along to delete the page. (Sorry Liz for the long conversation, hope this didn't cause you too much of a fuss). Fathoms Below(talk)18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a quick question concerning sourcing on a draft I am reviewing. In Draft:Warren Western Reserve High School, the source for the statement on construction and opening, seen here, is an image. Can images/image pages such as this be used to source statements like this?
Another administrator has deleted this page. In the future, if you want a page you created to be deleted, and you are the only or main contributor to it, you can tag it CSD G7. This tagging is made easier if you learn to use Twinkle. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I hope you are doing well! I wanted to let you know that there are currently 1896 drafts eligible for deletion under the G13 criteria. These weren't deleted earlier because they were edited by bots and didn't show up in the relevant categories and queries. Since bot edits don't reset the G13 clock, these drafts qualify for deletion. Most of the creators weren't notified by FireflyBot, but my bot will handle that. After three days of notification, we can go ahead and delete the drafts for which the creators didn't reset the G13 timer. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're pretty on top of what is eligible for CSD G13, even drafts that have been edited by bots, so I'm greatly surprised that there are that many that we might have missed. Are they in Draft space or User space? Because there are plenty of old drafts in User space that aren't really eligible for deletion because of the strict G13 requirements. Thank you for the notification. LizRead!Talk!19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of these drafts are in draftspace. I tried to get more accurate data here (586 drafts). Could you please check the results of this query and let me know if there are any false positives? Also, the current query used by FireflyBot has 6152 results, but this query, which filters out bot edits, has 7736 results. This indicates that creators of at least 1600 drafts were not notified by FireflyBot. You can also check SD0001's comment on my bot's BRFA. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. For my own understanding and future reference. What is the point of a redirect that takes the reader to a target/ destination where there is nothing about what the reader is expecting to find, i.e., something about Blue Oyster Bar or at the very least some indication that what the target says is related to what the reader was looking? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I want to ask you for advice, or maybe for help as a mediator. I got into a dispute with the user Paradygmaty (see AN/I, where you also responded) who misinterpreted my edit as a personal attack. Now he's reverting my page move with ugly Edit summary accusations (despite being pointed out by you and another user in the AN/I thread that it was should be done through RM), stalking me and deleting some of my last edits, and starting new page move threads where I want to oppose him because he does not take into account the concept of WP:COMMONNAME, but I'm afraid to participate because he would take it personally.
What to do now? I don't know if his actions are serious enough to start an AN/I thread, plus it may trigger more vendettas from him. I dare not move the stadium page again yet, even if it was confirmed as OK (and even if there is a typo in the current version), because he will take it personally. I don't know what to write to him and if it's worth writing to him, when he prioritized starting an AN/I thread over discussion and my apology and explanation in AN/I wasn't enough for him. He doesn't listen to me or other experienced users. Thanks in advance for any insight you have. FromCzech (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my delay in responding. It doesn't look like this editor has done much editing since the ANI complaint and they had one article page move that was reverted. I think the best thing in these situations is if other editors support you so it doesn't turn into a me vs. you situation. But if they return to start reverting your edits, I'd try talking with this editor first and then come here or to ANI with a formal complaint. I think you should go about your normal editing routine, whatever that is. You can try not to provoke them but I wouldn't let a fear of retaliation stop you from pursuing your editing work. LizRead!Talk!01:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for response. When I wrote to you, it seemed that he will revert every edit I made, so I needed to talk to someone. But maybe it won't be so hot in the end. FromCzech (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus, sorry for taking so long to respond here (which is my primary failing as an editor) but I see that asilvering handled this appropriately so thank you to them for taking speedy action. Glad this was resolved. LizRead!Talk!01:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, thanks for chiming in over at my WP:ANI thread about the user threatening to contact my employer. I've been keeping an eye on the situation and he logged a number of edits today without acknowledging the ANI thread or retracting the statement he made. Just wanted to raise that point in case he catches the WP:ANIFLU, or whatever. I'll also ping in @JPxG: on this. As of yet I've not received any indication he actually did attempt contact my bishop, fwiw. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs23:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be frightening, Darth Stabro. I've been doxxed twice before a decade ago, at Wikipediocracy and at a Gamergate noticeboard and it's unnerving. Luckily, I was not an exciting target and users quickly moved on to focus on other people so that's all in the past. But I won't forget the feeling of having my identity exposed.
I'd advise you to remove any identifiable information from your User page, if it's present. I'm pretty confident that this editor doesn't have the technical knowledge to even know how to find out someone's identity especially if you only use this username on Wikipedia. I've seen a few instances here where employers have been contacted by a disgruntled editor and their typical reaction has been "Why is this crazy person calling me?" It's more likely that they might sock and come back to bother you but just alert an admin and that can be handled. LizRead!Talk!00:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been doxxed to my bishop a few times before from upset people online on different sites. It's just annoying having to explain the background, etc, to my bishop so that he can make sure everything is on the up and up. And I'm sure he gets a little annoyed with it as well. Just want to see the process through here. Thanks for your concern! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs01:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, NinjaRobotPirate. I think it's for two reasons: when I first started editing in 2013, I spent a lot of time (too much time) at ANI and I saw a lot of cases of mob behavior where momentum would suddenly be built up and an editor was blocked without even being given a chance to respond to a complaint. It was quite a scene with lots of noticeboard regulars who never edited anywhere else. Luckily, there is not this volume of activity at ANI or AN any more. My activity at ANI was brought up at my RFA as a negative so I stopped spending much time there. I've only recently returned to weigh in on complaints where I think my comments might help deescalate a situation.
Secondly, I would never ever want to be a Checkuser. SPI investigations seem to take over CU's lives on Wikipedia and you see the worst sort of deception and misbehavior from sock farms. You are our heroes. That exposure would make any rational editor cynical. But I also have had my share of personal attacks and, at my age, it's kind of hard to take internet hostility personally, it's the nature of being online, unfortunately. But we could all do better, myself included. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk!00:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't often get the chance to speak on behalf on everyone, but: please don't forget to join the angry mob once in a while. It's a lot of fun and you get a free pitchfork! Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are dealing with editors spewing hate that crosses a moral bright line, Polygnotus, being emotional isn't the basis for decent decision-making. And, believe me, you wouldn't like the mob when they are seeking sanctions against you. And as someone who has been brought to ANI once or twice in my years here, my experience has been that it has never been over legitimate mistakes I've made but ordinary edits that someone has taken an issue with. You never know when someone will take a sarcastic comment as a personal attack or a quick revert as "harassment". You can not control other editor's perception of your actions so always try to edit in a fair, balanced and policy-guided way. LizRead!Talk!02:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies talked me into applying as a CheckUser. I blame him for all of the stress in my life. Even my trouble with women. But, yeah, it's harder to take the internet seriously when you've been around a while. You'd make a good Arbcom candidate if you ever felt like having Wikipedia take over your life. I gave up on sarcasm. Or, at least, I've tried to. It just doesn't work on a website where you're expected to be civil. The Butthole Surfers said it best, I think: you never know just how you'll look through other people's eyes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, you know, I think about ARBCOM every year at this time but early in my time here, I worked for 2 years as an arbitration clerk. I've seen how thankless the job is. And the most conscientious arbitrators seem to be the ones the burn out the quickest and quit before their term is up. It is really unfair, I think. In my 11 years here, I don't think I've ever seen any editor at any time say that "This year we had a great Arbitration Committee, they put in a lot of time and their decisions were fair and just." There is no appreciation of the work they do and every year's committee is said to be worse than the previous year's committee. I don't need constant gratitude (or I wouldn't be spending time on the activities I do do) but I don't want to pour my time into an activity that causes resentment from other editors just for doing it. Life is too short, you know? But who knows, I don't know I could say no to Drmies either if he asked. LizRead!Talk!04:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, burnout is always a possibility. I don't like being a functionary sometimes. I even panicked a bit the first day after I was appointed because I thought someone had given me oversight permission, too, and I didn't want to be responsible for cleaning up the nastiest stuff on Wikipedia on top of being a CheckUser. I was relieved more than you might expect when it turned out to be a brief and unrelated glitch. If you ever decide to go for it, though, you've got my vote of confidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you had to go through that. You've always struck me as another nice person. And I like your username because I once had a really nice dream about a horse. We did everything together, and when I woke up, I wanted a horse. But it's always nice to feel like you're doing something worthwhile. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blanked their User page. This editor made 3 edits 6+ years ago, this isn't an urgent situation. I'm not sure how you even stumbled upon them. LizRead!Talk!04:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, someone moved Tyla to multiple titles and went as far as to create a duplicate titled Tyla Laura. My guess is that they were trying to get the credits for creating the Tyla article. Can you please look at the article, its talk and subpages and check if there's anything wrong? dxneo (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm late in responding, I actually looked into this situation when you posted about it last weekend and looked to see if any clean-up was necessary. The editor has since been blocked for disruptive editing and because it might be a compromised account. Thanaks for bringing this to my attention and I'm sorry that it's taken me a while to reply to your request. LizRead!Talk!20:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Hi Liz, could you give this a quick look please [23] to see whether it should be procedurally closed. There is an active unclosed merge discussion and this seems to have been started as a novel means to close the merge. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I initially thought it was too late in the process for a procedural close but when I saw the nominator's deletion argument was actually an indirect request to get support for keeping the article, I decided that you were right and this was an incorrect use of AFD. LizRead!Talk!20:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how this could possibly be considered a no consensus result? It's a clear keep result unless you are overriding the five keep votes and deciding for some reason that the two deleters have stronger arguments (which is a bit odd since it comes down to people claiming he meets GNG versus people claiming he doesn't). What is the justification for this? You don't say in your closing statement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that keep arguments were "people claiming he meets GNG" is a fundamental mischaracterisation of your own argument which consisted partly of "The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets" and which made absolutely zero attempt to assess notability based on sources. That's one of the weakest arguments I've seen at AfD in a while. No closer should take it into account at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that is Oz Londoner? I have been reading that forever as aus, as in German for out. Out of Londoner. Now I don't know what to think! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I added the surfer emoji partly to clarify. When I first came up with the name I had know idea furries were a thing. Furboy was my Paladin when I used to play D&D. I do actually surf - although these days I have switched to a kayak. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought "Aus" referred to Australia or, maybe Austria, but I now see from your User page, AusLondonder, that you don't seem to participate in any WikiProjects on those countries so perhaps I've been wrong all of this time. LizRead!Talk!19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that you would have preferred a firmer close as a Keep rather than No consensus? Well, first, as a frequent AFD participant, I know that you know that it's not a vote count. But when you have a divided discussion like this one, with some editors arguing that WP:BASIC is met and others arguing WP:BASIC is not met, then you need to review the arguments and, I believe, the experience levels of the participants in the discussion.
I didn't think I could close as Keep without it signalling that I was ignoring the opinions of two editors who were arguing for Deletion, both of whom are very experienced in assessing articles and sources in AFD discussions. So, I closed as No consensus which is not saying that both sides were equally strong in their arguments but it acknowledges that their wasn't unanimity or agreement close to unamity in this discussion. This is not an uncommon outcome when you have experienced editors reviewing sources who come to opposing evaluations of them. It's not my job to review the sources myself because that would lead to a "supervote" so I have to rely on the arguments of the participants and, in this case, I didn't see a consensus.
Of course, you can take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want and present your argument there. In this case, you might have a few participants who agree with your interpretation but I think the majority of opinions would be that "No consensus" was a reasonable outcome that any closer might come to. I'm occasionally willing to revert an AFD closure if an editor is asking for an additional relisting or I've made some obvious error but I don't think I did here and I don't think a third relisting would have altered the outcome of this discussion. But that's your call. LizRead!Talk!19:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a "vote count", but when you have more than twice the number of editors voting one way than the other, then not acknowledging that majority and closing in their favour does indeed look like a supervote unless they're spouting utter rubbish. I didn't think I could close as Keep without it signalling that I was ignoring the opinions of two editors who were arguing for Deletion, both of whom are very experienced in assessing articles and sources in AFD discussions. I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. It's basically saying that because two editors, both of whom have a proven track record of being very keen on deletion incidentally, say it should be deleted then their arguments should be given more weight than the other five participants because they're "experienced" and it would be somehow insulting to them to close in favour of the other participants. That's just weird, frankly, and I think goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the effective same result so I'm not sure why you're complaining so much. Consensus is based on argument quality, not numbers. Maybe try and assess notability based on sources rather than tangents about cornflakes and your opinion will count for more at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Necrothesp, I didn't participate in that discussion, but reviewing it now, I see two editors making good source based arguments to keep, as well as two making such arguments for deletion. Two said it meets WP:BASIC but did not say how. So I think Liz evaluated that fairly. But there is also your argument that the CMG is a high honour. This was not related to any SNG, but is an SNG style of shortcut argument that many of us use in our first look at a subject to come to an initial view. For instance, today I have posted on an AfD school discussion that you also posted on, and expressed my own shortcut argument based on the age, prestige and size of a school. But such arguments are nothing more than a rebuttable supposition of notability. What always matters is whether sources exist from which the page can be written. A school can be big and old and so unremarkable that perhaps there really are no sources. A person can be an unremarkable civil servant or part of a diplomatic mission, so much in the background that sources do not exist. In such cases the assumption of notability will be rebutted by the searches that turn nothing up, and no page can be written. But certainly we can use such arguments to choose where we might be concentrating our efforts, and, when the matter is finely balanced, to argue the toss in favour of retention. Still, what really matters are the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article for the Powhatan Hotel in Galveston (sometime in early 2023), which I realized was an ill-conceived mess, so I requested speedy deletion. Thanks for your assistance with that. Now I have a new source for the article, making two expert architectural sources for the same article. Before I re-create the article, however, I would like to recall the specifics of the mess I created in order to avoid a similar mistake. I am not finding my own conversations on this and without the text of the original, I am not recalling the specifics of my errors. Do you have any tips for pulling any helpful documents? I am in no rush to re-create the article, so whatever timetable works for you also works for me.
Best regards, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like I might be able to help you out but you need to provide a link to the deleted article. You know the exact name of the article you created so it would be faster if you could provide this rather than me spending time looking for it. Then I could review the reason for deletion and see if the situation is as you state it is. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I needed. Oh, this was from 2023! This was a CSD G7, an article creator asks for deletion so this can be reverted if that's what you are asking for. LizRead!Talk!23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your concern, on the AN/I thread, that the volume of material is daunting. I spent literally hours researching, drafting, and editing my request, to try to simplify it as much as possible. (I'm responding to you here instead of there precisely so as not to add to the length of the thread.) I think this was also a problem on the thread on the BLP Noticeboard. The three SPAs flooded the zone with reiterations of their position, and only one uninvolved editor was dedicated enough to wade through it all.
And speaking of wading through it -- you presumably haven't waded through Talk:The Keys to the White House. You've done more than other admins by even reading my summary. Frankly, your hope that these differences could be resolved on talk pages is, alas, completely unrealistic. If you look at that page, you'll see that I've tried and tried and tried until I'm blue in the keyboard. The SPAs will not budge.
It's a classic case of WP:SPA. In June of this year there was a blog post criticizing Lichtman. At about the same time, these three accounts showed up pushing the bloggers' position. They even insisted on citing the blog's criticisms (in a BLP!). You can see several screenfuls of text at Talk:The_Keys_to_the_White_House#Unacceptable_source as I tried to get them to adhere to WP:SPS. But even that self-evident point couldn't be resolved on the Talk page. Just to get those improper citations removed, I had to expend yet more time to create a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard thread. Consensus-based dispute resolution just doesn't work when there are SPAs whose sole or primary purpose in editing is to push their POV. (The current, POV version doesn't directly link to the blog post, but it does quote the nonnotable bloggers as if they were experts. Coincidentally, the SPAs asserted that the bloggers were experts.)
I'm at my wits' end with these accounts. There's a limit to how much time I can spend banging my head against a brick wall in the hope of some miraculous resolution on the Talk page. If no admin will pick up a mop and do something (maybe even a 30-day article ban would send a salutary message!), then I'll probably just have to give up. The SPAs will succeed in thumbing their nose at WP:NPOV and hijacking a BLP article to promote their views. JamesMLanetc15:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this situation has left you so frustrated. And also that I'm not willing, at this point, to go diving into this complicated dispute to try to settle it. But most of my time editing on the project is filled up with some routine tasks that take up most of my time and I've only recently returned to even looking at cases that come up on ANI so I don't see my time freeing up any time soon.
Without coming to a conclusion on this complaint, I see that you have two problems: a) the complexity of this case that involves at least three other editors and the fact that it appears that this dispute has covered several different talk pages and noticeboards and b) that, right now, it looks like it is you against at least three editors. You'd have an outcome more to your preference if you had at least one other editor who was contributing to this discussion who supported your interpretation and could speak up. I'm sure it's maddening to see a situation you believe is inappropriate and be alone in this.
Is there a related WikiProject where you could go to their talk page and ask for uninvolved editors to offer their opinion? Or you could post an impartial request for help on the talk page of a related article. Of course, numbers don't always determine consensus on Wikipedia but at least you could get a second opinion on whether the way you interpret this situation is correct. I've found that in many disputes on Wikipedia "me vs. you" situations (or, in this case, "you vs. them") are frequently resolvable if more editors join in the discussion. Any chance of that occurring? LizRead!Talk!19:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz, thanks for your response. I completely understand the limitations on your time and energy. I have a long Wikipedia to-do list, with some items dating back years, and I'm not even an admin.
I wanted more editors to join in the discussion. That's why I started the RfC and then the Noticeboard thread. Each of those efforts brought a response from an experienced and previously uninvolved editor, and in each case the editor agreed with me. The three SPAs are unmoved, though. Their attitude is that their POV is correct, the article is fine the way it is, as long as they don't agree to a change there's no consensus, and as long as there's no consensus the version they prefer must remain in place.
As for WikiProjects, I did post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia#Question about adding template. I just want the BLP template placed on the Keys article, because the SPAs wouldn't even agree that BLP standards applied. Being cautious, I thought an uninvolved editor should add the template. No one added the template or even responded to my post. I also noted the RfC on the lists for Biographies; for History and geography; and for Politics, government, and law. I assume that many WikiProject participants monitor the applicable list for their project.
My current inclination: (1) Hope that the AN/I thread gets attention from an admin who can undertake the admittedly burdensome task of addressing the problem. (2) If some time passes and no other admin responds there, I'll try starting a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The weakness in that plan is that, even if it elicits comments from a few experienced editors, the SPAs will persist. Past comments from such editors have had no effect on the SPAs. (3) If that doesn't work, I'll consider your suggestion of WP:AE. I've never done one of them and it seems to be a lot of work by me, and then hope that some admin takes an interest. My personal opinion is that the SPAs' violations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are much clearer than the charge of contentious editing. If nothing can get done based on violations of two clear policies, I can't be very optimistic about AE. JamesMLanetc20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I'm writing about the odd situation with Wikipedia and antisemitism. I don't believe the AfD nominator (Selfstudier) was looking for a Keep result; they supported merging while sayingMight be better just to AfD it as POVFORK. They seem okay with either merging or deletion.
From my perspective, the merge discussion seemed to effectively evolve into a deletion discussion, especially now that the destination article already has relevant content and can't really fit more. So I thought it was logical to move to AfD, and there seemed to be some agreement for that from both sides of the dispute: myself and ProfGray on one side, Selfstudier and Hemiauchenia (the merge proposer) on the other.
I suppose the merge should have been closed before an AfD, but now that the AfD had developed, would you consider reopening it to let it run to conclusion?
I realize it could appear like I'm trying to work around a consensus to merge, but FWIW I think those arguments should also be considered by a future AfD closer. I.e. I believe this should be evaluated as a deletion, but with consideration of all relevant arguments. — xDanielxT/C\R22:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was accommodating another editor who requested a procedural close since the merger discussion was ongoing. Since the consensus was going in the direction of Keep, it was not clear to me what a Keep would mean if a Merge was also being discussed. Would it negate a decision to Merge? If a Merge was opposed then a Keep decision would be irrelevant because a Merge would already have been rejected. And I didn't see much support for Deletion which is what AFD is typically for, to consider whether or not an article should be deleted. So, I don't see any purpose to having an AFD discussion ongoing while a Merge is being considered if the closure looks like it would just have Kept the article as it is. I don't think an AFD should occur to just see if there is widespread support for a Merge, that's what the Merge discussion is for. So, it looks like this was splintering the debate and since the Merge discussion was started first, I think it should continue.
And AFDs should never occur just to verify that an article should be Kept, they should only occur if the nominator is seeking Deletion. Sometimes the outcome for an AFD is a Merge, Redirection or Draftification, but that decision arises out the consensus of the discussion, not as an outcome sought by the nominator. LizRead!Talk!23:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining further. So as I understand it, there were two concerns with the AfD:
The filer might not have been seeking deletion.
It was filed during an open merge discussion.
On (1), my impression is that several editors like Selfstudier are seeking either a deletion or merge outcome, and probably don't feel strongly about the difference since there isn't really content that would be merged. The practical difference might just be a redirect. For example Tryptofish mentioned supporting "either deletion or merging"; the merge proposer Hemiauchenia also planned to file an AfD. I guess what I'm saying is, we can have someone else file if needed.
On (2), I think ideally the merge discussion should be procedural closed (but its arguments still considered) to indicate that it has been supplanted by an AfD, but the question is who should make that call. I think Hemiauchenia might be willing to. If not, we could request an uninvolved closer, where a possible close could involve recommending a change of venue to AfD. Does that sound reasonable? — xDanielxT/C\R01:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is reasonable at all. The merge discussion had been open a week when the AfD started and had some 25 participants and represented a lot of editor time. The AfD was started without a deletion rationale and any outcome that overturns the merge outcome would instantly be challenged at DRV because it is out of process. It was just making a mess. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about
Hey Liz, I thought you might want to be aware of this discussion (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Wikipedia's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate sub judice reasons).
While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? SnowRise let's rap00:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been following this issue for about the past 10 days. I'm always reluctant to jump into a very long discussion that I haven't been part of since the beginning because I'm sure I'll miss something important when I skim through all of the comments. But I agree that this is a very important issue so I'll check in on the current state of the discussion. I appreciate your efforts to publicize this problem. LizRead!Talk!07:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz: it's a novel form of project activity for me and I'm not sure my approach is optimized for exposure, but I've made such efforts as I could. SnowRise let's rap09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a process that is easy to describe here. I would just go to SPI, look at some of the open cases listed on that page and then follow the instructions to open a new case which is pretty obvious if you review the page. As a warning to you though, Checkusers will not connect registered accounts to IP addresses because it can be an invastion of privacy, sockpuppet investigations are really to compare registered accounts with each other. So, if you just have this registered account and an IP address, I don't think it would be worth your time to go through the steps to set up a case. But I suggest you at least look over the SPI main page so you are more familiar with the process. LizRead!Talk!02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are cool, say what you want to say, and straight forward. Mine kind of people. Lets keep on this project going on better and better, and, please, poke me for whatever you need. I had been away and only focused on football for the last decade, or so, but earlier I had been active in many more areas of Wikipedia because I always did and still do find this one of the most amasirog projects on the entire internet. FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Crafterstar, you will have to be more specific and list the deleted drafts you want restored. You can also request restoration of a draft deleted for CSD G13 reasons at WP:REFUND. But I have deleted tens of thousands of draft articles for legitimate reasons and I'm not going to blindly restore them all because you requested this. LizRead!Talk!02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry, I didn't recognize your name and didn't know that you had been unblocked. You were quite a prolific editor and I deleted many of your drafts during the time period you were blocked as they went stale. In the page history of your User talk page, there should be a record of notices from FireflyBot so you can see which drafts were due to be deleted via CSD G13. I'm happy to restore any of those articles if you give me a list of the ones you wish to continue working on. Any way, welcome back. LizRead!Talk!20:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only advice is not to sock. There is no benefit from doing so, only risks and sanctions. If you want to have an alternate account, make it a legitimate one and put a notice on both User pages identifying it as such. I think that is where you got into trouble.
Also, among editors working on recently released films, there is some kind of rivalry on being the editor who creates the article for a new film and multiple editors in this area have been indefinitely blocked for taking shortcuts like overwriting another editors' work or tagging a page for deletion and then recreating it yourself. Don't get caught up in this nonsense because, truthfully, no one is keeping score of "who got there first". Focus on quality, not speed. LizRead!Talk!20:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑This is fantastic advice; I have been tempted many times to approach you, Crafterstar, regarding your creation, abandonment, and requested restoration of drafts. I have never seen this pattern outside of editors trying to be "first" when a draft they created becomes notable. It's not a particularly well-regarded approach to article creation.-- Ponyobons mots20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, there is also one other area where I see this happen and that is with hurricanes, tropical storms and tornadoes. But luckily, there is a fairly sizeable community of editors working on storms, they have created their own norms and they generally police themselves. And this has come up with some articles on elections and current events as seen on ANI and in a recent arbitration case. But the movie business is so big, prolific and announces upcoming movies years ahead of them being made, spreading across lots of countries that it is on a different scale as those other subjects. I've seen drafts kept "alive" for 3-5 years just because a film has been announced to be produced but nothing has happened on it yet. There is a lot of anticipation surrounding them, especially some big budget films and sequels. LizRead!Talk!20:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft work is a useful process in the situations you note as the event (whether it be political, a storm, or similar) is imminent. It's a staging area where multiple editors work together in preparation to publish an article on a soon-to-be notable topic. The mass creation of drafts based on announcements is just sort of...hoarding. It really appears, to me, as an attempt at owning the creation. -- Ponyobons mots20:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. Sorry to bother you, but I've noticed on several occasions you have closed AfDs on North Korean footballers (as delete) and then removed links to the article. The issue is that some of the links you are removing were incorrectly linking to the footballer and should have been linking to a politician of the same name. For example, in this diff you removed a valid redlink to a member of parliament who would be deemed notable under WP:NPOLITICIAN. I wouldn't say anything if this was a one-off, but it's happened repeatedly over the past year (see the history of the 2014 North Korean election article, where this has happened at least seven times). As this seems to be specifically an issue for North Korea, could you be a bit more careful when closing AfDs on North Korean footballers if the outcome is to delete? Cheers, Number5700:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are not bothering me. Thank you for bringing this issue to me but I'm not sure exactly how to respond. You say these are links are from articles deleted through AFDs and XFDcloser removes all links to deleted articles as part of its deletion process. And I'm not the only AFD closer, where are probably half dozen regular AFD admin closers and we all behave similarly, as far as I know. So, if this problem has reoccured then it's because I'm the only closer that has handled articles about North Korean footballers. The closure process doesn't make it easy to examine links to other articles to see what they are, it's kind of an "all or none" option and most (all?) closers choose to remove all links.
I also wonder how common it is that a North Korean football player has the same name as a politican. Is this really a big issue? All I can offer you as a soljution is that I skip closures of AFDs about North Korean football players but I think you will run into the same issue with any other closer who does handle them. It's just the way XFDcloser operates and closers are dependent on this editing tool. I'm sorry that I can't offer you a more elegant solution than for me to just cease closing these AFDs. LizRead!Talk!02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that these links are all removed because of AFDs? Because we see a lot of North Korean football players in PROD'd articles and that is a different situation entirely. LizRead!Talk!02:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: when using XFDcloser, do you see a list of pages you are about to edit/just edited when removing the links? Otherwise, it might be a good idea to check your own contributions after running the script, just to verify that removing the links made sense. For example, after you closed the Ri Yong-chol AfD, you made edits to the following pages:
Knowing you just deleted an article about a football player, many of those are obviously correct. However, the ones I marked with a * above are not as obvious, so you should verify whether your edit made sense and possibly self-revert. Obviously, that's not always necessary, only when the name of the deleted article could be ambiguous. And looking at your contributions, most deleted articles have far fewer incoming links, so checking if the removals made sense is even less work.
(note: in this case, Number 57 already fixed the two election pages, I fixed four others, and the last one is a list of people with that given name, so it's a correct removal.) --rchard2scout (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't realise it was automatically done by XFDcloser rather than you doing it. It's not a massive problem, but just as it had happened so often I thought it would be worth bringing to your attention. Perhaps it's an issue for XFDcloser and tweaking that so closers can examine the incoming links to make sure they are all relevant? I've never used it, so not sure how it works. Number5715:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieving my draft titled "The Jackson 5 Us Tour"
I request for this draft titled "The Jackson 5 US Tour" that was taken down by you on October 4, 2024. I wasn't aware until now that it was lacking editing and that it was taken. I'd like my draft back. 1Skywriter (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to the deleted page. Then I can see why it was deleted. That will determine whether or not it can be restored. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost certain I added a reference and deproded this article. Could you check in the history to see if I did, or am I not remembering right? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I was wrong. Sometimes, I open up articles, each in a tab, that are due to be deleted. I saw in the page history that you added content but I didn't note that you had removed the PROD tag, this is often noted in an edit summary. But I should have refreshed my screen. Thanks for being on top of this and your work on PROD'd articles. LizRead!Talk!19:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz,
Thanks for attempting to intervene with @Altenmann:, who I have pinged for transparency. Unfortunately, they are clearly not getting the message that they're deep into battleground behavior. And insulting my coding ability, telling me I should be shamed by my behavior, and frankly, just throwing a temper tantrum instead of trying to actually engage in the issue, is not helping them achieve their desired outcome. Frankly, I'm surprised that they have so many edits (200k+) and think that this kind of behavior is acceptable. I think that they should be embarrassed by their behavior. I'd rather not waste ANI's time if it can be prevented. SMasonGarrison01:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, politely revert warring with cosmonauts in the category of Russian Empire is a nice and pleasant behavior. Surely you are not ashamed of your WP:OWN attitude. Your coding creates a mess in wikipedia category, and it is a fact, not an insult. Yes with my 200k+ non-automated edits have brought me in a contact with plenty of bullies and sometimes I am losing temper. --Altenmann>talk01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical of my experience with this editor over the years. Every once in a while, they will post here IRATE, not displeased but seriously angry, over some random edit I made that is just typical of the editing I do, nothing out of the ordinary at all. But it drew their attention and they were not happy about it.
When I tried to discuss the situation, they might have made some parting shot but then they just moved back to continue editing like nothing had ever happened. I'm sure given their MO over their long tenure here, there is enough for an ANI complaint about civility but it would take a lot of time to track down all of the diffs and I'm sure you'd rather be editing categories. If I were you, I'd try to just shake it off and know that you are just the latest target of their displeasure and they are unlikely to be hounding you. I think especially among editors who been editing here for a long-time, they just learn to avoid disputes by keeping their distance from editors who push their buttons. No one at Wikipedia gets along with everyone. LizRead!Talk!01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz, it's good to know that this is just what they do. I assume that after the CFD closes with a rename, they'll move on to their corner of the internet. And yep, you're right, I'd much rather be futzing around with categories :) SMasonGarrison01:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, Timtrent. I didn't see any indication of a changed username and generally, when a username is changed the renamer moves their user pages to those corresponding to the new username. LizRead!Talk!19:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry for the delay in responding. I have restored this PROD'd article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Featured script
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scriptsNot done but of course if Liz wants to do this they may. — xaosflux Talk 17:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The cat does take a lot of traffic... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)