An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gajesh Naik. 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.
Hello Liz, you deleted the Shane Watt page I had created a few years ago. I've since seen that Wikipedia allows for the flagging of personal interests related to a subject matter. I ran an independent record label from 97-2007 and Shane Watt's album was our last release. I am no longer in this industry (I'm a researcher) but like to document the independent music of the scene that I was a part of. I have fond memories of Shane and believe that his output as a producer, musician, and visual artist meets Wikipedia criterias for notories. I'd like to request that the article be reinstated (or that I be allowed to recreate it) and if necessary, I'd like to be allowed to flag the relationship, before it's evaluated on its own merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmegelas (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Aoidh's talk page. Message added 01:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I'm not trying to pester but since my edits were described as disruptive editing, I would greatly appreciate a response on my talk page. The intent was not to delete the category but to remove it from pages on which it did not belong. I tagged the resulting empty category not with the intent to delete it but because I thought that was the correct process. Is this still considered disruptive editing? If so, how can I fix it? This has my full attention and I would very much like to address it, but without a response I am unsure of how to do that. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that an article I wrote (and helped get approved by a Wikipedia admin/veteran editor) had been deleted about a month ago, until today. I wish I could've fought to keep it or add sources... whatever was needed to meet the standards, I would've done or gotten assistance. I'm asking you dearly to reconsider the deletion, re-write parts of the article or guide me in a direction towards getting it back up in a timely manner as it really means a lot to me and the person/business is about to have it. There are MANY articles who have just as few sources and info that DON'T get deemed "promotable" or "not credible" which are still up. The article was called LiveLine with Mason.
I will pay you for your time, work around your schedule or do whatever it takes to get a response and reinstate this article... please help!!! THANK YOU!!! Voicetracksarelame (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LiveLine with Mason was deleted as a Proposed Deletion, what we call PRODs. They can be restored upon request. Be aware that a PROD'd article that is restored can be tagged for an AFD deletion discussion but at least there you can make an argument on why you think the article should be Kept. Would you like it restored?
And please, I'm begging you, NEVER offer to pay someone for editing an article or pay someone to write an article for you. At Wikipedia, we are all volunteers, and look down on paid contributors. They have a lot of rules that restrict them from directly editing articles where they have a conflict-of-interest and most editors would prefer to have the freedom to edit whatever articles they want. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 08:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
Thank you for the quick and helpful response. I would appreciate you restoring the article, where I hope to clean it up a bit and possibly get some assistance from a pro like yourself to make it look good. If it's still deemed "promotable" or flagged again for deletion, at least I can make an argument to keep it online.
Sorry for offering to pay. I had no idea it was such a big deal or against any rules. Wikipedia is fill with so many hard working people who donate their time to better us, and I feel they should be compensated.
Let me know what you need or how I should go about this. Thank you so much... Voicetracksarelame (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2022 (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.
.
Good afternoon Liz
Would you please review the decision to delete this article (08:38, 27 October 2022). ProShare is a highly respected UK membership organisation, which lobbies the UK Government to foster Employee Share Ownership. Had I seen the proposal to delete this page in time I would have commented accordingly - it was only when I sought to refer to it today that I noticed the deletion. Sir Lunchalot (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Sir Lunchalot (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Lunchalot: It looks like Liz is offline at the moment. I took a look at the discussion and it looks like it was correctly deleted. If you wish to contest this deletion, you can do so at deletion review. - UtherSRG(talk) 14:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do note the Purpose section of deletion review, though. - UtherSRG(talk) 14:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @UtherSRG- It just seemed a bit random, hence my asking the question. I'm quite familiar with the organisation as I work in a related industry in the UK, hence my trying to check something on the page. If you or Liz can make the original text available, I can have a look at addressing the issues. Sir Lunchalot (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will draftify it. Please read our notability policies WP:GNG and WP:NORG to understand what needs to be done. To wit: You must answer the question "How is this organization notable with respect to our notability policies?" and then provide citations that support your answer. - UtherSRG(talk) 15:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this @UtherSRG - I see what Liz meant ! I'll try to have a look at it properly at the weekend. Can I just update that draft page, or do I need to copy and paste into a new article ? Sir Lunchalot (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can update the draft, as it has all of the history. I'm not sure the best way forward from that, whether it should go through a normal AfC review, or if my eyeballs are good enough, but we can share that bridge when we lower it. Or some such malapropism... - UtherSRG(talk) 18:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, UtherSRG, for helping out Sir Lunchalot. Yes, I was asleep when you posted, which I think was about 6 am my time, then I had some Zoom appointments so I'm just getting to some of my daily work. Thanks for restoring that page, UtherSRG.
Yes, I think the AFD discussion was unanimous to delete that article. Sir Lunchalot, I'd review the comments that were made in the AFD, try to address the problems the commenters found with the article and when it is ready, submit it to Articles for Creation for review and, hopefully, approval. I'd warn you to not to try to move the draft directly into the main space of the project or it can be tagged as CSD G4 which is recreation of an article deleted at an AFD discussion. The new version has to be much improved not to be considered "substantially identical" to the version that was deleted. But if UtherSRG is willing to help you out, that is great! It always helps to have a second pair of eyes looking over a draft that is being shaped into a main space article. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually help out handling those Merges that come out of AFD discussions, well God bless you! One never knows when one closes an AFD discussion as Merge, what editor will take on that job of handling a merger of two articles. I think that's a special talent that involves more than cutting and pasting large chunks of text. But what I find most taxing are editors in deletion discussions who list 3, 4 or in one case 5, different articles to do a merge with. While that might make theoretical sense in terms of the subject matter, I don't know who to approach who would know a subject well enough to be able handle that complicated task. That seems more like at BOLD edit that involves article talk page discussions than an AFD closure decision.
But thanks for your thanks! I don't think we have encountered each other before and then I started to see you working at AFD. I use to focus more on categories in my early days here but at the beginning of the year, I noticed that there didn't seem to be enough admins or editors closing article deletion discussions so that's where I started putting some of my time. I think TFDs and CFDs are more technically challenging to close and redirects are a world unto themselves but I might start trying to branch out if I see there is a need I can address. We only have a limited amount of time we can spend here though!
So, nice to meet you and I hope we can cross paths in a positive way in the future! LizRead!Talk! 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And I apologize in advance, because I'm about to turn into the annoying gadfly on a number of AfDs asking "merge what? which part? the whole thing? Or just a mention? When you say "merge," do you really mean "redirect'?" And any number of other irritants. Joyous! | Talk 18:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:List of Roman villas in the Netherlands[edit]
I left a question after my contribution was rejected. "Can you explain what is required? Similar pages exist for other countries. A reference to a scientific publication and to a secondary source is present. Can you be more specific? The present remark is very general, Penninx (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]"
I have been waiting for an answer for 6 months, and now my contribution will be deleted without a response to my question. The criteria of accepting a contribution are not clear. Please answer my question. Penninx (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, your draft was deleted because there had been no recent editing activity. After 6 months of no new edits, we consider the draft to be abandoned. If you would like to continue to work on it, let me know or you can request its restoration at WP:REFUND.
At first glance, it looks like the reviewers gave you lots of messages about additional sources your draft needed. But a reviewer wouldn't know that you left a comment for them unless you "pinged" their name, like this (Penninx). Tagging their name let's them know that there is a message for them on a page. There is a backlog of about 3,000 drafts to be reviewed and after reviewing one draft, the reviewer doesn't go back to it to see if the page creator left a message, they move on to the hundreds of other drafts that still need reviewing. Please do not take this personally as if you were ignored, our AFC reviewers are just volunteers, like the rest of us, and there are thousands of drafts that need reviewing.
There are places you can go with your questions. First, you can go to the talk page of the reviewer and ask some general questions about the comments they left. It's best to do this soon after they left the review because a few days later, a few weeks later, well, your draft is not fresh in their minds. Then, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk after your page has been reviewed, that's best to go to if a comment in the review isn't clear to you. If you have questions about Wikipedia policies and practices (like what is a "reliable source"?), then bringing those questions to the Teahouse is your best bet.
If you are looking for someone actually to help you writing the article, that is much more difficult. As I said, editors on Wikipedia are volunteers and so they focus their limited time on writing articles on subjects that interest them. But you could try looking at some WikiProjects. There is WikiProject Netherlands but I noticed that the talk page isn't active so you could contact an editor on their active editors list, an editor who has joined recently, like in 2021 or 2022, to see if they would know of good resources you could use. There also might be some information on pages associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands that might be of some help. With your subject matter, you could also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology or Wikipedia:WikiProject European history (although it also doesn't look very active). As a last resort, you could even try writing a short note asking for help on related article talk pages like Talk:Netherlands, Talk:History of the Netherlands or Talk:Netherlands in the Roman era but these talk pages are devoted to improving those articles. But you could look at the page histories of those articles and see which editors have been active editing them and contact them on their talk page and ask if they have any ideas or resources you could use in your draft.
That's about all of the ideas I have. I don't spend my time writing articles or drafts myself but over the years, I have accumulated knowledge about resourcs on Wikipedia so I can point you to places where you might find another editor with the knowledge, skills and interest to help you with your draft. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 21:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Liz, thanks very much for your complete reply and restoring the draft. I still don't understand. I gave several references (or "additonal sources") which is what they asked. Still they rejected the contribution. I want to spent time to improve the page, but i first need to understand the reason why my contribution was rejected. At the moment i am still uncertain what is needed. I understand that they are volunteers, but i am uncertain whether they have really checked my contribution, or just had a quick glance. Penninx (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the volunteers have not checked the references. They contain a list of Roman villas. In one of the references they wrote a scientific article where they used the information to draw conclusions on the the history of the Roman presence in the Netherlands. So it is "in-depth", not just mentioning, it is "reliable" ( a peer-reviewed scientific publication), "secondary" (the references to the original excavations are in the scientific article), "independent" (the scientific article is independent, has no commercial, political of any other goal). Penninx (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for sharing this video. Instagram is not considered a reliable source nor any other social media. LizRead!Talk! 06:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake on my part. I should have known to see whether the redirect had history. Thank you. I have now retargeted the draft redirect to point to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I figured it had something to do with the unique way you move around articles. Personally, I find redirects useful so I just changed that deletion into a redirect. LizRead!Talk! 06:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't have to do with moving articles. It had to do with my paying about 75% attention to accepting the draft. And you weren't creating a new redirect from draft space anyway, because the Accept script creates a redirect from draft space to article space. You deleted it to move the article history in its place, and then converted that back into a redirect, so you didn't create any new redirects. The AFC Accept script always creates a redirect from draft space to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the history of this article before deleting it? I was just about to revert it a few versions back - it had been replaced with an extremely promotional version by an IP immediately before being tagged. (On the other hand, I was going to leave the g11 tag on it, since the version it'd been replaced with was so offensively promotional I didn't think I could review the old one properly.) —Cryptic 10:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I THOUGHT that I checked it out properly. I remove a lot of CSD tags that I think have been misapplied. I've restore this article and you can take it from here. It's 3 am here and I've clearly stayed up too late editing. Time for bed and to clear the cobwebs from my head. Thanks for catching my mistake. LizRead!Talk! 11:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, User:Magadhkingdom renamed to User:Magadh State, but you changed the previous user redirect to Draft:Magadh State with the comment Correcting redirect and a bot further changed the redirect to mainspace article Magadha. What was the reason for you to correct the user renaming redirect? Jay 💬 11:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was noob in wikipedia field , it just happened unfortuniatly , please revert the redirect link from Magadhkingdom to Magadha Magadh State (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please restore the Ricky Knight Jr page which was PROD'd[edit]
Hi, could you please restore the Ricky Knight Jr page as he is an independent professional wrestler who was PROD'd for not being signed to a company which is not applicable as he is a freelance independant wrestler who wrestles for many companies? Devletbek (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done You can find it at Ricky Knight Jr.. You might spend some time improving the article as it can still be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD.
But UtherSRG is right, your message came in at 4:45 am my time and I overslept so WP:REFUND would have been quicker. But as long as the deed is done, I guess it doesn't matter whether it happened 12 hours ago or now. LizRead!Talk! 01:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it could be the same as an article that has recently been deleted via discussion. Looking at the editor's talk page, I think draftification is not appropriate and if it is the same, or worse, then the consensus deleted one, should have been speedily deleted? Bungle(talk • contribs) 13:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, An important article was deleted by you on October 28, 2022 at 05:39 hours, titled, "The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner". I would liked it returned to my Sandbox, where the empty file exists. Thank you. John Milner. Lord Milner (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My older archives are all messed up because of the bot archiving and I disabled it a few years ago. Now I handle that myself, manually.
I'll look into your request. Just from the talk page requests I've received today, it looks like a busy weekend. LizRead!Talk! 23:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this weekend? I mean, it's not an urgent matter, but it would be good to get it done. I'd do it myself, but, well, you are an admin and you are involved with some admin procedures here, so it would look more serious if you started the VP dicussion, assuming I managed to convince you we have a problem :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please could you reinstate the page? I can’t see why it would violate any of your policies. Thank you. 2A00:23C4:7318:E701:B534:CD2A:596:5C27 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion was listed in the deletion tag at the talk of Talking Politics. If you go into the page history, you can see what the PROD statement says.
As a contested PROD, I have restored the article for you. Please know that it can still be tagged for deletion and taken to WP:AFD so you might want to address the deletion rationale stated in the PROD tag. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 23:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting links to Bund für Menschenrecht and Blätter für Menschenrecht[edit]
These links should not have been deleted per WP:REDLINK as the topics are notable, even if the pages were sock creations. Many of the links were my doing and not the socks. (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible with the unlinking tool to see who created the links. I generally assume that articles that are being deleted through our deletion processes (CSD, PROD, AFD) will not be recreated. But I will seek out the links for these article and undo my edits where I can. LizRead!Talk! 23:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Recently you deleted an article on the book Sexual Heretics under criterion G5. Could you please restore it (either to mainspace or to draftspace)? Cheers, gnu57 16:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this article for you. I think a way for it to avoid a future CSD G5 deletion is for there to be substantive edits to it (like contributing content, not adding a category) from other editors. In this article's case it was two sockpuppets, User:QueenofBithynia and User:AFreshStart, who had contributed the bulk of the content to that page.
Our project's viewpoint on restoring pages deleted because of sockpuppetry is a little murky. I have had some editors state to me that they would be "responsible for" an article created by a sockpuppet if the article could be restored. It's not clear what it means to be responsible for an article but I checked with another admin who thought that could be grounds for restoring the article. I think I'll start a discussion about this at WT:CSD. Editors have very strong feelings about sockpuppets and deleting or reverting their work but I have deleted articles that were otherwise okay and it seemed unfortunate that they were to be deleted. Good luck. LizRead!Talk! 22:57, 18 November 2022 (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, I'm PHI WIKI 2022 (Pierre-Olivier), and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13.
20:45, 13 September 2021 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Miles Greenberg (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Thank you. PHI WIKI 2022 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz ! On September 13th, I created with another account the page for Miles Greenberg. I thought creating the page only in English was ok. I may created my account in French (since I'm in Montréal, Québec, Canada) by default. Miles is an artist and colleague of mine who wants a Wikipedia page.
Is it possible to retrieve his page ? I'm new to Wikipedia and the work to complete a page with all the notices is pretty long for me. If not, do I need to recreate a new page with this new account in English ? How I can make sure that the page I'm creating is only in English not to have this problem a second time ?
Thank you for your help,
Pierre-Olivier
Hello, Pierre-Olivier,
It looks like this article has been restored for you at WP:REFUND. Good luck with it...he looks like an interesting artist. LizRead!Talk! 22:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I do not see Miles Greenberg's page... PHI WIKI 2022 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I have retired from article editing, I still keep my hand in talk page stuff at times. And when I retired, the GfA page was one of my major concerns; I'm glad it has good hands looking at it.
If I recall correctly, the SPA editor you are dealing with came into play very shortly after a known-paid editor, User:Mckaylagrace, left editing, and has been doing similarly promotional edits. There is a frequent talking up of GFA projects, often using either direct GFA sources or places that ran their press releases. I see that one of the bits that you excised from KPY's page was sourced to GFA's lawyers, so not a "third party" source we seek. If you have time, check all the sources and see what they're using; I know that there have been at least some problematic insertions since I left editing, but haven't always kept a tight eye to see what might have been undone.
There is a bit of that problem with some of what you have been reinserting. I haven't gone over everything in detail, but there were entire paragraphs sourced to the lawsuit websites. While those sites are reliable for their own statements, being non-third-party sites, they don't give you WP:DUE -- that the statement they're quoting is really of significance. That is actually reasonable to question.
When you're doing likely re-reverts, start a talk page discussion. This will have several advantages; if there's ever accusations of edit warring, you can point out that you tried to discuss matters. It leaves a clearer record of what was going on in some ways than the mere edit summaries do.
Thanks for asking for my input, and good editing to you!
--New Jersey-born Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another New Jerseyite! Well, I greatly appreciate you taking a look at the article. I'll go over it more carefully on the weekend when I have more free time to check out individual sources. I would hate to have restored improperly sourced content but the edits removed looked like such a hatchet job, I was concerned that any content critical of the organization had been taken out. I just did some reading on their recent lawsuits and how they had to pay back donors which does tarnish their image. But I'll remove anything that is inappropriate.
It looks like you have gone 10 rounds in the ring with representatives from some of these religious groups and received your share of threats. I'm sorry that happened. But a Wikipedia article is the public face for many organizations, even more than their own websites, so I can see why they would want to control or at least influence the article content.
I appreciate you taking some time to look this article over. I can take it from here. Enjoy your retirement! LizRead!Talk! 22:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like all of the other subcategories in Category:Singlechart usages, it's autogenerated by the use of a template, and I created it because the use of that template had caused it to show up on Special:WantedCategories -- but because it's autogenerated, there was no way to simply remove it from the article, and just leaving it as a permanent speedbump on WantedCategories was a non-starter, so creating it was the only possible option. Since there's absolutely no way to tell when it might come back again, I'm of the opinion that it should be in the "maintenance categories that are kept for maintenance purposes even if it's empty" file, though none of its siblings are tagged with the {{Possibly empty category}} template. All in all, I don't really care one way or the other; I created it because it was showing up as a redlink on the WantedCategories list and had to be cleared somehow, but I don't know nearly enough about Maltese record charts to have the foggiest guess as to whether there's any prospect of it returning in the future. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain. What, you don't track Maltese popular music? Yes, it sounds like a case for what I call "the empty cat tag". I was told years ago that "Tracking categories" should never be deleted but I've come across ones that really aren't being used and I don't expect them to be used. I'll tag the page. Thanks again for the explanation. LizRead!Talk! 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz, since ITV the channel in the United Kingdom has changed its name back to ITV1, I thought that you would do a pageswap between the redirect pages of ITV +1 and ITV1 +1 because the timeshift service of ITV1 also changed it’s name back to ITV1 +1. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the subject so I don't understand what you are asking me to do with a "pageswap". What page should be moved to what page title? Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 04:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You want a WP:Round-robin page swap. But they are both redirects, so I don't see any benefit in bothering to do that. – FayenaticLondon 15:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (TPS)[reply]
The ITV +1 redirect page used to be called ITV1 +1 until Unreal7 moved it to ITV +1 in 2013. That’s why I’m requesting this WP:Round-robin page swap since ITV +1 has changed back to ITV1 +1 Bassie f (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and their accomplishments; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person or more narrowly a notable architect or notable academic. It may sound odd, but you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, but if you want to proceed, you must set aside everything you know about yourself and all materials you have put out, and only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your work. To pass this process, you only need three such sources at a minimum. Please read Your First Article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tristan Sterk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Liz!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Man it feels weird seeing this on an admin's page. — Python Drink (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have a lot of declined AFC notices for articles I didn't write. I spend much of the day reviewing expiring drafts and if one looks particular promising or perhaps notable, I submit it for AFC review, especially if the draft creator is long gone and won't be around to do it themselves. So, I'm a draft submitter rather than a draft creator. I have had a few drafts that have been accepted and despite my mediocre success rate, I think it's better to get a few good ones into main space rather than have them slip into the gigantic trash incinerator that is Wikipedia's Deletion log. I leave the declined notifications up for transparency's sake and to remind me in case I get a sudden urge to want to improve a draft. LizRead!Talk! 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I placed a speedy deletion tag on Burale as it (in my opinion) makes no credible claim of significance, and I just noticed that you removed it. Could you help me understand your reasoning; what is the credible claim of significance in that article? I outlined my reasoning for requesting Speedy Deletion here, and I'm unsure where I went wrong. I largely based my argument (and understanding of the matter) on WP:CCOS.
Sorry for the delay in responding. There were a couple of factors that caused me to remove the CSD tag. This was the third time this article had been tagged for speedy deletion recently and the fact that it was untagged meant that other admins or editors didn't think speedy deletion was appropriate for this article. Retagging an article on the same grounds after it has been untagged is often not successful.
Second, I independently thought there was a credible claim of significance for this individual which is a lower bar than notability.
Finally, speedy deletion is a deletion process that is made for uncontroversial, obvious quick deletion decisions that, basically, any admin would agree on. Typically articles that are deleted through speedy deletion just disappear without anyone knowing that they ever existed except for the page creator. They are commonly recently created articles. This article has existed since 2006 and I don't think CSD is a process that should be used for long-standing articles that have stood the test of time. I recommend using WP:PROD or WP:AFD as this gives other editors the chance to look the article over and perhaps restore it to the best version of itself. Or, there might be a consensus that the subject is not notable, has never been notable and should be deleted. If this was the case and I was looking over an expired PROD or an AFD discussion, I would delete the article.
So, bottom line is, it was the fact that the article had been untagged multiple times and the fact that you chose CSD as a deletion process over other forms of deletion that would allow a review. I hope this explains things better. LizRead!Talk! 22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove links to speedily deleted articles[edit]
WP:RED heavily emphasizes this point:
Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.
After a deletion discussion with consensus such as those at WP:AFD, the general assumption is that the community has decided there should not be a Wikipedia article on that subject (with rare exceptions such as WP:TNT).
However, with speedy deletion it's usually the exact opposite: the issue is not the subject, but the article itself. Furthermore, it is decided by a single administrator and not the community, so there is certainly no consensus that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. Modernponderer (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a guideline and not a policy. Having seen the massive amounts of shit that is created and then CSD get rid of the red links, not sitting around for the day that the garage band is notable or could be notable. You may not like it but plenty of editors here feel different. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which removals have annoyed Modernponderer, but let me suggest some examples for what should or shouldn't be removed. If, say, Beechnut Records was created about a small record label, and then speedily deleted as promotional & giving no grounds of notability, them it would be right to completely remove entries about it from list pages such as Beechnut (disambiguation) and List of record labels, because there is no indication that these entries deserve to be there. However, links to the page from articles on bands who used that label should be left alone, because Special:WhatLinksHere/Beechnut_Recordsmight be useful in finding sufficient material to build a worthwhile article, and meanwhile it also provides one way to navigate between slightly-related articles. – FayenaticLondon 15:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (WP:TPS)[reply]
User:Unbroken Chain, you are completely wrong about guidelines. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines both have community consensus, which means if you do not follow a policy or guideline you risk being blocked. You on the other hand have expressed the opinion of a minority of editors, which does NOT have community consensus (and any editor who tries to "force" such an opinion onto Wikipedia may be blocked for that). Modernponderer (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far no one is rushing to agree with you...In fact another great example is cited by Fayenatic. The only one trying to force anything here is you...Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether someone agrees with me here is utterly irrelevant. If you refuse to follow a guideline, you will be blocked. Period. Modernponderer (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Modernponderer, I missed the most important part of your post, my apologies. My interpretation only deals with subjects that are clearly not notable (massive amounts of shit). I have myself created redlinks in articles I was writing and noted I would be expanding shortly. I read that an thought you meant ALL redlinks. The blocking stuff was an over the top reaction IMO. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I clarified the indecent exposure charge and some other claims to align with what sources state. When you have a moment, I would like to get your thoughts and have no issue with further changes. I also posted a note on the talk page. S0091 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To put you in the picture, I have established that all of the following accounts are socks of the same master: the article's author, its original AfD nominator, all of the accounts that !voted in the first time around, and all of the accounts that !voted 'keep' the second time, and the account that improperly closed the second discussion. Two other CUs have looked at the case we agree about the socking; it would be probably be eligible for G5, but since there are three delete votes from established accounts, I'd rather it were closed properly as a bulwark against its inevitable recreation. GirthSummit (blether) 17:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - Vanamonde closed it, no further action required. GirthSummit (blether) 18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, I made a few NACs of delete AfDs and they require article deletions. Can you help me with the deletion? I am thinking I should not have closed items which require deletion. The two articles are NoirCon and List of prehistoric insects. Thanks much Bruxton (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, you shouldn't have closed them. NAC closes with Keep, Speedy Keep, Redirect, Merge and No Consensus are fine but not Deletes. I'll check them out.
Also, for some reason, I see editors doing NAC closures before the 7 day discussion period is over. Please wait those 7 days unless it is an obvious Speedy Keep. Doing an NAC closure and an early closure can result in a call to Deletion review which, believe me, is no fun at all. LizRead!Talk! 20:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that help and information. Bruxton (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. I've marked this as unreviewed and added a CSD that might not work. Previously deleted by Whpq under G12; this seems poorly sourced, promotional, and might have copyvios, though you've marked this as reviewed. Was that automatic or did you find more sources demonstrating notability? If so, if you could point these out that would be great. Many thanks! VickKiang(talk) 08:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking this article over after seeing your original message. In my edit, I was responding to a different editor's CSD tag and removed it because I didn't think it fit the CSD criteria> Then you tagged it with a CSD with different criteria and User:Justlettersandnumbers was looking into whether or not there was copyrighted content on the article and then they turned the page into a redirect.
When I originally untagged this article, I was just comparing it to the version it was supposed to be a copy of, I wasn't assessing the details of the sourcing. I patrol the CSD categories and my focus is on whether or not the CSD criteria is valid. I didn't intend to mark the article as "reviewed" because I didn't examine it the way NPP are taught to do. I guess it is automatically marked as "reviewed" if an experienced editor (maybe extended confirmed?) edits the page. I'm not sure how to bypass that technological aspect because I never went through NPP training and I'm sure you guys probably have a list of aspects of the article you are checking over. VickKiang, I know you are an extremely thorough editor and it's amazing how completely you have absorbed so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your time editing on the project.
I will look over the discussion at Seffi ditch's talk page later, as I've had questions about some of their edits. LizRead!Talk! 21:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response. Might be because you are autopatrolled? Sometimes autopatrolled editors accept AfC drafts and these are automatically marked as reviewed. VickKiang(talk) 21:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz. Just explaining my rationale for the move of the above article to Martin Smith (Delirious?). A brief look at Martin Smith shows two people that are English musicians with that name – therefore an article titled "Martin Smith (English musician)" is still ambiguous. One of these two people is Martin Smith (drummer), which we disambiguate with their main instrument. The Martin Smith currently at Martin Smith (English musician) doesn't appear to have a primary instrument, so we can use their primary band to disambiguate – there is precedent at this; see Alan White. Smith's primary band is Delirious?, so it is a valid page title and should include the question mark. Would be great to hear your thoughts. Thanks! MIDI (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I moved this article back before I thoroughly read the page and so I thought the (Delirious?) was a mistake on your part. I was in a bit of a rush and I can see now why you moved it to this title. However, I still think there should be a better title as if it confused me, it might confuse readers who probably wouldn't search for Martin Smith (Delirious?) for one of our Martin Smiths. I don't recall seeing many disambiguations that include a band's name in the page title, it is usually their occupation or birth year.
No, I have no idea what or who this is but I look at hundreds of pages a day and so I need a reminder or two. Is it another editor? LizRead!Talk! 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was sonic fast. lol. Anyway, chatvod is a website, which ive mainly seen it used to be inserted into unblocked games websites as a chat room. the point is, There was an administrator on one of these customized chat rooms that had your name, and acted eerily similar to you. freaky. 50.109.155.4 (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for responding. I kinda stopped asking questions for a while because the person would just remove it from their talk page. even if my question is relevant 50.109.155.4 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's me, I either respond immediately or it takes me a few days. In Western countries, Liz or Elizabeth is a fairly common name so I'm not surprised if someone else had it as a username. But it's not me! I hope the similarity is that they were a decent person...I don't remove messages from my talk page unless it is a personal attack. You can look over my talk page and archives and find plenty of complaints about me (but also barnstars!). It's about transparency. LizRead!Talk! 03:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Qwerfjkl's talk page. Message added 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I wanted to respond to your comment on the DRV without derailing that discussion by doing it there!
First, I think the work you do in deletion is very valuable, and generally beyond reproach. I hope that the DRV experience doesn't entirely put you off closing potentially-controversial deletion discussions. I suppose more than anything (except maybe RFA) DRV feels like personal criticism but as a DRV contributor I certainly don't intend it that way; it's about the process, not the people. I do think we could do a better job of remembering that closing admins are actually real people too and need to be treated with respect and and assumption of good faith (... and maybe even ... kindness?)
That is very kind of you to say. To be honest, I've had worse experiences at other Deletion reviews I've been a part of where the discussion wasn't about the deletion decision it became about me. Some of the time, it becomes open season on an admin. There's just an editor here that comes to every review on a deletion decision I've made to imply I'm incompetent and it gets tiresome. Like a bad penny, they always show up. And to that particular editor who is reading this now, please move on, okay? Life is too short to have grudges on a collaborative editing project. And please tear up that list you are keeping with every mistake I've ever made on it. We're on the same side here.
The interesting thing, Thparkth, is that I've made other close calls at AFD where I thought either the nominator or an editor advocating Keep would bring the decision to be reviewed and it didn't turn out that way. But decisions that I think are pretty uncontroversial get referred to DRV. So, you never know. It's just strange, I've been an admin for 7 years and I never had a case come to deletion review in all of that time until 2022. But this year, I think I've been brought there 5 or 6 times. I don't think I've changed since 2015, if anything I'm a better admin than I was. But you live and learn and try not to make the same mistake a second time, that's my takeaway. Thanks again for your kindness. LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Secondarily related to the Gospel for Asia situation[edit]
The paid editor who used to be handling Gospel for Asia continues editing on either client accounts... such as today's addition of an Amazon sales link to an article (as well as claims of Amazon #1 category best-seller status -- if you don't know Amazon has many thousands of microcategories and updates sales charts hourly, so even if it were documented, categorical #1 is not notable, and can often be rigged with the purchase of a handful of books in the same hour.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that edit and left them a warning. Thanks for keeping an eye out for this kind of covert advertising. At least they do have a COI statement on their User page. LizRead!Talk! 22:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (Sorry if it seems odd to just shuttle something like that off to you, but I'm trying to maintain this retirement. I suspect you know how much of life Wikipedia editing can take up.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Nat. I've taken two WikiBreaks, first 6 months off in my first year and then two years off while I battled cancer, moved cross-country and did some coursework. My attitude to editors who retire is that we miss your expertise and please participate if you choose to, in what way you choose to. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk! 00:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didint know how to word it so my point was clear. Pretty much I wanted the islands in the vintage article to be deleted for the reasons i stated in the AFD. I didnt mean the sections I meant the articles that linked to those sections like La Vingtaine des Marais under Grouville in the Vingtaine page. Thats what I meant. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 00:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31 hours for trolling in support of abuse of addictive and dangerous and illegal drugs? That seems exceptionally lenient to me. Cullen328 (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess there remains in me the hope that editors who do vandalism in their first hour of being an editor can be turned around when they see we mean business. I doubt they will even return in 31 hours. But if it continues, the second block will be indefinite. They've been warned.
You have full right to mock me if my leniency is unrewarded. LizRead!Talk! 03:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mock my colleagues, Liz. I just felt that sterner measures were justified, but you beat me to the block button by a few seconds. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of a reluctant blocker of editors unless they are obvious vandals or sockpuppets. We have a constant need for new editors and I KNOW that some of our current editors were originally disruptive editors so I hope the shock of a short block will make them realize this isn't a place to screw around. But I'm wrong more often than right. There are plenty of admins who are quick on the block button so I just try to balance them out. And I stay away from unblock requests because I'm likely to grant them and then realize later that some folks don't take advantage of a second or third chances. I do less harm in letting those admins who are better judges of character and protestations of reform than I am handle them. LizRead!Talk! 03:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might take a few minutes. There are almost 800 edits to this page. LizRead!Talk! 06:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your awesomely fast response. Alternatively, please just restore the PRODded article. I was trying to figure out why I couldn't find an AfD... and so just reviewed the logs. I'm not impressed that the article was PRODded in the first place; thank you for the courtesy of creating a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are lucky! I either respond immediately to talk page requests or not...there are still some people waiting for help from the weekend that I haven't gotten to yet. It is easiest to just restore all of the edits than selectively go through and pick out just the edits you want restored so I did them all. Good luck with it. That reminds me, I need to relist some links that were unlinked after the PROD deletion. LizRead!Talk! 06:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, someone sees those and de-prods them before they get to the expiration phase. Unfortunately, the fictional character wasn't entitled "Sally Carrera (Cars)" so it was not obvious that this was a fictional element that had appeared in multiple media over 15 years or so. Again, thank you for your superlative responsiveness. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I just noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChicagoPride.com (2nd nomination) as delete. Apparently no one could find any sources for the topic. I just did a quick search for the website on ProQuest though, and found several examples of major news outlets discussing the website. I'm not sure if those examples would necessarily meet the criteria of providing significant coverage, as most of them seem to simply be news articles quoting or citing something from ChicagoPride.com. But there is this article from the Chicago Sun-Times, which describes that the website was featured on a travel show at one point.
I don't actually know a lot about this topic and wouldn't have any intention of working on the ChicagoPride.com article if it were restored. But I did feel it was worth noting that at least some news coverage of the topic does exist and seems to have been overlooked during the AfD process. Jpcase (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello liz, you recently deleted one of my drafts for being a hoax. I was writting a page about the micronation of pantonia. If its okay, I would like a few things. Fistly, would it be okay if you could give me a detailed description of the reason my draft was deleted? Secondly, I dont see how my micronation was a hoax, as it is very much the real deal, or maybe you dont know what a micronation is? But you seem like a very experienced wikipedia editor so you probably do know what it is. I clearly states on multiple parts of the website that Pantonia was a Micronation, also, a draft is a draft and if there was anything there that made you think it was a hoax like the references or some of the descriptions of Pantonian regions. I actually just copied my old page from Microwiki and gave it a masive revamp, so there might still be some weird stuff on there. I published the draft because I wanted to save my work, and it was also 3 AM for me and i needed some sleep. And thirdly, I did forget to save my work locally, and I personally think I put in quite a lot of work and especially into the info box. If you decided that you wont recover my draft, it would be very nice if you could send me the sorce code so i can have everything I wrote. Im sorry for bothering you, and I hope i havent sounded too mean in my message, and I hope you have a good day and that I could also get my source code back and maybe even get my draft brought back, Thanks alot! Alejandrochezboi (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2022 (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 didn't know you created this redirect. I didn't recognize the username and thought it was someone playing a prank or trying to make a bad pun. I'll restore the page but I think it might be taken to RFD. LizRead!Talk! 23:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the Michael Sugrue Page? 185.130.156.212 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have learnt a lot about the way you wikipedia editors operate after looking into this. One professor arguing for the deletion of another professor's page. The underbelly of this site is very strange indeed. 185.130.156.212 (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So my main IP range that I use Wikipedia on is 104.235.0.0/16, which is blocked due to a long history of vandalism. Can you revoke talk page access for the whole range? One of those IP's is going to make an extremely disruptive and sexual unblock request at some point tomorrow. Im pretty sure they will use multiple IPs on that range too. I dont want you and other admins to waste your time dealing with that. In case its suspicious that I know this, the person planning this literally just told me on discord an hour ago. I've tried convincing them to stop but they think its "funny". Im tired of the nonsense. Anyway... yeah. Get back to me if you can, cya. 50.103.194.7 (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Looks like they changed their mind, since its 15 minutes to midnight. 50.103.194.7 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I actually deleted it before I understood what the page was. I had deleted a few other "nonexistent user pages" tonight and that's where my mind went when I saw it. Now, it's 1:30 am so I should head to bed. G'night. LizRead!Talk! 09:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs are not a matter of counting votes. A closer has to weigh all of the arguments each editor makes and when I looked at that AFD today, I didn't have the time to consider all of the opinions put forth. I was leaving the closure to someone who might have more time or knowledge about weather-related subjects. But I'll look at it again tonight. Opinion was so divided in this discussion that it might be relisted. LizRead!Talk! 23:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For fixing my mistakes this morning. Again, sorry for adding to you workload. Wasn’t my intention and thanks for your patience. FuzzyMagma (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Belgians in France. 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. – The Grid (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, thank you for deleting this page, which was as a result of User:Larona Ignisious Seditse's move of WaddlesJP13's user page. I was going to notify the user when I get back to editing, but you've already done it, so thanks! VickKiang(talk) 08:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz - thank you for your help. Please check your mail[edit]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Liz. 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 wonder if you had the time to check my email? Hpm h (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Liz
I wonder if you had the time to check your email?
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
All the best Hpm h (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it required to post a notice of a speedy deletion on a user's talk page even if the editor in question is deceased? Just curious. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quick answer is "No". But how would you know that the editor is deceased? Using Twinkle, I just always post a user talk page notice every time I tag or delete a page, I don't check the status of an editor and whether or not they are alive or blocked. It's simpler than evaluating each page on a case-by-case basis.
But if you didn't post a user talk page notice given the fact that an editor is no longer living or is indefinitely blocked, well, I think you're okay. LizRead!Talk! 01:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. OK. I was just curious. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Savings Account (2022 film). 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. VickKiang(talk) 02:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After you closed this, DareshMohan started a deletion review. As per DRV step 3, Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page is required so I'm leaving this notice just in case. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 02:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you weighed in on a user talk page about some of their edits and wanted your input on this newly-created article. I *think* they should have put in attribution on the new page as the content was from the Alexander Hamilton article (though they did - sort of - mention the attribution here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&diff=prev&oldid=1124299844. Wanted to get some input on the situation because of massive reverts on all their List of memorials... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor did mention the Alexander Hamilton article when they created the new article but I did an edit to it where I made the attribution clearer. As for their many edits to the Hamilton article, it looks as if they are being reviewed by another editor and some of them have been reverted. I'll review their contribution history a bit later. LizRead!Talk! 21:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I saw their attribution but it seemed to me that perhaps it could have been a mite clearer plus was concerned that the edit summary would disappear into the mists of time/the parent article's edit history. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with these issues, it's better to be explicit. Thank you for noticing this and alerting me. LizRead!Talk! 22:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bare URLs at Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)?[edit]
Hi Liz. I recently removed a {{Cleanup bare URLs}} tag from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) as I did not see any bare URLs and I had recently been working on filling out some of the existing refs more fully (although I don't think any of them were originally bare to begin with when I started working on them). I noticed that you restored the tag here: Special:Diff/1124524759. I reviewed the article again, but still don't see any bare URLs remaining. Can you help by pointing out where any bare URLs are in that article so that I can try to fill them out? Thanks. – Archer1234 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was my mistake then. I found an editor, Crompton editz, who created some hoax articles and I was reverting some of their edits. I thought this was one of their edits. So, please, just revert me. Sorry about that. LizRead!Talk! 05:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the prompt reply. – Archer1234 (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it is very simple to just remove something... but, for someone that tries to copy someone else and get it in the same format it is not that simple. Specially when you work with a page, you edit it and before you are even done it gets refused. Well, maybe because Ira Myy Palapos dont have a fancy exam.. maybe because she now only have her second research published... and maybe only because she is a girl... I hope that it was because we didnt know how to use the Wikipedia editor - maybe in the future there will be an easier tool/GUI to work with... who knows.. IMC CMC (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading back, I am surprised by the strength of my assertations that, from aerials, there was evidence of a railroad between Ash Fork and Cucamonga Junction. The historical society corrected me several days ago, even as they confirmed the existence of the settlement, and I wish to strike through my origial interpretations.
I would also appreciate instruction on the policies for citing interviews of witnesses to the community. I will try to get them to direct me to print sources. IveGoneAway (talk) IveGoneAway (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of 'Category:Andrés Bello National University scholars'[edit]
Liz.. thanks for your patience and for moving the Invision Community discussion forward. I answered your question in a "wishy washy" way - What does it cost Wikipedia to have an article someone else thinks is important? I would suggest doing what you think is correct. PS you got a goat; all I have is cookies!Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1. This discussion is no doubt going to be a close one to call. My own views are constantly evolving as arguments are brought forth. However you decide to close this, I know it’ll be the right thing. :) ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 03:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's flattering, Flibbertigibbets and HelenDegenerate. But I've been called to Wikipedia:Deletion review several times this year and it almost always about having a personal opinion about a close. Considering that I delete a lot of articles I think could be kept, I don't see myself as Supervoting but that's how some editors have seen it. What I've learned is that it's all about how I word a closure rationale which I think is why so many closers just rely on simple "Keep" and "Delete" statements.
But I appreciate your vote of confidence. Thank you both for your contributions to the project. LizRead!Talk! 03:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I might change to keep.. just to make your job harder.. (per the "rules" the votes up or down are just to provide you with context and argument, to give the articles an opportunity to improve, they are looking for a thinking person to organize information and make a decision)
As a new editor I came to the conclusion (for me personally) that it was just too easy to vote up or down on something.
The right thing for me to do personally is== Alley of Angels ==
Please return the English page about the Alley of Angels in Donetsk, because it is an important memorial for the Russian and the Ukrainian people. We deeply regret the innocent children who suffered 8 years from the Ukrainian Government and we believe the page should be returned. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olesya12345 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving you 20% of my admin salary for answering questions on my talk page that get posted in the middle of the night while I'm sleeping! LizRead!Talk! 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(and if it's not obvious, that's a joke. i need all my pay ;-) LizRead!Talk! 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
What can be discussed? Is there such a monument in Donetsk? Yes. This is a monument to the children who died as a result of the civil war. Why was this page removed? What's the difference, Russian sources or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekurin (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Campaigns Product Team Office Hour - December 2022[edit]
In V1, the following new features will be includedː
Support for the organizer to specify an event timezone
Automatic confirmation emails after participants have registered
Private registration: the option for participants to register and only display their registered username to organizers of the event and we will teach you how you can use it yourself.
Office Hour Sessions:
1st Session: December 5, 2022 @ 18:00 UTC via Zoom
2nd Session: December 10, 2022 @ 12:00 UTC via Zoom
These office hours will be multilingual, with live interpretations in Arabic, English, French, and Swahili. Email us @ ibrazal-ctr@wikimedia.org or sign-up here if you want to receive a reminder for this meeting.
Thank you.
The Campaigns Product Team
Requesting restoration of article to draft for moving to AfC[edit]
I noticed that you were one of the two admins who deleted the page Chanale. I would like to continue editing the article in order to improve it for eventual re-review through AfC. I have the last article code copied from before the deletion, but do not wish for its history, including its original creator and editors to be lost. As such, I was wondering if there is a way to return the article to draft space, so it can receive further updates, and maintain its history. Is this possible?
Thank you kindly, GreenEli (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this article and moved it to Draft space. You can find it at Draft:Chanale. I know it can be tiresome to go through AFC but if you move it directly back into main space without an AFC review, the page will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4, and it is unlikely to be restored a second time. So, please take some time, review comments made during the AFD discusion and try to address the editors' concerns. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 21:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work my way through the process as best I can. I'm not looking to get around things. When I moved it into the main space, I thought that it was ready to go once I'd made the edits I had after picking it up. It just turns out that was not the case in the eyes of the editors/admins who nominated it for deletion, and they did not agree with my points of defense. I'll do my best to improve the article before moving it to AfC.
Thanks again, and Happy Holidays, GreenEli (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the pages just showed up on the Broken Redirects list maintained by AnomieBot III. "
But a lottery website? It's hard to see how there can be an article about that subject that isn't advertising. LizRead!Talk! 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it has virtually no chance at mainspace based on sourcing I didn't find. For the moment it's protected to stop the repeated moves and allow for proper AfC assessment. StarMississippi 23:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Star Mississippi, if you are feeling particularly wise and judicious, there is a complicated and fraught WWII-related AFD to close on today's list. And one about Shakira that is less fraught but I commented on the discussion so I am abstaining for the closure.
As for myself, I'm getting tired of going to Deletion review on a monthly basis so I'm tackling the low-hanging fruit. I guess I need more time helping out at AFD for my closures to carry more gravitas and weight. LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got a lot of the low hanging fruit in terms of redirects this morning, so it was time to pay the piper with the Canadian Nazi monument discussion. I must be tired - I found that easier to assess than Shakira. StarMississippi 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good for you! Thank you and may your talk page be free from blowback. LizRead!Talk! 03:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost positive that one will go to DRV, hence my closing disclaimer. NOt because of how I closed it, but I think any close was headed there. StarMississippi 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree! I know it will go to DRV and I've already been there once this month, I'm trying to limit my appearances there as some folks use it as an opportunity to unload on you. Hence, my reluctance at diving into controversial AFD discussions. I also stayed away from AFDs regarding football players for a few months before that world quieted down and became less of a battlefield. I'm ever grateful for the few admins who don't close a lot of discussions but who take the few ones that are most heated and divided. And when I read their decisions, they make things seem so clear. I've been doing this for 7 years but I still have much to learn. LizRead!Talk! 04:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a sports fan, but I HATE the sports AfDs for several reasons: consensus is clear as mud on athlete notability, way too much "Keep/Delete per X" without any reasoning and everyone is burned out so there's too often not enough input to establish consensus. I think I'm at DRV twice right now, just took myself (err, the discussion) to AN to get it closed since it was open since mid October. ANI, DRV simultaneously is definitely something I don't want to revisit. But we survive the crazy and are somehow still here. I'll take care of Shakira tomorrow if no one gets there first. StarMississippi 04:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
To start off with, no chance I'm closing that DRV.
I read your comments, and I so understand the feeling.
Looking around and seeing so many "closers" who only close the obvious, or just count "votes", can be disenheartening, to be sure.
And kudos to you for stepping up and closing the challenging ones.
I've also been caught in the sometimes catch-22 of "try to add more to the close to explain your close". There are days that I wonder even if a certified (certifiable?) lawyer could come up with the right text to say - "This close is a result of the discussion and per policy/guideline/common practice assessment, per Wikipedia:Consensus, and here's what everyone said..." Or sumptin'
So with all that said, please don't stop doing the good work you do.
And not that it means overly that much (merely being from a single Wikipedian - me) but here, a token of esteem:
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all the hard work and seemingly thankless tasks you have done and continue to do - Thank you : ) - jc37 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I hope that you're having an awesome day : ) - jc37 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently they added this barnstar option last year. I think it's fair to say that you've more than earned this over the years : )
The Closer's Barnstar
For the hard work you do in closing discussions, including and especially the tough ones - Thank you : ) - jc37 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again : ) - jc37 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you, jc37. I appreciate it. But I actually just moved into closing AFD discussions in January 2022 when it seemed like the area could use a few more admins helping out there. But it's now part of my daily routine. My goal in 2023 is to have fewer appearances at DRV but, in some cases, even when the opinions are unanimous, someone can object to a discussion close. So, I can work on doing a better job and leave more articulate closing statements but there are some divided closures that you know will be contested, regardless of how it is closed. It's important not to take criticism personally, even when it gets personal. We are all a work-in-progress. As is Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk! 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've seen you using my query. Thanks! I'd just like to let you know I have a slightly updated version at quarry:query/68613 that excludes those weird IPs with the xxx at the end, if you'd be interested in forking and using this one instead.
I'd also like to plug the bigger version at quarry:query/68085 that includes subpages and talk pages. I've noticed often times users will also mistakenly create or move pages to subpages or talk pages of non-existent users and these pages won't be caught by the above query. If you ever have the urge or find yourself with nothing better to do, it would be awesome if we could eventually churn through the current ~1400 results so we can better keep track of this issue. If not, no big deal!
Thanks! Uhai (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would have been nice to alert you to me using it. I've forked queries from other folks and used them but this one was new to me. I don't mean to step on your toes or take your work for granted. I typically run it twice a day and most days, it just comes back with those two weird User accounts that are a false positive.
I'd love to help you out with your project when time allows. User space can be a little tricky to handle with deletions but as long as they are nonexistent user accounts, they are not User pages that exist as a result of renames and we look at them each individually, I think we'll be okay. Thanks again for creating this query. LizRead!Talk! 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, just happy it's being used. It's probably a good thing you're using it and keeping on top of the pages and it keeps me from having to move the pages and nominate the redirects for deletion for some other admin to have to take care of. Uhai (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm finding is that it is frequently student editors who are taking a Wikipedia-related course, who want to move their drafts to main space, but they don't realize that they need to change the namespace when they move a page, from User to None/Article. So, I move them to Draft space and delete the page as a nonexistent editor. But sometimes, some admins will just delete the pages instead of moving the drafts so I try to get to them first. Even if these drafts are eventually deleted in 6 months, I think it would be a shock to a student to just find their work gone...better to house it in Draft space if it is not main space-ready. LizRead!Talk! 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi curious why you deleted Clozee page Stub was creating in english after seeing clozee in french using independent sources. Artedm (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted Clozee because it was a redirect to Draft:Clozee. We delete redirects from main space to Draft space (CSD R2). If you look at the page, you can see this reason noted in the deletion rationale.
But I can see that you created the draft article so you are already familiar with the page and are working on it. I encourage you to submit it to WP:AFC for review. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback but the same user who denied WP:AFC was the one who created the redirect Artedm (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully, you'll get a different reviewer the second time. LizRead!Talk! 02:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a while back you deleted United States political party color templates. I am curious as to why, because this was very useful in making parliamentry diagrams, and the Simple Wikipedia one isn't nearly as good.
If you click on the link you provided, you can see that all I did was delete the category that contained the templates because it was an empty category, CSD C1. You'll probably have to go look at WP:TFD to find out why these templates were nominated for deletion, why they were deleted and who deleted them. But in my experience, templates are not deleted due to speedy deletion, unless it is a template creator requesting deletion, they are always deleted after being nominated at TFD. There is a small group of editors who frequent TFD so if you can't find the specific deletion discussion, I'd approach one of the regulars and see if they can locate the discussion for you. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 05:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, did you receive my message of last Wednesday in which I asked you to delete two revisions? If you think I should ask someone else, please let me know. MarkussepTalk 09:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the
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.
This was my first ever article, so i am still learning as i go. May you please undelete my article so i may continue to work on fixing it and continue to learn and use the same topic. The topic for the article is very important to me. Thank you. Apocalyptic Revelation (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG Thank you for telling me, though i do not understand how it may come across as a type of advertisement, when i am simply giving information about it. In that regard, any article discussing any type of religion would be considered advertisement. Also i do understand the need for better citing and reliable resources, but to completely delete my article without even giving me a chance to fix or even redo it (as this was my first time) is a bit excessive. Apocalyptic Revelation (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are hereby awarded The Closer's Barnstar for excellent work closing AFDs. You may within fourteen (14) days of issuance choose to exchange this for a Barnstar of Reliable Deletionism instead, if that suits you better. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia featured topics Square Enix Montreal good content was being used as the |ftname= on Square Enix Montreal and other articles. The article was temporarily moved and the ftname incorrectly changed to redlink, resulting in the category being emptied and subsequently deleted. The article has since been moved back to its former name. Could you restore the category so it can regain its intended use? Thanks! IceWelder [✉] 22:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a FYI for the train wreck at the stalled project. The idea of the project has been suggested for some time. However, low level energy and general pessimism about raising enough supporters had been a point of contention in the past, so when the Victorian Transport project idea was put up, it was done with no consultation in the community and simply side step/avoid the project council process, another editor came in and changed it to the australian variety. However it seems there are some short fuses involved in the being shown the process, and it remains strictly speaking, in suspension. It is highly likely that given a space of time (ie there is no deadline) and the appropriate hoops required by a few editors to put it through the required steps, it could fill a very specific need in the australian transport subject area. If what remains in suspension gets zapped, so be it, but a bit of understanding and patience, there is every chance that the project could be up and running. Noting that subsidiary projects in the larger australian project that have been created in the last 5 years or so have no sign of having been processed in the project council procedures. It would be good if there was some patience with this one if it is put through the procedure without too many limited understanding judgement claims about the scope and capacity of the project to garner support and cooperation. JarrahTree 06:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but I'd appreciate it if you could help me understand why you are directing this message to me. My only involvement as been tagging empty categories for CSD C1 deletion. I do that with all empty categories that don't meet one of the very limited group of exceptions (categories being discussed at CFD, disambiguation categories, redirect categories, etc.).
I did post a talk page message to one of the two organizers asking him what was up with the project but that was a few days ago, when the entire project looked like it was imploding. I don't think I was too blunt, I was just seeking information. So, please tell me what I can be more patient about since I haven't thought about this WikiProject for several days now. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another WikiProject started very quickly with the best of intention that soon quiets down once organizers realize how much work is involved. I don't expect to make any more comments about it in the future. I keep very busy on Wikipedia and I moved on for thinking about this WikiProject days ago. LizRead!Talk! 06:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and apologies. Please ignore, and if it goes anywhere from where it is I am sure the machinations and resolutions of the 'in suspension' aspect of the potential project will not bother you again.
I had felt the need to explain just in case there was further 'delete everything' message to you, from anyone who might try to hijack the rebuilding. (My perception entirely)
Hopefully there will be a due process rebuild of the immanent project and it wont require any speedy deletes of any sort. Keep up the good work! JarrahTree 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say that Specialty Channel is an Essay I totally agree with @Oaktree b Also if there are two articles with original research that cross reference; redirection to one article would perhaps be an intermediary step forward--- (I cannot participate in that particular AFD) as there is a potential behavioral problem in play. Nate, an editor since 2005, sees the same concern. addressed the concern in total Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as a message hasn't been responded to, you can just remove it, you don't need to strike it. I hadn't seen it until now and it looks like you had second thoughts about posting it. LizRead!Talk! 19:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was great to find that a misunderstanding could be addressed with another editor (and a credit to the other editor as well). I looked at ANI and came to the conclusion that it just was not productive and could cause headaches and ulcers. On another note; I am giving quite a bit of thought to AFD guidelines as written vs what is applied. I am beginning to think that 1) the "bias" in approaching any AFD discussion should be "to keep" (since the opening move on AFD requires the person nominating to provide a rationale for deleting). 2) a keep requires that the rational for deletion be addressed 3) many folks throw stuff around from links to WP:acronyms with little consideration for things like "future attribution," overview, improving the article et all 4) I wish there was a "home" for stuff that gets deleted (put a big red warning and disclaimer on it) 5) Me personally, I would want you (and other admins) to be able to weigh the arguments made on the merits (with far less emphasis or concern on keep/delete). Regards (just musing, thinking is underrated) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think, of anybody, you know the most about of my activities this last few weeks.
I opened my computer this morning to see a notice from WP that went something like "your IP address has been blocked" until July 2023. I probably I was not logged on to WP at the time. In the process of trying to figure out what happened, I lost the original block message page, and I don't seem to be able to re-trigger that block message. I could hope that the first link with such a message would be directly to the reasons for the specific block, but I could not find any. Now, I don't know where to look. Is there anything I should do about this now? What should my concerns be?
I was wanting to start continuing work on the Cucamonga Junction Draft. Some of the hatnotes of the draft's talk page point to other pages or topics, and it seems some of them should be changed (like references to Chair Crossing, Arizona). I am afraid to touch them. Should I wait for members of the projects to notice and fix?
I want certain notes, observations, and conclusions of the research to be public to other editors, but as I started to add such notes to Draft talk:Cucamonga Junction, Arizona I now have misgivings. My thought now is that that the draft's talk page is presently a continuation of Talk:Cucamonga Junction, Arizona, and would similarly be a continuation of discussions of the draft should the draft be returned to the main space. I think I should treat is as any other talk page, right?
There are a lot of different questions here. I'll just try to address the block notice right now. I don't do a lot of blocking except for vandalism and am not familiar with that notice but it could be that there is a range block right now that affects the IP you edit from. This would mean that you can't edit when you are logged out but it wouldn't affect your editing as long as you are logged in. Although I can try to help with this concern, it is usually better to go to the Teahouse with a question like this because many more admins will see it and they might have more understanding of the situation than an individual admin like myself has.
Regarding your editing articles, are you uncertain about working on the articles because of this block notice?
I'm not sure what your "notes, observations and conclusions" are but all references should be from publicly available sources. They are used to verify claims in an article or draft. For example, you can't post the contents of a letter or email you received to an article page or talk page. This is private correspondence and is considered a private, primary source. Articles need independent, secondary sources like journals, books, magazines, mainstream media/news websites, not your private research you might have done. Please see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for more information on this. Doing your own research is great as a way for you to learn more information about a subject but unless it is digging up more acceptable sources that can be used in an article, it is usually not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you have questions about whether or not a particular source is okay, then the Reliable Source Noticeboard is the place to go with this question.
I'm sure I haven't answered all of your questions yet but here are just some initial comments to your post. LizRead!Talk! 19:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
As I have mentioned, the volumes I previously posted on the topic were not my normal practice on the wiki (I usually work 2-4 years in wiki silence on a new page). Rather, due to the re-listing, I was trying to show that I was actively seeking citations. Within the time constraints of draftication, I think there is less pressure for that. Generally, there would have been no other reason to list the contacts I was making or listing the technically non-WP:RS but nevertheless good faith profiles of the community.
Probably, there are only a couple of topics I am thinking of posting, and both are actually in response to posts of the other editors.
From the delete discussion, two (well-informed) books bear the name of the community, and I have completed reading both. Never would I suggest citing them, but their clear existance should be addressed at least in Talk, stating with accurate observation rather than speculation why they are not RS. Eventually, I will be looking to see how minor historical novels inspired by a topic have been mentioned on WP, it at all, maybe under Legacy or Further reading. That can probably wait.
The other point is that I am addressing specific criticisms of the topic in the Delete discussion. This also can wait, I suppose.
I think now, I will continue developing the citations somewhere in my sandbox, and only add confirmed RS into the Draft, editing the latter as I would main space. Really, draftification has made things more workable.
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.
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I responded to your deletion notice by requesting undeletion of my page for WIlf Perreault, and am now trying to insert a 'you've got mail' message as per the instruction. yes, I confuse easily. Thanks for understanding.
I'm heading out in a bit and I'll try to check my email before then or you could state your case here. As for formatting, just don't put templates in a header and I think you'll be okay. LizRead!Talk! 21:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are always so quick to undo any edit like you did in Mujhe Pyar Hua Tha. In this case you clearly see that the article contains unreliable sources based on Instagram posts but you still remove the tag.
Prod tag can be removed by any editor but are encouraged to explain why, and improve the article. For now, I'm moving this page to the AfD discussion (and you could do this too) and you can defend the page on there. Thanks M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that those who de-PROD an article are encouraged to address concerns in an edit summary, I've been here for quite a few years now. But it is not a requirement and there is no reason that can justify you replacing a PROD tag that has been removed. You don't get to do that for any reason with a PROD (a BLPPROD is a different story). It's fine that you now nominated the article at AFD, that happens all of the time with articles that have been de-PROD'd. I have absolutely no opinion on what should happen with this article, I was enforcing a policy, not "defending" the article. I typically do not nominate articles at AFD, I close a lot of discussions there instead and sometimes participate as a regular editor in discussions where I do have a point of view on what should happen with an article.
By the way, I don't know if you noticed but in both an article you PROD'd, that was de-PROD'd, and an AFD you nominated, you used the deletion rationale that "there are no online sources". That is not a valid reason for an article to be deleted which is why the article was de-PROD'd and why the AFD looks like it will be closed as Keep. You are likely to be more successful if you present a deletion rationale that is based in Wikipedia policy. See you around AFD. LizRead!Talk! 06:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieve content of deleted page: Draft:Yes_No_Oracles[edit]
Hello Liz,
My page "Draft:Yes_No_Oracles" was deleted due to a quote that triggered a copy right violation. I apologize for the error, I was under the impression, based on Wikipedia's copy right policies: Wikipedia:Quotations allowed quotations if properly sighted, which i thought I did, but must not be understanding something.
So I would like to retrieve the content of article and hopefully re-post it without the quote altogether.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is retrieve content of deleted page: Draft:Yes_No_Oracles. 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.
First, please do not send me an email. I'll answer a talk page message much faster than an email message.
Second, I rarely restore an article with a copyright violation but, in this case, it was simple to remove the large section of content that was a copyright violation. This was not "a quote", this was a substantial amount of content. You can't copy paragraphs from another source and put quotes around it and that makes it okay. All content has to be in your own words except for, maybe, a phrase or a sentence. You can't copy blocks of text.
So, I have restored this article and used revision deletion to cover the copyright violation. You might think this is an overreaction but copyright violations are a legal problem and so Wikipedia takes them very seriously. Good luck with your article. LizRead!Talk! 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
Following your recommendations and advice, I realize the errors I made when writing my article. These include a lack of paraphrasing, and using quotations from other sources that were too long (and could have been condensed and paraphrased). I'm sure that you can understand the sentiment of getting lost in your writing, and making mistakes when it comes to decorum and standard procedure. I understand the immediate severity of copyright violations, the importance of properly citing the intellectual property of others, and why a violation of this would be unacceptable in the context of a platform as large as Wikipedia--or elsewhere.
I very much appreciate your quick response to this issue, and your feedback.
Should there be any further issues, please contact me while allowing my writing to remain available to me for editing purposes. Per the policies listed on Wikipedia (see here: Wikipedia:Quotations), I was under the impression that using quotations was acceptable, in the case that you ensure credit was given to the original author. Nevertheless, I understand the original removal of my article being that the conceptualization of what comprises a paragraph is highly ambiguous, particularly in the context of an article that, aside from that section of quotations, was written entirely by me.
Wikipedia has an awful lot of policies and guidelines and new editors are not expected to know them all. But copyright violations and Biography of Living Persons issues are treated like emergencies so there are frequently no warnings given before page deletion. It sounds like you understand this aspect of Wikipedia editing better and I wish you good luck.
If you ever have questions about policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. LizRead!Talk! 02:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked that sock you suspected. If you like you can add it to the SPI and ask a(nother) CU for a rangeblock--I'm not sure that there's much of a point to it, but I'm not the best person to judge that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for letting me know. I'm generally not so good at spotting socks but now that I spend so much time perusing AFD-land, I've kept my eye out for brand new editors who show up there with strong opinions. I don't think I even knew about AFD during my first year editing so it seems like a peculiar place to head on your first day as a new editor. LizRead!Talk! 04:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing Liz--I saw your note and after looking at it I thought you had a point--so maybe you're not bad at it! Drmies (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct, the appropriate target was Ottawa Catholic School Board. Thanks for alerting me so I could correct this mistake. LizRead!Talk! 19:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space, which has a ton of pages that need speedy deletion. Please bear with me if I put the wrong tag on any of the pages. I trust you to delete (or not) the pages using a rationale that makes sense to you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've found your deletion tagging to be most appropriate. Thank you so much for diving into the dustbins of old User pages as well as Template pages and clearing out the mistakes made by long-ago new editors. It's not the most glamorous or visible task on the project but it serves a great purpose of clearing out some completely unnecessary pages. It is appreciated! LizRead!Talk! 19:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry to bother you, but I need somebody respected and non-controversial at AfD to lay down the law on someone who continues to act poorly, even when recent discussion has not apparently impressed them with the seriousness of their misbehavior. In this process, user Dronebogus has twice attempted to close a process which they commenced. I had a discussion with them on their talk and I thought it ended well. Yet today, they closed it a second time. My contacting you and asking for help is an alternative to starting an ANI discussion. Could you look over these links and see if I'm missing something? BusterD (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have also closed this process (as no consensus) in which they have commented. They're not getting it. BusterD (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm flattered if you think I'm a respected and non-controversial closer. I've had my share of visits to Deletion review this year though. It's sometimes an unpleasant experience.
I thought your talk page messages were great! You were instructive, calm and gracious. I can't see how anyone could take offense at what you suggested. You might be surprised how few admins try to talk these things out on talk pages and instead just take abrupt action to make their point. I did revert their MFD close and hopefully they will see my edit summary. I can see how this might end up at ANI if this behavior persists. After a certain amount of longevity on the project, some editors feel comfortable bending the rules because they believe they understand policy well enough and they don't expect to be challenged. I've found usually one talk page message is sufficient, I would hope that would be the case here but we'll see.
Nominators closing their own AFDs is questionable, but I see it at AFD as well. Usually they are no Delete votes but I would prefer that a nominator just post a withdrawal of their nomination and let another editor close the deletion discussion. But some nominators prefer to close their own discussions if there are numerous Keep opinions.
Any way, I hope my comment have helped. It was nice to see you participating in some AFD discussions, we really could use a lot more editors and admins weighing in on these deletion discussions. I really don't like deleting some articles based on the opinions of just 2 or 3 editors but I think I'm getting a bad reputation for an over-reliance on relisting. But I can see where people can burn out on the XFD area of the project. LizRead!Talk! 01:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this message before seeing your update. I'll give it a look. LizRead!Talk! 01:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages, I reverted their closure but then realized that I saw it also as No-consensus but I would have mentioned that I'd mark the WikiProject as "inactive". But then I went to the WikiProject and saw that it was already marked as "defunct" which didn't come up in the discussion. So, I restored their closure. LizRead!Talk! 01:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The third one was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PrisonedMuffin, where they close a process prematurely that they have asserted keep in. Note in history that they've previously attempted to close this as speedy keep, a clear super!vote. This is all kinds of bad. I have asked them to stop making such closures, to prevent them getting sanctioned. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. the CFD is incomplete, but it's best to bring this problem to the talk page of the admin or editor who closed the deletion discussion. I don't do work at CFD and so I don't know how to best resolve this. But the editor who closed the CFD discussion will. I recommend you copy & paste this comment to their talk page and see what they have to say. LizRead!Talk! 07:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you deleted Bund für Menschenrecht, which left a bold red link] in several archives. I added it to Germany's DYK when it appeared but don't remember the content. Can it perhaps be put in draft space, to check if it can be "adopted" by other users? Or what else could we do? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't restore articles created by a sockpuppet that have been deleted but I have seen instances in the past of another editor "taking responsibility" for an article and it being restored. I don't think you will find this action mentioned anywhere on policy pages, I've just seen other admins do this on occasion. So, I have restored the page at Draft:Bund für Menschenrecht. Restoring the page doesn't mean that another editor won't tag it for deletion on the same CSD G5 grounds so it would help if you made a contributions of substance to the draft article. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 00:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the AFD, there is a duplicate of the deleted article at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle so there is no point in restoring a deleted article and moving it to User or Draft space if there is alread an existing draft. I'd work on improving the draft and getting it approved by AFC. I'm afraid if you move the draft directly into main space, it might be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4.
I don't know of a quick way to restore a link that has been unlinked months ago and I'm not sure that I am the editor responsible for doing any unlinking. I have over 400,000 edits and there's not an easy way to search thousands of Contribution pages to find specific article edits, especially if they are not from today. I have a very busy schedule so it might be quicker for you to do a search on Wikipedia for "Warrant officer schools of the Russian Armed Forces" and take care of the links yourself. It's not a task that requires the abilities of an administrator. LizRead!Talk! 00:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter[edit]
Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here.
Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.
Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo.
*All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hello. I already recreated one, March from Selma to Montgomery, and would like to create the second which was deleted Marches from Selma to Montgomery but saw the note to contact the deleting admin. These two redirects work well, and I was surprised that they haven't been created before. Could you (or I) go ahead and recreate the second one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely NOTHING inappropriate about my article. It was literally public knowledge backed up by articles to corroborate all the claims. I haven't bothered with further edits because you idiots refuse to put it up. Get a life and f off! Snakeplissken10 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are having an otherwise good day. If you are referring to Draft:Pamela Panzenbeck, we delete drafts and some User space pages that have not been edited in 6 months. I never said anything about "inappropriateness", this is just Wikipedia policy about expiring drafts (see WP:CSD). If you would like this page restored to continue to work on the article, just ask or you can go to WP:REFUND and make a request and talk to the "idiots" there. LizRead!Talk! 19:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)R[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error[edit]
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to seek to improve the article no matter the vote of keep or delete. In my talk page I bucked the rules with a (soap-boxy) observation that "playing emperor" comes with a responsibility to actually do something tangible.
AS to changing opinion based on the presentation facts (or other opinions); it's usually a sign of critical thinking or thinkers..
I ran into Isaac Asimov as a young adult in 1983; when I asked him for advice for dealing with the future he suggested (paraphrase) "don't let technology make you into a Robot." So yeah.. thinking people should have personal opinions and revise them as needed. A personal hero Buckminster Fuller, who I never met, suggested in his writings that "truth or fact" could only be ascertained in a narrow band of science (provable fact being a rare thing). Another Asimov quote, it might be heretical, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I really liked this User:Beyond My Ken/Thoughts because it demonstrated to me that someone was really thinking; there has to be more thinking and fewer robots!
Please return the English page about the Alley of Angels in Donetsk, because it is an important memorial for the Russian and the Ukrainian people. We deeply regret the innocent children who suffered 8 years from the Ukrainian Government and we believe the page should be returned. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olesya12345 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving you 20% of my admin salary for answering questions on my talk page that get posted in the middle of the night while I'm sleeping! LizRead!Talk! 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(and if it's not obvious, that's a joke. i need all my pay ;-) LizRead!Talk! 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
What can be discussed? Is there such a monument in Donetsk? Yes. This is a monument to the children who died as a result of the civil war. Why was this page removed? What's the difference, Russian sources or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekurin (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Campaigns Product Team Office Hour - December 2022[edit]
In V1, the following new features will be includedː
Support for the organizer to specify an event timezone
Automatic confirmation emails after participants have registered
Private registration: the option for participants to register and only display their registered username to organizers of the event and we will teach you how you can use it yourself.
Office Hour Sessions:
1st Session: December 5, 2022 @ 18:00 UTC via Zoom
2nd Session: December 10, 2022 @ 12:00 UTC via Zoom
These office hours will be multilingual, with live interpretations in Arabic, English, French, and Swahili. Email us @ ibrazal-ctr@wikimedia.org or sign-up here if you want to receive a reminder for this meeting.
Thank you.
The Campaigns Product Team
Requesting restoration of article to draft for moving to AfC[edit]
I noticed that you were one of the two admins who deleted the page Chanale. I would like to continue editing the article in order to improve it for eventual re-review through AfC. I have the last article code copied from before the deletion, but do not wish for its history, including its original creator and editors to be lost. As such, I was wondering if there is a way to return the article to draft space, so it can receive further updates, and maintain its history. Is this possible?
Thank you kindly, GreenEli (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this article and moved it to Draft space. You can find it at Draft:Chanale. I know it can be tiresome to go through AFC but if you move it directly back into main space without an AFC review, the page will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4, and it is unlikely to be restored a second time. So, please take some time, review comments made during the AFD discusion and try to address the editors' concerns. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 21:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work my way through the process as best I can. I'm not looking to get around things. When I moved it into the main space, I thought that it was ready to go once I'd made the edits I had after picking it up. It just turns out that was not the case in the eyes of the editors/admins who nominated it for deletion, and they did not agree with my points of defense. I'll do my best to improve the article before moving it to AfC.
Thanks again, and Happy Holidays, GreenEli (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the pages just showed up on the Broken Redirects list maintained by AnomieBot III. "
But a lottery website? It's hard to see how there can be an article about that subject that isn't advertising. LizRead!Talk! 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it has virtually no chance at mainspace based on sourcing I didn't find. For the moment it's protected to stop the repeated moves and allow for proper AfC assessment. StarMississippi 23:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Star Mississippi, if you are feeling particularly wise and judicious, there is a complicated and fraught WWII-related AFD to close on today's list. And one about Shakira that is less fraught but I commented on the discussion so I am abstaining for the closure.
As for myself, I'm getting tired of going to Deletion review on a monthly basis so I'm tackling the low-hanging fruit. I guess I need more time helping out at AFD for my closures to carry more gravitas and weight. LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got a lot of the low hanging fruit in terms of redirects this morning, so it was time to pay the piper with the Canadian Nazi monument discussion. I must be tired - I found that easier to assess than Shakira. StarMississippi 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good for you! Thank you and may your talk page be free from blowback. LizRead!Talk! 03:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost positive that one will go to DRV, hence my closing disclaimer. NOt because of how I closed it, but I think any close was headed there. StarMississippi 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree! I know it will go to DRV and I've already been there once this month, I'm trying to limit my appearances there as some folks use it as an opportunity to unload on you. Hence, my reluctance at diving into controversial AFD discussions. I also stayed away from AFDs regarding football players for a few months before that world quieted down and became less of a battlefield. I'm ever grateful for the few admins who don't close a lot of discussions but who take the few ones that are most heated and divided. And when I read their decisions, they make things seem so clear. I've been doing this for 7 years but I still have much to learn. LizRead!Talk! 04:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a sports fan, but I HATE the sports AfDs for several reasons: consensus is clear as mud on athlete notability, way too much "Keep/Delete per X" without any reasoning and everyone is burned out so there's too often not enough input to establish consensus. I think I'm at DRV twice right now, just took myself (err, the discussion) to AN to get it closed since it was open since mid October. ANI, DRV simultaneously is definitely something I don't want to revisit. But we survive the crazy and are somehow still here. I'll take care of Shakira tomorrow if no one gets there first. StarMississippi 04:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
To start off with, no chance I'm closing that DRV.
I read your comments, and I so understand the feeling.
Looking around and seeing so many "closers" who only close the obvious, or just count "votes", can be disenheartening, to be sure.
And kudos to you for stepping up and closing the challenging ones.
I've also been caught in the sometimes catch-22 of "try to add more to the close to explain your close". There are days that I wonder even if a certified (certifiable?) lawyer could come up with the right text to say - "This close is a result of the discussion and per policy/guideline/common practice assessment, per Wikipedia:Consensus, and here's what everyone said..." Or sumptin'
So with all that said, please don't stop doing the good work you do.
And not that it means overly that much (merely being from a single Wikipedian - me) but here, a token of esteem:
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all the hard work and seemingly thankless tasks you have done and continue to do - Thank you : ) - jc37 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I hope that you're having an awesome day : ) - jc37 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently they added this barnstar option last year. I think it's fair to say that you've more than earned this over the years : )
The Closer's Barnstar
For the hard work you do in closing discussions, including and especially the tough ones - Thank you : ) - jc37 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again : ) - jc37 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you, jc37. I appreciate it. But I actually just moved into closing AFD discussions in January 2022 when it seemed like the area could use a few more admins helping out there. But it's now part of my daily routine. My goal in 2023 is to have fewer appearances at DRV but, in some cases, even when the opinions are unanimous, someone can object to a discussion close. So, I can work on doing a better job and leave more articulate closing statements but there are some divided closures that you know will be contested, regardless of how it is closed. It's important not to take criticism personally, even when it gets personal. We are all a work-in-progress. As is Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk! 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've seen you using my query. Thanks! I'd just like to let you know I have a slightly updated version at quarry:query/68613 that excludes those weird IPs with the xxx at the end, if you'd be interested in forking and using this one instead.
I'd also like to plug the bigger version at quarry:query/68085 that includes subpages and talk pages. I've noticed often times users will also mistakenly create or move pages to subpages or talk pages of non-existent users and these pages won't be caught by the above query. If you ever have the urge or find yourself with nothing better to do, it would be awesome if we could eventually churn through the current ~1400 results so we can better keep track of this issue. If not, no big deal!
Thanks! Uhai (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would have been nice to alert you to me using it. I've forked queries from other folks and used them but this one was new to me. I don't mean to step on your toes or take your work for granted. I typically run it twice a day and most days, it just comes back with those two weird User accounts that are a false positive.
I'd love to help you out with your project when time allows. User space can be a little tricky to handle with deletions but as long as they are nonexistent user accounts, they are not User pages that exist as a result of renames and we look at them each individually, I think we'll be okay. Thanks again for creating this query. LizRead!Talk! 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, just happy it's being used. It's probably a good thing you're using it and keeping on top of the pages and it keeps me from having to move the pages and nominate the redirects for deletion for some other admin to have to take care of. Uhai (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm finding is that it is frequently student editors who are taking a Wikipedia-related course, who want to move their drafts to main space, but they don't realize that they need to change the namespace when they move a page, from User to None/Article. So, I move them to Draft space and delete the page as a nonexistent editor. But sometimes, some admins will just delete the pages instead of moving the drafts so I try to get to them first. Even if these drafts are eventually deleted in 6 months, I think it would be a shock to a student to just find their work gone...better to house it in Draft space if it is not main space-ready. LizRead!Talk! 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi curious why you deleted Clozee page Stub was creating in english after seeing clozee in french using independent sources. Artedm (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted Clozee because it was a redirect to Draft:Clozee. We delete redirects from main space to Draft space (CSD R2). If you look at the page, you can see this reason noted in the deletion rationale.
But I can see that you created the draft article so you are already familiar with the page and are working on it. I encourage you to submit it to WP:AFC for review. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback but the same user who denied WP:AFC was the one who created the redirect Artedm (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully, you'll get a different reviewer the second time. LizRead!Talk! 02:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a while back you deleted United States political party color templates. I am curious as to why, because this was very useful in making parliamentry diagrams, and the Simple Wikipedia one isn't nearly as good.
If you click on the link you provided, you can see that all I did was delete the category that contained the templates because it was an empty category, CSD C1. You'll probably have to go look at WP:TFD to find out why these templates were nominated for deletion, why they were deleted and who deleted them. But in my experience, templates are not deleted due to speedy deletion, unless it is a template creator requesting deletion, they are always deleted after being nominated at TFD. There is a small group of editors who frequent TFD so if you can't find the specific deletion discussion, I'd approach one of the regulars and see if they can locate the discussion for you. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 05:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, did you receive my message of last Wednesday in which I asked you to delete two revisions? If you think I should ask someone else, please let me know. MarkussepTalk 09:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the
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.
This was my first ever article, so i am still learning as i go. May you please undelete my article so i may continue to work on fixing it and continue to learn and use the same topic. The topic for the article is very important to me. Thank you. Apocalyptic Revelation (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG Thank you for telling me, though i do not understand how it may come across as a type of advertisement, when i am simply giving information about it. In that regard, any article discussing any type of religion would be considered advertisement. Also i do understand the need for better citing and reliable resources, but to completely delete my article without even giving me a chance to fix or even redo it (as this was my first time) is a bit excessive. Apocalyptic Revelation (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are hereby awarded The Closer's Barnstar for excellent work closing AFDs. You may within fourteen (14) days of issuance choose to exchange this for a Barnstar of Reliable Deletionism instead, if that suits you better. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia featured topics Square Enix Montreal good content was being used as the |ftname= on Square Enix Montreal and other articles. The article was temporarily moved and the ftname incorrectly changed to redlink, resulting in the category being emptied and subsequently deleted. The article has since been moved back to its former name. Could you restore the category so it can regain its intended use? Thanks! IceWelder [✉] 22:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a FYI for the train wreck at the stalled project. The idea of the project has been suggested for some time. However, low level energy and general pessimism about raising enough supporters had been a point of contention in the past, so when the Victorian Transport project idea was put up, it was done with no consultation in the community and simply side step/avoid the project council process, another editor came in and changed it to the australian variety. However it seems there are some short fuses involved in the being shown the process, and it remains strictly speaking, in suspension. It is highly likely that given a space of time (ie there is no deadline) and the appropriate hoops required by a few editors to put it through the required steps, it could fill a very specific need in the australian transport subject area. If what remains in suspension gets zapped, so be it, but a bit of understanding and patience, there is every chance that the project could be up and running. Noting that subsidiary projects in the larger australian project that have been created in the last 5 years or so have no sign of having been processed in the project council procedures. It would be good if there was some patience with this one if it is put through the procedure without too many limited understanding judgement claims about the scope and capacity of the project to garner support and cooperation. JarrahTree 06:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but I'd appreciate it if you could help me understand why you are directing this message to me. My only involvement as been tagging empty categories for CSD C1 deletion. I do that with all empty categories that don't meet one of the very limited group of exceptions (categories being discussed at CFD, disambiguation categories, redirect categories, etc.).
I did post a talk page message to one of the two organizers asking him what was up with the project but that was a few days ago, when the entire project looked like it was imploding. I don't think I was too blunt, I was just seeking information. So, please tell me what I can be more patient about since I haven't thought about this WikiProject for several days now. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another WikiProject started very quickly with the best of intention that soon quiets down once organizers realize how much work is involved. I don't expect to make any more comments about it in the future. I keep very busy on Wikipedia and I moved on for thinking about this WikiProject days ago. LizRead!Talk! 06:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and apologies. Please ignore, and if it goes anywhere from where it is I am sure the machinations and resolutions of the 'in suspension' aspect of the potential project will not bother you again.
I had felt the need to explain just in case there was further 'delete everything' message to you, from anyone who might try to hijack the rebuilding. (My perception entirely)
Hopefully there will be a due process rebuild of the immanent project and it wont require any speedy deletes of any sort. Keep up the good work! JarrahTree 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say that Specialty Channel is an Essay I totally agree with @Oaktree b Also if there are two articles with original research that cross reference; redirection to one article would perhaps be an intermediary step forward--- (I cannot participate in that particular AFD) as there is a potential behavioral problem in play. Nate, an editor since 2005, sees the same concern. addressed the concern in total Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as a message hasn't been responded to, you can just remove it, you don't need to strike it. I hadn't seen it until now and it looks like you had second thoughts about posting it. LizRead!Talk! 19:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was great to find that a misunderstanding could be addressed with another editor (and a credit to the other editor as well). I looked at ANI and came to the conclusion that it just was not productive and could cause headaches and ulcers. On another note; I am giving quite a bit of thought to AFD guidelines as written vs what is applied. I am beginning to think that 1) the "bias" in approaching any AFD discussion should be "to keep" (since the opening move on AFD requires the person nominating to provide a rationale for deleting). 2) a keep requires that the rational for deletion be addressed 3) many folks throw stuff around from links to WP:acronyms with little consideration for things like "future attribution," overview, improving the article et all 4) I wish there was a "home" for stuff that gets deleted (put a big red warning and disclaimer on it) 5) Me personally, I would want you (and other admins) to be able to weigh the arguments made on the merits (with far less emphasis or concern on keep/delete). Regards (just musing, thinking is underrated) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think, of anybody, you know the most about of my activities this last few weeks.
I opened my computer this morning to see a notice from WP that went something like "your IP address has been blocked" until July 2023. I probably I was not logged on to WP at the time. In the process of trying to figure out what happened, I lost the original block message page, and I don't seem to be able to re-trigger that block message. I could hope that the first link with such a message would be directly to the reasons for the specific block, but I could not find any. Now, I don't know where to look. Is there anything I should do about this now? What should my concerns be?
I was wanting to start continuing work on the Cucamonga Junction Draft. Some of the hatnotes of the draft's talk page point to other pages or topics, and it seems some of them should be changed (like references to Chair Crossing, Arizona). I am afraid to touch them. Should I wait for members of the projects to notice and fix?
I want certain notes, observations, and conclusions of the research to be public to other editors, but as I started to add such notes to Draft talk:Cucamonga Junction, Arizona I now have misgivings. My thought now is that that the draft's talk page is presently a continuation of Talk:Cucamonga Junction, Arizona, and would similarly be a continuation of discussions of the draft should the draft be returned to the main space. I think I should treat is as any other talk page, right?
There are a lot of different questions here. I'll just try to address the block notice right now. I don't do a lot of blocking except for vandalism and am not familiar with that notice but it could be that there is a range block right now that affects the IP you edit from. This would mean that you can't edit when you are logged out but it wouldn't affect your editing as long as you are logged in. Although I can try to help with this concern, it is usually better to go to the Teahouse with a question like this because many more admins will see it and they might have more understanding of the situation than an individual admin like myself has.
Regarding your editing articles, are you uncertain about working on the articles because of this block notice?
I'm not sure what your "notes, observations and conclusions" are but all references should be from publicly available sources. They are used to verify claims in an article or draft. For example, you can't post the contents of a letter or email you received to an article page or talk page. This is private correspondence and is considered a private, primary source. Articles need independent, secondary sources like journals, books, magazines, mainstream media/news websites, not your private research you might have done. Please see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for more information on this. Doing your own research is great as a way for you to learn more information about a subject but unless it is digging up more acceptable sources that can be used in an article, it is usually not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you have questions about whether or not a particular source is okay, then the Reliable Source Noticeboard is the place to go with this question.
I'm sure I haven't answered all of your questions yet but here are just some initial comments to your post. LizRead!Talk! 19:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
As I have mentioned, the volumes I previously posted on the topic were not my normal practice on the wiki (I usually work 2-4 years in wiki silence on a new page). Rather, due to the re-listing, I was trying to show that I was actively seeking citations. Within the time constraints of draftication, I think there is less pressure for that. Generally, there would have been no other reason to list the contacts I was making or listing the technically non-WP:RS but nevertheless good faith profiles of the community.
Probably, there are only a couple of topics I am thinking of posting, and both are actually in response to posts of the other editors.
From the delete discussion, two (well-informed) books bear the name of the community, and I have completed reading both. Never would I suggest citing them, but their clear existance should be addressed at least in Talk, stating with accurate observation rather than speculation why they are not RS. Eventually, I will be looking to see how minor historical novels inspired by a topic have been mentioned on WP, it at all, maybe under Legacy or Further reading. That can probably wait.
The other point is that I am addressing specific criticisms of the topic in the Delete discussion. This also can wait, I suppose.
I think now, I will continue developing the citations somewhere in my sandbox, and only add confirmed RS into the Draft, editing the latter as I would main space. Really, draftification has made things more workable.
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.
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I responded to your deletion notice by requesting undeletion of my page for WIlf Perreault, and am now trying to insert a 'you've got mail' message as per the instruction. yes, I confuse easily. Thanks for understanding.
I'm heading out in a bit and I'll try to check my email before then or you could state your case here. As for formatting, just don't put templates in a header and I think you'll be okay. LizRead!Talk! 21:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are always so quick to undo any edit like you did in Mujhe Pyar Hua Tha. In this case you clearly see that the article contains unreliable sources based on Instagram posts but you still remove the tag.
Prod tag can be removed by any editor but are encouraged to explain why, and improve the article. For now, I'm moving this page to the AfD discussion (and you could do this too) and you can defend the page on there. Thanks M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that those who de-PROD an article are encouraged to address concerns in an edit summary, I've been here for quite a few years now. But it is not a requirement and there is no reason that can justify you replacing a PROD tag that has been removed. You don't get to do that for any reason with a PROD (a BLPPROD is a different story). It's fine that you now nominated the article at AFD, that happens all of the time with articles that have been de-PROD'd. I have absolutely no opinion on what should happen with this article, I was enforcing a policy, not "defending" the article. I typically do not nominate articles at AFD, I close a lot of discussions there instead and sometimes participate as a regular editor in discussions where I do have a point of view on what should happen with an article.
By the way, I don't know if you noticed but in both an article you PROD'd, that was de-PROD'd, and an AFD you nominated, you used the deletion rationale that "there are no online sources". That is not a valid reason for an article to be deleted which is why the article was de-PROD'd and why the AFD looks like it will be closed as Keep. You are likely to be more successful if you present a deletion rationale that is based in Wikipedia policy. See you around AFD. LizRead!Talk! 06:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieve content of deleted page: Draft:Yes_No_Oracles[edit]
Hello Liz,
My page "Draft:Yes_No_Oracles" was deleted due to a quote that triggered a copy right violation. I apologize for the error, I was under the impression, based on Wikipedia's copy right policies: Wikipedia:Quotations allowed quotations if properly sighted, which i thought I did, but must not be understanding something.
So I would like to retrieve the content of article and hopefully re-post it without the quote altogether.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is retrieve content of deleted page: Draft:Yes_No_Oracles. 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.
First, please do not send me an email. I'll answer a talk page message much faster than an email message.
Second, I rarely restore an article with a copyright violation but, in this case, it was simple to remove the large section of content that was a copyright violation. This was not "a quote", this was a substantial amount of content. You can't copy paragraphs from another source and put quotes around it and that makes it okay. All content has to be in your own words except for, maybe, a phrase or a sentence. You can't copy blocks of text.
So, I have restored this article and used revision deletion to cover the copyright violation. You might think this is an overreaction but copyright violations are a legal problem and so Wikipedia takes them very seriously. Good luck with your article. LizRead!Talk! 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
Following your recommendations and advice, I realize the errors I made when writing my article. These include a lack of paraphrasing, and using quotations from other sources that were too long (and could have been condensed and paraphrased). I'm sure that you can understand the sentiment of getting lost in your writing, and making mistakes when it comes to decorum and standard procedure. I understand the immediate severity of copyright violations, the importance of properly citing the intellectual property of others, and why a violation of this would be unacceptable in the context of a platform as large as Wikipedia--or elsewhere.
I very much appreciate your quick response to this issue, and your feedback.
Should there be any further issues, please contact me while allowing my writing to remain available to me for editing purposes. Per the policies listed on Wikipedia (see here: Wikipedia:Quotations), I was under the impression that using quotations was acceptable, in the case that you ensure credit was given to the original author. Nevertheless, I understand the original removal of my article being that the conceptualization of what comprises a paragraph is highly ambiguous, particularly in the context of an article that, aside from that section of quotations, was written entirely by me.
Wikipedia has an awful lot of policies and guidelines and new editors are not expected to know them all. But copyright violations and Biography of Living Persons issues are treated like emergencies so there are frequently no warnings given before page deletion. It sounds like you understand this aspect of Wikipedia editing better and I wish you good luck.
If you ever have questions about policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. LizRead!Talk! 02:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked that sock you suspected. If you like you can add it to the SPI and ask a(nother) CU for a rangeblock--I'm not sure that there's much of a point to it, but I'm not the best person to judge that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for letting me know. I'm generally not so good at spotting socks but now that I spend so much time perusing AFD-land, I've kept my eye out for brand new editors who show up there with strong opinions. I don't think I even knew about AFD during my first year editing so it seems like a peculiar place to head on your first day as a new editor. LizRead!Talk! 04:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing Liz--I saw your note and after looking at it I thought you had a point--so maybe you're not bad at it! Drmies (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct, the appropriate target was Ottawa Catholic School Board. Thanks for alerting me so I could correct this mistake. LizRead!Talk! 19:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space, which has a ton of pages that need speedy deletion. Please bear with me if I put the wrong tag on any of the pages. I trust you to delete (or not) the pages using a rationale that makes sense to you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've found your deletion tagging to be most appropriate. Thank you so much for diving into the dustbins of old User pages as well as Template pages and clearing out the mistakes made by long-ago new editors. It's not the most glamorous or visible task on the project but it serves a great purpose of clearing out some completely unnecessary pages. It is appreciated! LizRead!Talk! 19:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry to bother you, but I need somebody respected and non-controversial at AfD to lay down the law on someone who continues to act poorly, even when recent discussion has not apparently impressed them with the seriousness of their misbehavior. In this process, user Dronebogus has twice attempted to close a process which they commenced. I had a discussion with them on their talk and I thought it ended well. Yet today, they closed it a second time. My contacting you and asking for help is an alternative to starting an ANI discussion. Could you look over these links and see if I'm missing something? BusterD (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have also closed this process (as no consensus) in which they have commented. They're not getting it. BusterD (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm flattered if you think I'm a respected and non-controversial closer. I've had my share of visits to Deletion review this year though. It's sometimes an unpleasant experience.
I thought your talk page messages were great! You were instructive, calm and gracious. I can't see how anyone could take offense at what you suggested. You might be surprised how few admins try to talk these things out on talk pages and instead just take abrupt action to make their point. I did revert their MFD close and hopefully they will see my edit summary. I can see how this might end up at ANI if this behavior persists. After a certain amount of longevity on the project, some editors feel comfortable bending the rules because they believe they understand policy well enough and they don't expect to be challenged. I've found usually one talk page message is sufficient, I would hope that would be the case here but we'll see.
Nominators closing their own AFDs is questionable, but I see it at AFD as well. Usually they are no Delete votes but I would prefer that a nominator just post a withdrawal of their nomination and let another editor close the deletion discussion. But some nominators prefer to close their own discussions if there are numerous Keep opinions.
Any way, I hope my comment have helped. It was nice to see you participating in some AFD discussions, we really could use a lot more editors and admins weighing in on these deletion discussions. I really don't like deleting some articles based on the opinions of just 2 or 3 editors but I think I'm getting a bad reputation for an over-reliance on relisting. But I can see where people can burn out on the XFD area of the project. LizRead!Talk! 01:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this message before seeing your update. I'll give it a look. LizRead!Talk! 01:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages, I reverted their closure but then realized that I saw it also as No-consensus but I would have mentioned that I'd mark the WikiProject as "inactive". But then I went to the WikiProject and saw that it was already marked as "defunct" which didn't come up in the discussion. So, I restored their closure. LizRead!Talk! 01:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The third one was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PrisonedMuffin, where they close a process prematurely that they have asserted keep in. Note in history that they've previously attempted to close this as speedy keep, a clear super!vote. This is all kinds of bad. I have asked them to stop making such closures, to prevent them getting sanctioned. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. the CFD is incomplete, but it's best to bring this problem to the talk page of the admin or editor who closed the deletion discussion. I don't do work at CFD and so I don't know how to best resolve this. But the editor who closed the CFD discussion will. I recommend you copy & paste this comment to their talk page and see what they have to say. LizRead!Talk! 07:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you deleted Bund für Menschenrecht, which left a bold red link] in several archives. I added it to Germany's DYK when it appeared but don't remember the content. Can it perhaps be put in draft space, to check if it can be "adopted" by other users? Or what else could we do? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't restore articles created by a sockpuppet that have been deleted but I have seen instances in the past of another editor "taking responsibility" for an article and it being restored. I don't think you will find this action mentioned anywhere on policy pages, I've just seen other admins do this on occasion. So, I have restored the page at Draft:Bund für Menschenrecht. Restoring the page doesn't mean that another editor won't tag it for deletion on the same CSD G5 grounds so it would help if you made a contributions of substance to the draft article. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 00:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the AFD, there is a duplicate of the deleted article at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle so there is no point in restoring a deleted article and moving it to User or Draft space if there is alread an existing draft. I'd work on improving the draft and getting it approved by AFC. I'm afraid if you move the draft directly into main space, it might be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4.
I don't know of a quick way to restore a link that has been unlinked months ago and I'm not sure that I am the editor responsible for doing any unlinking. I have over 400,000 edits and there's not an easy way to search thousands of Contribution pages to find specific article edits, especially if they are not from today. I have a very busy schedule so it might be quicker for you to do a search on Wikipedia for "Warrant officer schools of the Russian Armed Forces" and take care of the links yourself. It's not a task that requires the abilities of an administrator. LizRead!Talk! 00:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter[edit]
Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here.
Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.
Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo.
*All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hello. I already recreated one, March from Selma to Montgomery, and would like to create the second which was deleted Marches from Selma to Montgomery but saw the note to contact the deleting admin. These two redirects work well, and I was surprised that they haven't been created before. Could you (or I) go ahead and recreate the second one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely NOTHING inappropriate about my article. It was literally public knowledge backed up by articles to corroborate all the claims. I haven't bothered with further edits because you idiots refuse to put it up. Get a life and f off! Snakeplissken10 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are having an otherwise good day. If you are referring to Draft:Pamela Panzenbeck, we delete drafts and some User space pages that have not been edited in 6 months. I never said anything about "inappropriateness", this is just Wikipedia policy about expiring drafts (see WP:CSD). If you would like this page restored to continue to work on the article, just ask or you can go to WP:REFUND and make a request and talk to the "idiots" there. LizRead!Talk! 19:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)R[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error[edit]
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did install it, but I wasn't sure exactly if the CSD button not listing something meant that it doesn't apply. That makes sense, and I've taken note of that now. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, editing tools take a while to get used to using. Twinkle has so many features (from helping you file AFDs to posting unreferenced tags on to articles, from posting vandals at noticeboards to maintaining deletion logs for editors, etc.) that I use it throughout the day. The only thing I don't like about it is its name! It makes me think of "tinkle" which makes me think of urinating. I wish it had a more editorial, neutral name for the tool. LizRead!Talk! 23:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was deleted, while disappointing, doesn't hugely surprise me because after all it was on the list of articles for deletion and IIRC only one or two editors in the AfD discussion had supported retaining it (although I may be confusing that fact with the AfD discussion other article I did, about games from Tandy).
No, what surprised me was the grounds I saw for your deletion. Namely this:
But the article was created by me. And I am not that other user and have no clue who that user is.
I see that your immediately preceding deletions also were on these grounds. Are you sure you didn't make a mistake here, carrying out a repetitive task, and carrying forward a reason for your deletion that was valid for other articles but did not apply to the one I started? Carney333 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think you deleted this article by mistake. It’s the easiest source on the web for this information and is regularly utilized to track living players for defunct teams, among many other milestones and points of trivia. While you may personally not find it interesting, this platform exists to catalogue information - whether millions find it interesting, or merely thousands. I believe I can speak for the Society of American Baseball Research when I say, please restore this article and stop tampering with these articles. Thank you 2A02:C7C:5EAA:7100:CC5D:E018:3FCD:B243 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I created an article on the artist Linda Nguyen Lopez. You had deleted an article submitted on her back in 2021. I believe this version passes WP:ARTIST. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I check the page history to make sure that this isn't the old username of a renamed account and the editor's name who created the page looked identical to the page name. I guess I didn't look closely enough. My mistake. LizRead!Talk! 08:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check this discussion because a non admin user has closed the discussion as keep but there are only two votes in the discussion so please check it. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 15:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two participants advocating Keep (although they were Weak Keeps) and the AFD discussion was already relisted twice so I doubt that there would be any other editor who would participate. The only thing I'd do differently is close it as Non-Consensus. Did you discussion your concerns with the discussion closer?
There is no point in relisting it a third time. But it is discussions like this one that are okay for a NAC closer to take care of. LizRead!Talk! 23:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source to verify this information? If you don't have one, then it is not a claim that is suitable to be added to an article on Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk! 23:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already know that Wikipedia is corrupt. You can't fool me.
NEVER DONATE TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION !!!!!! 50.238.205.34 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I donate my time, not my money. I don't know much about how the Foundation works, I'm just a volunteer editor, I'm not involved in the organization. But if you hate this place so much, why are you spending your time trying to alter articles? Why don't you do something more enjoyable with your time? I'm sure there are better targets for your trolling that an encyclopedia. Or go back to the message boards you spend most of your time at, where you can talk to others who believe in the same strange conspiracy theories you do. LizRead!Talk! 23:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. You previously deleted this page per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Hall. IMO the new version might be bordering on G4 (but probably will be declined), all of the refs seem to be older than when the AfD occurred, so participants probably judged those sources as insufficient. The only new part I can tell might be just a single sentence: On 7 October 2022, Hall made an appearance in the opening match for the 2022–23 A-League Men season in a grand final re-match from the previous season against Western United; coming on for Thomas Lam in the 65th minute. City went onto win the match 2–1, otherwise the references could potentially be sufficiently identical, Hall appeared in a new match but the new version doesn't have any refs supporting the claim that might address the original deletion IMO and a search found trivial mentions. But I'm not really sure and this was marked as reviewed by someone else, so if it's possible could you view the deleted page and check if it's sufficiently identical to the state of the page that you deleted in the AfD? Many thanks! VickKiang(talk) 06:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was very simple, maybe three sentences. The new version is much more filled out, better sources. It would not qualify as a CSD G4 but that is not to say it would survive a future AFD discussion. It's just not "substantially identical" to the article that was deleted through AFD.
You know if I could change anything on Wikipedia through a superpower, it would be to allow other editors (maybe extended confirmed) to be able to view deleted edits. It comes in very handy in situations like this. But, alas, I don't think that is technically even possible. Something to put on a Wish List. LizRead!Talk! 06:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, I'll leave the notability tag on and might AfD soon. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 06:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Also on your 2nd point of changing something through a superpower, it's interesting, and would save a lot of NPP/DRV time to try to figure out if G4 is eligible and let the deleting admin doing far more work (e.g., temporarily restoring, declining more G4s than required). But of course, it's technically implausible, no admin "un-bundling" has achieved community consensus, and that's obvious as making extended confirmed (or another related perm e.g., NPP) way more powerful, i.e., from an automated minor permission letting you to edit on a few controversial pages and use the content translation tool to a tool (extended confirmed) or lets you to patrol a couple of pages (NPP) and release them for search engines to a role where an editor can access loads of deleted pages and deleted revisions is... not ideal.
But I guess you can do that for very old pages using Deletionpedia, it's scarcely updated now (and accuses of deletionism sometimes) but it kind of paints a picture how poor some of the WP articles were before deletion. Here are a few random pages I checked out: 1, 2, 3, which are so much worse than the pages I AfD during NPP. VickKiang(talk) 07:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lee Ji-han (actor). 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. VickKiang(talk) 08:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following your close, User:Ghorosu did not discuss with you or complete the relevant steps as per the DRV instructions, so this is a procedural notification. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 08:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the notification. This is the second time in a week where the editor who opened the deletion review didn't post a notification. It's plainly stated in the instructions but maybe they don't want the discussion closer or deleting admin to participate in the review. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk! 22:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. I would like to hear your opinion on this particular userbox – User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith. I am really puzzled that it survived two MfD nominations so far (here and here; I was the nominator in the second one, and it was closed as no consensus). Ian Smith was the leader and personification of Rhodesia, an unrecognized white racist ethnostate, so having a userbox stating support for him is highly inflammatory and divisive, IMHO. Not to mention that it fails WP:NORACISTS, and is a clear violation of WP:UBCR. — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs) 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how can I help you other than participating in any future MFDs you start up. I can't delete the page based on my personal opinion (which is that it is unsuitable) or I would soon not be an admin any more. We have to follow the guidelines and policies surrounding appropriate page deletion.
I can offer you my moral support. And you can always try to persuade the one editor who does display this userbox that they should remove it from their User page. LizRead!Talk! 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Liz! I really appreciate that.
Trust me, I didn't want to imply that you, as an admin, should delete the userbox based solely on your opinion; I just wanted to hear what you can say about this, and I am glad that we agree on the unsuitability of the userbox. I am even more glad because of your moral support.
Having in mind that I was the latest MfD nominator in this case, and that the nomination happened relatively recently, I don't really plan to start another nomination myself, but would surely vote to delete this userbox, if someone else nominate it.
Thanks for your consistently diligent work in closing AfD discussions and reviewing G13-eligible drafts! VickKiang(talk) 07:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was an orphaned talk page which we typically delete. It was a redirect from a Talk page to an article and I don't know why it was moved to this page. I've restored it and moved it to Draft:Biological Systems engineering in case you were interested in the content that can be found in the page history. I hope that helps you out. LizRead!Talk! 23:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to hear your input/opinion on User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism, a very long pro-Confederate opinion piece that was nominated for deletion about two months ago, with the decision to keep it. I am still surprized that it was kept back then; IMHO, Dronebogus was quite right to open that MfD nomination, as it clearly fails WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST, and probably some other policies as well. — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs) 11:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do much here but be a sounding board for your dismay about content kept in User space. I would not have voted to keep this page but the consensus was almost unanimous to do so and on Wikipedia, the consensus is always right except for in rare IAR situations. Personally, I have never knowingly acted against a strong consensus which this decision was. Admins who act against a consensus decision are taken to Arbitration and there admin privileges are removed (I've seen it happen several times). I think if you want to continue editing here and enjoy doing so, I'd not try to police User space and instead of looking for offensive content, I'd try to improve the public-facing pages of the project that readers actually see.
If you focus on what's wrong on Wikipedia, and it's not that hard to find especially if you go through old archived arbitration or noticeboard cases, it can send you down a rabbit hole of dispair and you can end up doing self-destructive editing that just gets you blocked. I hate to see that happen to any productive editor. I'd find some part of the project that actually brings you joy and spend your time doing that. While there are User pages that can fill you with rage, there is still mostly good here, try to immerse yourself in that. Just my suggestion. LizRead!Talk! 23:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I fully understand you, and agree with what you said. I would never ask anybody here, especially not an admin, to do something which could put their status and rights into jeopardy, nor would I do something like that myself. That especially stands for respecting a strong consensus of editors. I simply wanted us to exchange opinions, nothing more. During my 12 years on the English Wikipedia, I was always focused on improving the actual articles on the project, and will continue to do so. Still, I dedicate a fraction of my time here (at least for the past 6 months or so) to file reports at MfD if I find something particularly deplorable in various userspaces, especially if its related to racism and neo-Confederate issues. I firmly believe that such views have no place here, as my participation in the creation of WP:NOCONFED shows. I will continue to focus on those issues when I notice them, but I will also dedicate much greater part of my time to try and improve the project, as I have always done. — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs) 15:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Wondering if you would consider undoing the close on Elizabeth Hummel. I only just began researching the topic, and I have just posted at ARS about an hour ago. Thanks for considering. Lightburst (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review it and see. Remember, when you come to a talk page to discuss an article, it always helps to include a link to the article or, in this case, the AFD discussion so that I don't have to go search for it. It just speeds up the follow-up. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 23:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Lightburst, it seemed like a pretty decisive consensus to Delete but I restored the article and reverted my closure. As you know though, even though I stated all of this in the relisting comment, another admin can choose to close this discussion again so I'd act with some promptness. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 23:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am sure we will get to the correct result. Another editor has plans to edit the article as well, but we also may come up empty. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you were aware, but that editor appears to sanitise their talk page ... another editor left a comment regarding their slew of AfD contributions....although without quite the gentle touch you applied. Kudos and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tend to favor education over sanctioning as when I see a behavior I'm trying to discourage, I want the result to be a better editor, not a blocked editor. But it is not always a very effective approach. Some editors respond poorly to what they see as criticism. But there are other editors to whom I've posted warning messages, they listened, adapted and turned into amazing editors over time. So, you never know.
Thanks for letting me know, I'll check out the talk page. LizRead!Talk! 02:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely concur - I certainly didn't see much other than newcomer eagerness. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the user as just gone and recreated the article at Mimi Lee CA. They seem to have written it about themselves and have previously been warned for COI edits. I think WP:NOTHERE may apply. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I've protected the page from creation. If they persist, a block might be necessary as they are not paying attention to talk page messages. LizRead!Talk! 02:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What qualifies as G10? I wrote something about Neelix in my sandbox once that I thought would be humorous (I titled it something like "the boobie redirect incident" or whatever) but someone told me that it would be considered an attack page. I certainly didn't mean it as an attack towards him, but I understand that I may lack knowledge in this area. Would that be considered a personal attack, and is there a policy with more information about what is a personal attack? Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My question to you is why on Earth are you creating User pages about other editors, especially ones that haven't edited Wikipedia in years? There is only one valid reason I know of to do this which is if you are planning to file a complaint at ANI or an arbitration case. In that case, you are permitted to collect diffs of edits to present as evidence in a case or complaint you are going to file. Otherwise, you really shouldn't be discussing other editors on User pages other than Talk pages and even there, you shouldn't be trashing or mocking another editor. There is so much to keep you busy on this project, it would be unfortunate for you to get into trouble for spending time creating pages that could lead to trouble for you.
If you want to write about your experiences on Wikipedia, I recommend keeping the material on your laptop or a journal, somewhere other than this website. I use to recommend keeping a blog but an editor got into trouble for maintaining a blog where they personally attacked other editors so that's an unnecessary risk to take now. LizRead!Talk! 03:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are talking about User:Among Us for POTUS/sandboxagain. Well, if an editor tagged it as an attack page and an admin deleted it as an attack page, you can consider what you wrote there as a personal attack. It was appropriate to refer you to Wikipedia:Gravedancing. So, now you know content is considered a personal attack. LizRead!Talk! 03:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You commented on the original nomination for WikiProject Android. I've created a new WikiProject proposal for WikiProject Android, in case you'd like to provide further feedback. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on that WikiProject? I don't remember doing that. But I'll check out your new proposal. Good luck with that, it's easy to start a WikiProject but very difficult to sustain one beyond the first month or two. I hope you find some other editors interested working on articles about Android. LizRead!Talk! 06:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please stop lying and talking without base, I requested the article to be undeleted I spend hours editing, changing references, daysssss this is our main activist stop the hate and racism, and supremacism. go to greta thumberg and read that one look promotional. I was still editing some things when you came and immediately claim that it was a copy it was not and I can assure you, I am not scared of you because I am not lying talk with base. Librarian887 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally didn't understand what you were doing with all of these page moves. It seems like you were doing extra work. I will restore these two pages but they were broken redirects so please fix them or they will just be deleted again by another admin when they see them. LizRead!Talk! 09:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, there are lots of orphaned talk page archives, often created when the parent article and talk page is moved without moving subpages, or the bot is provided with faulty archive instructions. I'm marrying these to their parent articles. In the above case, I made a mistake in the name of the new parent article, so had to revert myself, causing a red-linked redirect. I'm doing these for a while now, and you might find such things in the future, as I'm trying to eliminate all the pages at User:CX Zoom/Orphaned archives. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 09:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your G4 decline summary at Draft:The Slink, why do you believe WP:G4 doesn't apply to Draft space? Jay 💬 11:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions on this subject varies. I know admins who believe G4 never applies to Draft space and other admins who don't think it matters what namespace the article is in. But my guess is that more admins who work in the CSD area reviewing tagged articles believe CSD G4 doesn't apply to Draft space than think it does. The CSD guidelines on G4 says that G4 doesn't apply to articles moved to Draft space because of an AFD but otherwise doesn't say much about regular draft articles.
If you want my own opinion on the question, I don't believe G4 applies to Draft space because otherwise, there is no way for an AFD deletion decision to ever be overcome with a better article. I now work a lot closing AFD discussions and most have the participation of 2-4 editors determining whether or not an article should be deleted. The idea that a few editors should decide that an article can NEVER exist is giving too much authority to AFDs to make these decisions for perpetuity. One way for a better article on a subject that has received an AFD delete decision to be created (and, as far as I know, the only way) is for a draft article to be created and be submitted to AFC for review. If we delete every draft of a subject that has been deleted through AFD then we are saying that an article on a particular subject can never exist when the article that was originally deleted via AFD might just have been a really terrible article.
The only exception I make is if a sockpuppet or paid editor persistently tries to create an article that keeps getting deleted over and over. In this case, it is typically not a better version of the article being created but the same version getting recreated repeatedly. This would make it "substantially identical" and then CSD G4 would apply.
I hope this explains my own position. As with other areas of admin work, your interpretation of policy might be different than mine but this is how I understand CSD guidelines in light of the experience I've gained as a working admin who spends a lot of time working with Drafts and closing AFDs. LizRead!Talk! 03:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I have started a discussion at CSD. I have retagged the page for G4 now that the author has moved the draft to mainspace as The Slink Management. Jay 💬 08:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz sorry but can you restore my music page I think because I added the instagram link that why it showed up for its saying the page must of been moved or deletion please but I will unlink instagram link thank you Ms.Liz have a good day
You say on your talk page that you want to promote your music and that is not what Wikipedia is for. And now you are blocked so the question is moot. LizRead!Talk! 03:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On this page you added Liz, not User talk:Liz. I noticed because I did the exact same thing myself, and signed JPxG up for updates... anyway, I have fixed it for both of us. jp×g 10:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! It's been a while since I signed up to receive a new newsletter or announcement series. Thank you for fixing it for me. It's appreciated. LizRead!Talk! 20:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Just to say that I've created the above, an article I note you moved to draft and then deleted in 2021. I've no idea as to the quality of that article, but I'm assuming it wasn't that high, given your actions! I'm hoping that this version is more acceptable. It does have less independent coverage from RS than I would like, but it is notable, as it's the closest thing Wales has to an Amenity society for parks and gardens, and it is routinely consulted by Cadw on all matters relating to the conservation of historic landscapes, although not, I think, on a statutory basis. Hoping the article fits the bill but ping me if you've any concerns. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking in with me. I looked at the deleted draft and, frankly, it looks like a copy of the Trust's website page. Lots of first person language and no references but the Trust's website. I'm surprised it wasn't deleted as promotional or even a copyright violation but it was never submitted to AFC since it was put right into main space. Many articles in Draft space fly under the radar if the editor who created it doesn't return to work on it. So, your article is quite different. Thank you for creating it, it looks well done to me! LizRead!Talk! 20:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request for redirect to be changed to draftspace[edit]
Hi Liz, I was wondering if the article Riv Sud Révolution which was recently turned into a redirect, could be changed and put into draftspace instead of a redirect page? I think it will make it easier in the future when a stub article can be created properly. 76.64.228.23 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you have the correct page title? I don't see any page history at Riv Sud Révolution (and nothing at Riv Sud Revolution either) so there has been no article or redirect at this title. LizRead!Talk! 20:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I moved the draft from their User page to Draft space, I sometimes do that when a User page is tagged CSD U5. I just removed the redirect from the User page so if the Draft is deleted, XFDCloser won't also delete the User page. Of course, the Draft can be moved to a User Sandbox but now that it's at MFD, I feel like we need to let the process come up with a consensus solution. Maybe I'll start moving pages like this to an editor's Sandbox rather than to Draft space.
This editor has started lots of different versions of articles on themself so if this page gets deleted, it might not be the last version we see. LizRead!Talk! 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I never understood why the text Tutty Moreno was not approved. I wrote a correct text, with fonts, and it was not approved. Unfortunately, I don't know what I need to do to get it approved. Thanks RummiEnglish (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't review drafts for AFC but I can restore your draft if you would like to continue to work on it. Let me know or you can make a request at WP:REFUND. LizRead!Talk! 03:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Blaze Wolf was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I'm confused as to what the topic of this draft is.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
It seems kind of obvious to me but it's about the social construction of racial categories and how race operates in the United States. The article is a bit of an essay but it has good references so I decided to submit when I came across it today. It was due to be deleted. Maybe I'll bring it to the attention of a WikiProject and see if anyone wants to work on it. LizRead!Talk! 00:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was not a great decline reason, @Blaze Wolf.
@Liz I agree with you that it has merit. My question is whether a merger with Racial color blindness would make sense as they could be discussed together. StarMississippi 15:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been how it was organized but to me it seemed to change topics every section. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd inform you about the batch of speedy deletions I just requested: all seemed to concern "JSS SMI UG & PG STUDIES" - thus, this may be a case of weird sock/meatpuppetry. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs) 06:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just handled some CSD-tagged pages and I didn't notice this. About two years ago, the whole "Sus" "Among Us" vandalism ran rampant, I thought it would never end. But most kids moved on, probably something else got popular.
I'll keep a closer eye on speedy deletion articles and watch out for vandalism. I'm not a block-happy admin unless I see a vandal creating extra work for our hard-working patrollers. LizRead!Talk! 06:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A search for pages containing "JSS SMI UG PG COLLEGE" finds a few others. I would suspect a misguided exercise for a class of students. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the page for a Governmentally owned Corporation.[edit]
Deletion of the UkrBud page was incorrect, and a page for it exists even on the Ukranian wiki. This is a direct translation of the UkrBud Ukranian Wikipedia page. Seskater (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I look at hundreds of pages a day, could you give me a link to the one you are concerned about? Then I can look into why it was deleted and if there were mistakes made. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 20:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are talking about, my username is in the same color as most everyone else's who has a User page. I've had the same signature for many years now. LizRead!Talk! 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not really interested in changing my signature. Maybe I'll do it just for Christmas Day though. And St. Patrick's Day. LizRead!Talk! 21:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I shall still have a gift on the 25th, I have to negotiate with Santa (A Personal Friend Of Mine) but it shall be there under the talk page tree. I LIKE TO EAT SKITTLES LOTS OF SKITTLES (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just working my way down [[9]] checking the athlete articles that are low importance stubs in the cycling project as the the projects has over 14,000 pages (the majority of the project) meeting the criteria. As I did this all the pages I checked so far the user:Lugnuts created and are almost all (so far) non-notable cyclyist pages such as Albert_Chaumarat, the possibly one exception I found was Albert_Dejonghe. User:Lugnuts is blocked from editing site wide Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing and it appears a large amount of their created cycling articles do not meeting notability requirements. Is there an easier to mass-delete the non-notable articles than doing PROD or XFD individually?— Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItGoingForward (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with mass deleting Lugnuts' articles – in the past, when I've seen Olympian stubs (most of which were written by him) on Americans/Canadians (the ones I have newspaper access for) get nominated for deletion, I've looked for newspaper sources and I'd say in the majority of cases found SIGCOV. So mass deletion is not appropriate IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started PRODing cricketer stubs but they were BLARd to list articles. Then I took them to AfD but they were kept as redirects. So I would suggest BLARing what you can. Jay 💬 17:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz. You deleted the page Brad Jacobs (entrepreneur), and I would like to understand why and request that you undo the deletion. The page has been active for several years and meets all the criteria of a valid, non-deleted biography of a living person. There may be factual inaccuracies to correct (e.g., Jacobs is no longer the CEO and has become solely the executive chairman) or promotional language to be toned down, but those seem like challenges that would be better handled collaboratively on the talk page. I've never encountered this situation, so I wanted to reach out to you (i.e., deleting admin) before pursuing other options. I appreciate any context you can provide. Gannymetis (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links to recent press coverage of Jacobs from major media outlets:
These are just three recent examples to show that he has the notability and press coverage to merit a Wikipedia page. If you'll restore it, I'll be happy to add these references and submit them for review before publishing. Many thanks. Gannymetis (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to write article about a romanian artist but i saw that an article with the same name has been deleted by you before, so i dont know if its the same person or a different person
so i want to confirm if its the same person or not, the name is Marius Andrei Feder
kindly help me to clarify it, thanks QDJ22 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Quick question for you: when I delete a page with Twinkle, is it possible to have it delete the talk pages of any redirects? For example, when I deleted 100 años de amor y luz, Twinkle correctly deleted the talk page (Talk:100 años de amor y luz) and a redirect (100 años de amor y luz (album)), but it didn't delete that redirect's talk page (Talk:100 años de amor y luz (album)) and I had to do it by hand. I figured you'd probably know: is there a way around that? And if not, is there a way to know whether there are any orphaned talk pages I need to clean up after? Thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.
Hi Liz, Thank you for all your contributions during the year and for all your hard work keeping things running smoothly throughout the encyclopedia and especially your work at AfD. You are appreciated! May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health. Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
Hello Liz, you closed the most recent AfD discussing a podcast episode list. I decided to open an RfC, which was suggested in the AfD. The RfC can be found here: WT:WikiProject_Podcasting#RfC_on_podcast_episode_lists. There has been no participation yet and I was wondering if it was acceptable to ping everyone in the AfD (or both AfDs that I mentioned in the RfC) or if that would be considered canvassing. I'm always wary of pinging others in discussions and thought I would ask your opinion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is okay to ping participants as long as you don't just ping those who you agree with, your choice of who to ping has to be neutral, both those you agree with and those you disagree with. I think canvassing occurs when you solicit participation only from those who share your point of view so as long as ping everyone involved, there shouldn't be a problem. LizRead!Talk! 01:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz - while I appreciate a stern warning, a flagrant abuse of powers bestowed on Scope Creep to bully me is completely unacceptable and warrants removal of that right.
Additionally it is not without context. That user has bullied me and my colleague across many articles, hounding and harassing me with COI accusations, tagging, and templating me. An action needs to happen to make this stop. At the very least, I strongly request you make this change. The user can always reapply if they show they can handle the right. They -clearly- cannot right now. ɱ(talk) 02:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This situation looks complicated enough that I wouldn't want to take any administrative action without investigating thoroughly and I can't promise that I will have time to do that within a reasonable timeframe. You could take it to ANI, but my gut sense is that there's a good chance that the partial blocks and warnings issued already are enough to resolve the situation. signed, Rosguilltalk 06:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter the context. Scope Creep "violently" abused their user right to target not one, not two, but 14 articles I've worked on, to intimidate me. That's completely unacceptable. ɱ(talk) 13:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I request you to undelete the page Kovid Mittal, since the topic meets the notability criteria. The subject played the lead roles in multiple films produced or directed by him or others. Numerous news publications covered the artist and his work. I request to restore it. I ensure to make further edits to improve the page with more citations. Thanks, MJ. M Jaiswar (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted in an AFD deletion discussion but closed as a "Soft Delete" which means it can be restored upon request. I have done so. But I think it might be worth your time to look over the AFD discussion and see why some editors thought it should be deleted. There is always a possibility that it can be nominated for deletion again and Soft Deletion can only happen once. It's better to try to address problems before an article is nominated for deletion than have to do major work during the week-long deletion discussion. Good luck improving this article! LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. Oh, joy, my favorite spot on the project! I understand though that you are only the messenger. This review is not unexpected. Again, your notice is appreciated. LizRead!Talk! 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again - I still have at least four articles that are "unreviewed": Hotel Revival, Waterford Tower, W. Byron Ireland, Please Don't Tell. Can you please undo this or have them reviewed? I am frustrated we still have abusive edits live. ɱ(talk) 21:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Rosguill: again here too. ɱ(talk) 21:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that I'm supposed to have the ability to review new pages but I don't see that option in the drop down menus that are available to me as an administrator. Then, I looked through the New pages feed and I didn't see them listed. This unreviewing was done yesterday so I don't know that SC has done any more since yesterday morning when they were warned about this. LizRead!Talk! 21:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't know about User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Geography/Regions/Americas/North America but I see them there. I'll have to inquire about how to review articles that were unreviewed. Perhaps because they aren't actually new articles, they show up at the bottom of the list and NPP aren't seeing them. LizRead!Talk! 21:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those four articles have never actually been reviewed in the first place according to the logs, and presumably slid out of the new pages feed without review. They've further been looked at by a reviewer today who tagged them with {{notability}}--I do not think that unreviewing these pages can a prior be considered abuse and I don't think it would be appropriate to mark them reviewed now without having performed a search that demonstrates their notability. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. Sorry I messed up here, badly enough that it took a while to work out what on earth had happened! It turns out that I'd mixed up User:Coimenda with User:SecondLooneyaccount. Coimenda is the blocked sock and they moved one of the articles from draftspace, while it was actually SecondLooneyaccount who created the articles.
Apologies for the mess that you had to deal with. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! We all make mistakes. Even editors who've been active for 20 years here make mistakes. I hope you are well and enjoying this frantic season at the end of the year. LizRead!Talk! 21:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you have a look at this? It has been recreated in mainspace again after your page protection. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 22:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I just moved this to Draft space a few hours ago! But I moved it back, protected the page and posted a talk page warning. Thanks for letting me know. LizRead!Talk! 22:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz- Thank you for keeping an eye on this. I think the issue might be that there are now two identical drafts:
Drafts have some weird deletion rules, but slightly changing the name of the article in an attempt to circumvent an AfD hopefully means that these drafts can be at least merged to one working draft? I would say the user should receive a temporary block if they are disruptive again, especially considering how hostile ([10], [11]) they are about it. Grk1011 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I wonder if you read my reply to your message in my talk page? Because I have replied to your letter on my talk page. I reply under letters sent to my talk page, so that readers can follow the conversation easily. Cheers, --Minoa (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If your message is somewhere in the middle of this page, I might have missed it. I'm going to try to catch up with old talk page messages tomorrow so I hope to have an answer for you. I address new messages pretty quickly but the older ones I lose track of as they scroll up the page. I apologize for my delay. LizRead!Talk! 01:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend that to be a delete outcome, or a soft delete? I'm curious enough after participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ater Wynne, but not enough to want it back "just because"--trying to get a feel for whether the NCORP enthusiasts have gone a bit far afield here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have liked to have closed that discussion as Soft Delete but the article had already been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buchalter so it was not eligible for a Soft Deletion. If you would like to work on the article, let me know, I'll look it over and if it is not promotional, I'm willing to restore it to Draft space. IF you want to work on improving it. Let me know. LizRead!Talk! 01:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There are times when I disagree with an article deletion I'm tasked with doing. But I've put myself in the role as a discussion closer, if I wanted my own opinion to matter, I'd participate in the discussion. I have to stay neutral. But there are times when I think to myself that an article would be fine as a stub article but the consensus is to Delete so that's the action that must be taken. LizRead!Talk! 01:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand--I deleted 20,000 pages in the five years I was an admin. Sometimes I miss the ability to see what, exactly, else was deleted... but I do not miss the drama. And thank you, I should have known that. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I could carry out any one action, because I was omnipotent on Wikipedia, it would be to allow all extended confirmed editors to see deleted content. It's probably the admin privilege that I value the most. It would be nice if more trusted editors had this ability. Now the drama and sometimes feeling like I have a target on my back? That's what I could do without! LizRead!Talk! 02:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Kamala Harris 2020[edit]
Well, you can't have a Talk page where you don't have an Article or Wikipedia page. Orphaned Talk pages are deleted. Do you want me to restore it to your User space? LizRead!Talk! 07:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to make an edit request for someone to create the page. I thought only logged in users could have user space? 2601:640:4000:3170:0:0:0:F6D3 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only logged in users can have userspace, and only logged in users should be doing projectspace work, like MfD nominations. One reason is accountability (why are you not logged in?). Another is that to do these things easily, you need WP:Twinkle, which needs you to have an account. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi friend, I have created an article on M. Thomas Mathew; a page on him was earlier deleted by you. I haven't seen the old article but the subject of the article recently won Sahitya Akademi Award, one of the highest Indian literary awards. Moreover, he has several books to his credit and is also a recipient of several other awards including Kerala Sahitya Akademi Award and Vayalar Award which makes him eminently notable. Please have a look at the new article where I have included all those details. Thanks.--jojo@nthony (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have noticed your removal of the CSD tag on the page Bilaya, I left this tag because it redirected to a non-existent Wiktionary entry. Is this still eligible for deletion, considering I tagged it under being a 'page dependent on a non-existent or deleted page'. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the page and you were correct, there was no Wikitionary page for this term. So, I did delete the page on the grounds you originally stated. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. LizRead!Talk! 06:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. Best regards RV (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays and all the best also from my side! Just wanted to take the opportunity to say thank you for doing the often thankless job of closing discussions, and always being constructive about it! Daranios (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, that you for closing the AfD. The only issue I have with the close is that the previous participants had evaluated the article against GNG and not NCORP (which is the most appropriate) and the AfD was then closed without an opportunity to discuss which guidelines to use. CT5555 replied to say that the article was more about the building that the business but that patently isn't true. HighKing++ 12:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would never challenge your expertise in evaluating NCORP but I'll look over the AFD and see if there is anything I can add. Though at times, your opinions can throw a monkey wrench into assessing consensus in an AFD discussion, your opinions are always detailed, well thought-out and based in policy and so I appreciate you spending the time to investigate sourcing for these articles which are up for deletion discussion. I think you draw a more hard and fast line with assessing NCORP than many editors but it does help to maintain Wikipedia's standards in the best way possible.
I hope you have a pleasant, end-of-the-year holiday season! LizRead!Talk! 23:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I wish you and your loved ones a Happy Christmas/Holidays/Weekend, Wikipedia wouldn't be here without good people like you. Thank you. HighKing++ 12:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of "List of FIFA World Cup awarded penalties"[edit]
Hello
This article was great article and was very informative about awarded penalties throughout world cups.
I don't know you personally, maybe for someone who doesn't follow international football isn't necessary but for football fans was very important it was very well-structured. Please reverse the deletion. Mohenhance (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
talk page lurker here... @Mohenhance:WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for not deleting. Please read the discussion to delete and read each of the cited policies that supported deleting. Anytime you see a blue link that means there's a policy or essay or page where you can read up on what's being said. UtherSRG(talk) 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
unproductive. It met WP:GNG. It was Reliable and Sources were secondary sources. Mohenhance (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohenhance The consensus at the AFD discussion was that the article didn't meet GNG. Nobody claimed the sources were unreliable or the article didn't use secondary sources just that the subject wasn't notable enough. Badgering Liz isn't going to change that. If you think Liz wrongly interpreted the consensus you can take it to WP:Deletion review but I think you'd be on a loser there. As has been mentioned ILIKEIT is not a reason for overturning a closed AFD decision. Nthep (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I neither have the time nor care that much, I thought Wikipedia was democracy turns out it's just like twitter before Musk. Mohenhance (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to add to what UtherSRG and Nthep have said here. The consensus of the discussion was that the article should be deleted and as a discussion closer, I have to follow the consensus. Sometimes this means that I end up deleting articles that, personally, I see value in but my own point-of-view is irrelevant. If I feel strongly about an article, then I participate in the discussion and don't close the AFD. In this case, I think that this content was interesting but maybe it belongs on another website that is devoted to football or the World Cup. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a sports database, and to the editors who participated in the discussion, the content wasn't a good fit for this project.
If you do not believe I assessed the consensus correctly, you can challenge my closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review but understand that in that forum, the focus is on the AFD closure, not the value of the article. I'm sorry you are disappointed in this decision. LizRead!Talk! 23:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]
Done I'm not sure if it has been reviewed yet and it's a very new article. But I saw no issues with moving it to take the place of the redirect. LizRead!Talk! 06:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eshan Haider and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
It's actually not my article, just one I came across when I was working today. I had moved it to Draft space. But thanks for reviewing it so promptly. I just submitted it this evening. LizRead!Talk! 06:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, its happened to me dozens of times when I've drafted articles, usually a Bot telling me that the draft hasn't been modified for over six months. Happy festive season. Dan arndt (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A trick I've learned to do is that when I draftify and AfC submit like this, I'll go back and tweak the AfC submission tag to indicate the original author, so that they get the AfC notices instead. Cheers! - UtherSRG(talk) 17:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told more than once how to do this when I submit the draft but I can't remember. Just tweak the AFC tag and put the draft creator's name? I can do that. Thanks! LizRead!Talk! 02:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! That's all I do. Really simple. :) Happy New Year! UtherSRG(talk) 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had a bout of the stomach flu on Christmas and was as sick as a dog for half the day. But I'm fine now! I hope you had a great holiday and end-of-the-year. Thank you for the good wishes. LizRead!Talk! 01:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Red-tailed hawk's talk page. Message added 23:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing,
— Red-tailed hawk(nest) 23:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. So I tagged this as WP:A7, which you declined. I've checked the article again, it does not have a credible claim of significance IMO (the closest I can tell is an assertion it's been commented upon by other anonymous YouTubers...). My WP:BEFORE found no refs, looking at their Twitter and YouTube page, they have 5 and 13 followers respectively. This seems to just be a group which has an obscure, completely non-notable YouTube channel, and someone decided to write an article on it. The article is about a group, which would fall under clubs, societies and groups, so IMO WP:A7 would apply, though if you found more refs or a credible claim of significance do let me know, if so, apologies for the mistake.
Further, the page has been proposed for deletion. In the past I've used WP:CSD for pages that were PRODed and currently in an AfD process. Your decline stated Removing CSD tag, let this just be PROD'd- is this because it's generally expected that a page currently PRODed or AfDed should not be tagged for speedy deletion becuase it isn't unambiguous and uncontroversial? The CSD guideline says that anything controversial isn't eligible, from what I see that seems to include pages that have been around for years with numerous editors, or pages that had a prior AfD that did not result in speedy or WP:SNOW deletion. However, if a page is WP:PRODed or WP:AFDed by an user, does it mean that WP:A7 shouldn't usually be used in conjunction? If so, do please let me know. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang(talk) 07:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also an older revision of the page has this link. The author is My Mixed Biscuit, who wrote It’s quite interesting as an outsider to be observing all this, I recently joined their Discord server and checked their official Twitter and it seems that they are still active after 2 years but struggling. The user who wrote this article is also called Mixed Biscuit. That they are citing an article they wrote about a company they investigated via Discord might potentially be bordering on a WP:COI, though that reference has since been removed. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 07:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's Christmas Eve here, almost Christmas Day. I'm not going to have a long debate about my decision to remove a CSD tag from an article because there is already a PROD or AFD tag. It's really not that controversial or momentous a decision to make. This is just editing on Wikipedia, not off-wiki life. Maybe another time when there is not so much going on in the world we can have this debate. Have a pleasant holiday season. LizRead!Talk! 08:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Apologies if my message is long-winded and verbose (which I have, well, a bad habit of). Feel free to reply again whenever you are available (though by then it might be deleted via PROD so it's probably moot). Thanks for your prompt reply, your amazing work here, and happy holidays! VickKiang(talk) 08:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, trying to figure out why I did what I did, I guess I have an unconscous bias. If an article has been PROD'd or sent to AFD first, I prefer to let that process continue and resolve rather than use speedy deletion unless there are problems with the article or there is a strong consensus for a speedy deletion at an AFD. I just see no reason to rush a process that another editor has started unless there is problematic content. Each form of deletion is different and I like PRODs because if another editor wants to revive an article and work on improving it, they can request restoration at REFUND while this rarely happens with CSD. And I just don't like there to be competing forms of deletion tagging on an article at the same time.
I'm sorry if I was snappy at the time, I was just getting a little editing in before Christmas and I seem to have gotten a lot of messages I had to respond to which is always more time-consuming than just editing. It was nothing personal. You do a lot of great work here. LizRead!Talk! 00:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Appreciate your explanation and thanks! VickKiang(talk) 00:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bout of the stomach flu on Christmas so spent most of the day in bed. But I greatly appreciate the good wishes, thank you very much. LizRead!Talk! 00:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz and happy holidays, I notice you're very experienced with reviewing AfDs and I had a question. Using this AfD discussion as an example, when "Keep" comments do not support, or are even contrary to, the notability guidelines they claim to be supporting (e.g. misinterpreting what WP:AUTHOR requires possibly confusing it with WP:NBOOK criteria; claiming that interviews with a subject (non-independent sources) contribute to notability contrary to WP:NBIO) and are demonstrably refuted, how are these weighted in the discussion? Asked another way, if the arguments made are all objecting to an AfD nom and are all demonstrated to be (assuming good faith) spurious, how is that handled by the reviewer/closer? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to like hearing this but a closure decision really can vary depending on the thoroughness of the closer. I've seen closures I disgree with and would have closed differently so it's not "one size fits all" except for cases that are unanimous. I don't know that I'm "very experienced" at closing AFDs as I just started working in this area this year. And since we are all volunteers and can choose what we work on, I have mostly closed discussions that aren't close calls as I'm reviewing how these are handled by admins who have years more experience closing divisive discussions than I do.
Looking at the AFD you linked to, the editors who are participating in this discussion are all very experienced editors who gave detailed comments and no one is supporting your interpretation. Have you considered their points of view or that you might have a mistaken understanding of notability policy regarding this article? Just since I started helping out in AFD, my own understanding of notability has become more nuanced and has evolved. Maybe rather than assuming everyone else is wrong, consider that they might be on the mark in some of the points they are making.
But to you original query, a closer evaluates the discussion and the arguments that are made. I have seen AFD closures where a lone opinion, outnumbered by everyone else, has been the deciding factor, this most often happens when the other participants aren't taking the discussion very seriously or are making throw-away comments. I don't think that is the case here. LizRead!Talk! 23:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz, thanks for your response. I am very fine hearing it :). While there's always lots to learn, please don't be too hard on yourself. I did carefully consider their interpretations and that I may have misinterpreted even to the point that I consulted admins on the help IRC. They agreed that I was understanding the policies correctly, including them making very firm statements like "Interviews are never independent sourcing" in this subject's context. Experienced editors may be experienced in some areas, but not all, such as notability criteria. Example: One of those editors commented on my other open AfD and made a demonstrably false comment due to not checking sources beforehand. [12][13]
What had become evident on the AfD is a common theme across AfDs, comments to the effect of "these sources exist, therefore notable" (related: WP:LOTSOFSOURCES), like a checkbox, without taking into account the oft-overlooked nuances of notability guidelines and criteria. The claims didn't consider the non-independence of the subject and primary nature of the sources until I pointed it out in responses. Then the response to me was that independent and primary sources provide notability, which WP:NBASIC does not agree with. Another claim confused criteria that could lend credibility for WP:NBOOK, with WP:AUTHOR which is a higher bar. It would not be inaccurate to say everyone including myself in that discussion has learned a thing or two.
For example, the bulk of sources provided by commenters on the AfD, have been written and video interviews with the subject talking about herself, and so are not independent of the subject and also mostly primary, with support for my stance from the explanatory essay on interviews. Quoting because of how profound this statement is: "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material."WP:NBASIC presumes notability by sources being independent of the subject and secondary, which at the very least none of the interview sources fit the independence part and most are fully primary. That is, these do not show notability.
For clarity, I didn't see the article and immediately put up for AfD on a whim. I did thorough research (to a point I had prior to posting found and read each source later posted by other editors in the AfD among many more), reviewed all the relevant policies, and consulted help channels before posting. The editors' responses were more than a "Keep", but they hadn't thoroughly looked into the sources or what the policies say about those kinds of sources. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, AFDs aren't vote counts. But since you are challenging this closure, I will review it again, some time in the next day. It's almost Christmas night here so my activity will be spotty until tomorrow. LizRead!Talk! 23:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but consensus matters, especially such an overwhelming percentage like seen here, and the content and effort given reflect a keep vote. I nevertheless appreciate it even being closed. Hope you have a happy holiday, ɱ(talk) 23:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: - again, a no consensus vote for Bluehour? The two delete votes were each a single sentence. The nomination didn't even use any sentences or barely rationale at all. The keep votes were thought-out and rational. This strongly reads as a keep. ɱ(talk) 18:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I count 3 editors advocating Deletion plus the nominator which makes for 4 plus Valereee who didn't vote and yet was critical of the sourcing. And, yes, AFDs aren't votes. I'll offer you a couple of options...a) I can relist the discussion, but in that case, another admin might close it differently (Keep or Delete), and/or b) I can stop closing these AFD discussions on Portland restaurants and let another admin handle them since you are dissatisfied with both of my closures. Or, we can leave it at you are unhappy with my closure but accepting the result. I'll just say that my guess is that even if I had closed the discussion as "Keep", I don't think that would prevent a follow-up AFD from the nominator at some point. LizRead!Talk! 21:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination is not a delete vote. It is the beginning of a discussion. Some editors may be unsure and list an article, or be swayed later on. When they are confident, they usually say "delete, as nominator" below. The first delete vote was before the article was expanded, and the voter did not update if their stance had changed. The second delete vote, 6 words, was also before expansion, and again the editor did not update, even when prompted. The third delete vote was struck and changed to keep. The fourth delete vote is based on NCORP, which is established to not be the only guideline of concern for cultural establishments like restaurants. I do not understand. I am not asking for action anymore, but it's upsetting that SC has the backing of an admin who continually questions keep voters, diluting the weight of their arguments to no end, and it seems no admin has been willing to take strong action in favor of these articles like they are. ɱ(talk) 04:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. 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.
Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasant Christmas surprise, a visit to Deletion review! As much as I dislike these reviews, I appreciate you letting me know. LizRead!Talk! 03:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please let it sit for a couple of days then, no reason to do it on christmas. I am bored waiting for dinner ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's going on with Draft:Thelwik, but this user has moved their test edits to mainspace multiple times. Just thought I'd let you know. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs) 06:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bureaucracy in the United States. 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. VickKiang(talk) 00:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another procedural notification as the editor who initiated the review, User:Super ninja2, did not complete steps 2 or 4. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 00:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have 3 deletion decisions at Deletion review right now, VickKiang. I had never gone to Deletion review page until this year. Just my luck, I guess. Thank you for the notification. LizRead!Talk! 00:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a tough year and I missed the deletion review for the page Mark Worthington (journalist). I would have liked the opportunity to update and improve the page before deletion but appreciate I missed it. Hoping it can be considered for reinstatement?
Thank you for your help and advice with this! Dbx2
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Deletion of Mark Worthington (journalist). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Miss Liz, I hope you are doing well. I am Masoud Minaei, the champion of several world championships and with many titles. Please return my page. Thank you for your attention🌹 Masoud.minaei (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't review any deleted pages and see why they were deleted if you don't tell me what the page title is and provide me with a link. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 02:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for supplying that link. I see that Masoud Minaei has been deleted twice through Articles for Deletion discussions. No administrator can overrule a consensus deletion decision. AFD delete decision is the community's way of saying that the article they reviewed shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
The only way I know to overcome an AFD delete decision is to start a new version of the article in Draft space. Please review the AFDs and see what the criticism was of the articles and try to address the problems that the editors found in previous versions. I see here that the editors who reviewed the article didn't think your titles established notability so you'd have to have some reliable sources that can contradict this view. When you believe that the Draft is in good shape, submit it to Articles for Creation for review. An experienced editor will review your draft and offer you their opinion on whether it is ready to be moved to the main space of the project.
Please know that if you move an article on yourself directly into main space, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 so please go through AFC.
If you have further questions about article creation and Wikipedia's deletion policies, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support...it's a great place to go to with your questions. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 03:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was hoping you could userfy this article for me - I believe I can salvage it and demonstrate that Halperin meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a contested PROD, I have restored the article. You can move it to wherever you like. If you do move it to User space, it is unlikely to be nominated for an AFD which can happen with articles that were restored and de-PROD'd so that is probably a good idea. Good luck with it! LizRead!Talk! 02:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added a speedy deletion tag to Institute of Political Studies in Belgrade (as cross-wiki hoax), but you removed it because they didn't give a reason why. I added it back using the more specific template (as they said it was a hoax, so I used {{db-hoax}}). Why did you revert my edit and protect the page? 2601:640:4000:3170:0:0:0:F6D3 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are limited criteria that allow for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD for explanations of criteria). You say the article is a "hoax" but to qualify for deletion as a hoax, it has to be obvious that the subject is a hoax. I see nothing about this article that demonstrates that this instititue is a "hoax", that it is fictitious and doesn't really exist. :Speedy deletion is intentionally limited so a better form of deletion for your purposes would be Proposed Deletion or Articles for Deletion where you could explain why you believe this institute is a hoax. I protected the article, more than once, because you persistently tagged it for speedy deletion even after an administrator had removed the tags, you kept at it! I'm willing to remove the protection from the page if you will agree to stop tagging it for speedy deletion and pursue other forms of deletion. LizRead!Talk! 04:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person who tagged it for speedy deletion before. I just noticed that the speedy deletion was removed for not having a reason. But I also noticed there was a reason listed (cross-wiki hoax) so this reason for removing it didn't make sense to me. I just added back the same tag with the "G3" code for speedy deletion because that's what @38.242.7.246: said (it was a hoax/G3). Personally, I have no idea whether it's a hoax or not. 2601:640:4000:3170:0:0:0:F6D3 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could but I won't. I don't spend my time on Wikipedia creating articles, I'm an administrator and I take care of admin responsibilities. I'm not sure what led you to my talk page!
If you have questions about editing Wikipedia, I recommend bringing them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. Good luck. LizRead!Talk! 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am working to provide references found on other articles but would like to offer that you not be dismayed by an overturn or some of the comments that are somewhat off-key to the intent and purpose of Wikipedia. This subject is mostly what we call a bit actor (bit part actor) and is best known for a cancelled show (Rude Awakenings) from a lack of viewers. Some call them supporting actors.
Outrageous Fortune (TV series) shows seven billed stars and the subject is not among them. The "Cast and characters" section lists fourteen names and the subject is not included.
The Amazing Extraordinary Friends has a list of twelve that includes Patrick Morrison but not Patrick Wilson. In Broken English (1996 film) the subject is not listed in the cast. This is just some reasoning to support that a subject lacks notability when sources do not support it and why a keep comment; "Keep due to having various significant roles in shows and movies that are notable enough for their own Articles" obviously used the list provided from the External links.
Comments to keep, just listing a policy or guideline with no substance or "proof", as in verifiability, are just votes and not a means of actual consensus. Providing an interview as evidence, or IMDb a TVNZ profile in the "External links" are not acceptable sources.
The "Deletion review" states: The deletion review process is not decided solely by head count, but by consensus and that is the same criteria for discussions at AFD.
Anyway, there will always be those that do not think WP:V is important. An AFD is a blanket contest to WP:notability and the policy states: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.. Likely thousands of BLP articles were started from IMDb or others that do not adhere to sourcing policies and guidelines. I am going to link some of the articles to the subject's name and try to find sources that back up notability. An initial search was not successful. Have a great day and Happy New Year. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About Article "List of wars involving Ingushetia"[edit]
Hello, could you help me by pointing which sources are not reliable please? I have sources from various independent historians like Kusheva, Dalgat, Yakovlev. I also put the pages there, so anyone can check if the information is really in the book. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you rejected my sd at User:Rathfelder/Audley Retirement. It was clearly a draft that hasn't been edited in a while. Therefore it falls under CSD, criterion G13. At my talk page you just gave a generic warning. Please see my response. Happy editing (and new year!) --Matr1x-101 {user page - talk with me :) - contribs!} 22:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't follow my advice to actually read WP:G13 because this page doesn't qualify for CSD G13. Just being a User page that hasn't been edited in a while isn't the qualification for CSD G13. We have hundeds of thousands of User pages that haven't been edited in years, hell, decades, that don't qualify for CSD G13. Please review the criteria. LizRead!Talk! 06:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's go over what makes a page eligible for speedy deletion CSD G13 according to WP:G13:
This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:
Draft namespace,
Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.
Yes, it was a page that hadn't been edited by a human in six months;
No, it was not a draft article;
No, it wasn't a user page with an AFC submission template; and
No, it wasn't a user page with no content except for the article wizard placeholder text.
So, you see, it hadn't been edited in a long time but it didn't meet one of the three listed conditions that is required for a G13. We probably have hundreds of thousands of User pages that haven't been edited in years but, despite some editors' opinion, they are not deleted just because they are old and abandoned. There have been many attempts to change policy to include them but, as of now, they are not eligible for CSD G13 just because they are a User page that hasn't been edited in more than six months unless it fulfills one of the two listed conditions for User pages to be eligible for speedy deletion. I hope this answer satisfies your question. LizRead!Talk! 23:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Earlier this month I moved this article back into draft space due to the numerous construction issues, including those raised at the deletion discussion, although this was undone within hours. It was previously moved from article space to draft space in November, but this was shortly reverted as it occurred during the deletion discussion. I intend to move this into draft space as some time has passed and the main editor has not made any recent contributions to the article. I'm raising this with you as a courtesy beforehand. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I moved it back to main space from Draft space. I'm not sure it's appropriate to move it to Draft space when it looks like there has been productive work that has been done on the article since the AFD. When articles get moved to Draft space, they often get much less attention and if there is constructive work being done in main space, I don't see the benefit of draftifying the article.
Rather than giving me a head's up, could you mention this on the article talk page or mention it to the article creator, Nml25, and see what other interested editors think? I've already moved it once and will not revert a future move. LizRead!Talk! 06:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed a reasonable alternative to deletion WP:ATD, and the discussion was closed just a few hours later. That gave nobody else a chance to challenge or support the alternative. I feel that more time would have allowed others to critique it and I am optimistic that people would agree. I think it's unconventional for an unopposed redirect target to be denied like this. Therefore asking if you might reconsider closing it, and consider instead:
Well, if 2022 Ontario drag performance protests ever becomes a main space article, I'd be willing to restore the article and redirect it to that page. How does that sound? You know after a relisting a closer can close it at any time, right? At some point, AFD discussions need to be closed and I thought I saw a consensus. LizRead!Talk! 05:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that does sound reasonable. And I respect your right to close it at any time. I think there was consensus, it's just that the idea to make it into an event article was so recently proposed and a good idea that consensus could have shifted with this new idea. I'll work on the event article and then ping you once it's in main space. Happy New Year and thanks for all you do. CT55555(talk) 09:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2022 drag performance protests is now in main space - I expanded the geographical scope as I learned this was also a US and UK phenomenon. CT55555(talk) 10:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a gentle reminder about this, in case you are still willing to to restore and redirect? CT55555(talk) 04:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder. I have so much traffic on my talk page, especially with holiday wishes, that older comments can get lost in the middle of the page. If this happens again, you are free to copy the discussion and place it at the bottom of the page where I'm more likely to see it.
I created a redirect at Crystal Quartz to 2022 drag performance protests. Please do not revert this page bacl to the deleted article or it will just be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 and the admin who deleted the page then is less likely to want to restore it a second time. If I were you, I'd move the content to Draft or User space and work on the article in that namespace where there is less a chance of deletion. I have misgivings now about restoring it to main space but earlier I stated I was willing to do this so I can't go back on my word now. LizRead!Talk! 22:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't want to rush you, I spend enough time at AFD to see clearly that you are a busy admin.
I don't wish to hold you to your word if you have misgivings about this. Please feel free to share any concerns you have, especially if there is something I can address. CT55555(talk) 22:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to discuss the close on this. Three keeps versus four deletes, with two of the deletes (and one of the keeps) being "weak", seems like no-consensus to me. The division was also on interpreting policy (i.e., whether the sources cited met the standard) rather than one side lacking basis in policy. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, it was close. It seemed to me that those arguing for Delete were convincing in stating that the sources didn't provide SIGCOV. I'd rather not revert my closure to No Consensus but I'd be willing to relist the decision and let another admin make the call. How does that sound? LizRead!Talk! 05:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A relist for a re-close by another admin makes sense. FOARP (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, did you get a chance to look at this? I see from this page that you're very busy. FOARP (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish I hadn't agreed to this but I have to abide by what I promised earlier. I'll take care of it now. LizRead!Talk! 03:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—Moops⋠T⋡ 22:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, Liz! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1341 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 5 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that the system kept track of that! Thanks for letting me know! It's a great message to end the year on. I hope you and yours have a Happy New Years! On to 2023! LizRead!Talk! 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your work is appreciable , on this very Happy new year this is a kind request that a page Ishfaq Manzoor was deleted by you , plz get it restored so that i can make it more clear give some time to make it perfect as per needed till that it is a kind request kindly restore the page on this new year and let me make it more suitable thanks . Mananbhat (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd follow Fayenatic london's advice, they are a very experienced administrator. I can't restore an article to main space which was deleted through an AFD discussion and especially not since it was a unanimous decision that this article should be deleted. Your best bet is to work on a new version in Draft space and submit it for AFC review. If you put an article on this person back into main space, it will just be deleted again. The new draft version will have to overcome the problems that were pointed out in the AFD discussion. Basically, there are not enough reliable sources that demonstrate that this individual is a notable person, by Wikipedia's standards of notability. It might be too soon as he is in the early part of his career. Maybe in the future though.
Please also consider working on other articles, if you are too focused on getting an article on this person in main space, that can be a sign of a conflict-of-interest or paid editing which can result in you losing editing privileges. I also saw signs that you might be using multiple accounts which you should stop doing as that can also result in a block. LizRead!Talk! 23:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope you are doing well. I had nominated User:Vascoabm/sandbox with WP:U5. I think you misread it as WP:G5? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct, it was tagged as a U5. I must have just been working on some CSD G5s and had that on my mind. Sorry for my mistake. LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oi! No need to apologise. We are humans. The amount of work you do, misreading CSD once in a while is nothing. See you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Thanks for reviewing this article. Similar topics for other states in India are available in Wikipedia. Request you to kindly restore it. If possible I will add more references to make it notable. Thanks and good day. Gardenkur (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Just a reminder that this draft wasn't deleted due to a lack of importance but merely because there had been no editing activity on it for six months. As long as a draft is being actively worked on and doesn't contain problematic content (like copyright violations or advertising), it is pretty safe from deletion. Good luck on it! LizRead!Talk! 03:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year! Just posting this again in case it fell through the cracks during the holiday season. Hope you had a good one. It was a bit of tough 2022 and I missed the deletion review for the page Mark Worthington (journalist). I would have liked the opportunity to update and improve the page to head off deletion but appreciate I missed it. Hoping it can be considered for reinstatement?
Did you already post about this on my talk page? As you can see, my talk page gets a lot of traffic and it's easy to lose track of old messages when new messages come in and push them up to the middle of the page.
This article was deleted via PROD or Proposed deletion. These articles can be restored if the deletion is contested. Are you contesting the deletion and would like the article restored? That, I can do. Just know that the article could very well be tagged for an AFD deletion discussion once it is restored but that is a week-long discussion you can participate in. This doesn't always happen but I wanted to let you know that it could happen. Let me know what you want. LizRead!Talk! 03:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz
I did post on this on December 27 @ 0155 UTC. I can see how busy the page is and given the holidays I assumed you hadn't seen it. Sorry if that's caused any confusion. thank you for your explanation. Yes I am contesting the deletion and would like the article restored. I appreciate the process that may follow. Many thanks and Happy New year again! Dbx2 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz and Firefly! I reached out about this a few months ago and see that we addressed (or thought we had addressed) the issue at the time, but unfortunately it's happening again — I'm getting notices that drafts I've had sitting for a while have been G13'd, and I did not receive the 5-month expiring-soon warning. This isn't a big deal for me, since as an experienced editor I both know how to easily navigate the undeletion process and am committed enough to bother. But if I'm receiving these notices, it means that newcomers are too, and that's really not good. We actively want newcomers to complete and submit their drafts rather than abandoning them. If the first notice someone gets about their draft is one that it's been deleted requiring them to post to WP:REFUND and then wait for the restoration, that's a huge hurdle that will likely deter most of them from completing their work.
Given that the downside of hosting drafts is very minimal, I feel strongly that drafts should not be being deleted unless notice has been given. As this issue has recurred at least three times in recent memory, I'm considering proposing a change to G13 to formalize the notice requirement and would be interested in your preliminary thoughts on that. For the immediate term, could we get the notices working again and pause all G13s until editors have had at least a few days to see them? Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this note was prompted by a recent deletion, give me a page link so I can investigate this. But if we talked about this before, then you probably know that Firefly Bot sends an announcement at 5 months the first time that it appears that drafts have been abandoned or not edited for 5 months. It only does this once, the first time. If the draft goes unedited for another 5/6 months in the future, Firefly Bot doesn't send a reminder message a second (or third) time. I have mentioned to Firefly that I'd like the bot to send reminders every 5 months but they are the bot operator and so it is up to them. I also don't know how complicated it would be for them to make an adjustment to the bot. I'll note that Firefly stepped up to create this bot task when the former bot, Hasteur bot, stopped working because the bot operator had passed away. We probably went 8 or 9 months without any 5 month notices at all so I'm grateful that they added this task to Firefly Bot's schedule.
I'd just like to add, Sdkb, that not every administrator who deletes G13 expiring drafts even posts a talk page notice alerting the page creator that the draft has been deleted. But I think content creators should be informed about article deletions for pages they create so I will always alert you if I delete a page you created, whether it is being deleted for the first, second or third time. That step is something I'd like changed, I'd like admins to notify article creators every time they delete a page, for any reason (unless the editor is indefinitely blocked or a sockpuppet). To get this to happen, we'd probably have to get all admins to use Twinkle but not all do use this tool or have the "Notify page creator" box checked off in their Twinkle Preferences. That is a guideline change I would support along with all editors informing page creators when they tag a page they created for deletion but, again, not all editors post these notifications. When I've told editors that such notices should be given, I've been told by admins more senior than myself that these talk page notices are encouraged but not mandatory. Personally, speaking for myself, I think they should be given, as a rule.
As a tip for your own drafts, if you don't want to worry about your works-in-progress being deleted after 6 months, then host the page in your User pages and do not have an AFC template on the page. So, if your draft is at Draft:Example, it will be deleted after 6 months if there is no human edits to the page but if it is at User:Liz/Example (and doesn't have an AFC template on the page), then the page can sit there for years without fear of being deleted as long as it doesn't have problematic content on it (like copyright violations, BLP violations or advertising). If a well-meaning editor moves it to Draft space because it is supposedly "the preferred location for article drafts", then just move it back to your User space. It also helps if you put {{user sandbox}} tag on the page, too.
If you let me know which drafts were deleted, I can restore them. If you think that you didn't receive a deletion notice about any drafts that were deleted in the past, I can go into your Deleted contributions and see if there are any ones that were deleted without you being informed about their deletion. Let me know. LizRead!Talk! 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
This deletion has been up for a month, can you close it yet? About 15 people have voted on it, 13 keeps. Thanks. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I usually try to accomodate requests like yours. But, first, AFD is not a vote and in a discussion like this, with the claims of some sources being invalid and unreliable, it requires a careful evaluation of arguments, not a vote count. Second, however this is closed, it will be going to Deletion review. I've had two AFD closures go to Deletion review in the past few weeks and I'd rather not go back there a third time in a month. I understand that there has to be a process where editors can challenge AFD closures but it can be a bit demoralizing to have to constantly defend oneself and ones decisions. Imagine going to ANI three times to talk about your edits. I've only been active in AFD for 11 months and I'm going to leave this closure to an admin with more experience than I have and who, hopefully, is more acquainted with the A-A area of discretionary sanctions than I am. Sorry if this decision disappoints you. I expect this discussion will be closed within 48 hours (it won't be relisted) so I'd just advise patience. LizRead!Talk! 02:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, Can you review the submission? I've added more informations from reliable resources, hope the draft is ready for mainspace. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzsport (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a part of AFC, I don't review new drafts. I'm sorry that it has taken a while for anyone to get to yours. You might post a note about this at the Teahouse, you can't demand that drafts be reviewed but just bringing up the question could get a reviewer to notice your work. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. LizRead!Talk! 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. The drama of Portland restaurants continues...
What do I do when an editor has been told I've been paid to edit articles when I haven't? I don't even know where this is coming from or where people are talking about me offline. Please let me know if you have any suggestions as this is a completely false accusation.
@MasterMatt12: Putting this discussion on your radar. I would like to know who told you this lie. ---Another Believer(Talk) 21:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you aren't a paid editor, you are simply a supporter of all things Portland. We have lots of editors like this who write articles about the schools they went to, the places where they've lived, the industries they've worked in, hobbies they have. As long as it doesn't stray into COI territory (and it hasn't with you), it's usually not a problem.
It's hard to track down off-wiki discussions, especially if they are done via IRC or email, but I'll look into this later and see if it has wandered into WP:NPA. Sorry that you are encountering this...it reminds me of my first year regularly editing Wikipedia back in 2013 when a long-time editor was just sure that I was a sockpuppet. It's hard to dispell false impressions except through just doing good work, day after day. LizRead!Talk! 21:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating if you have any time. I've had this feeling editors have been chatting about me somewhere for much of the recent restaurant saga, but I've not been able to pinpoint where. I'm getting tired of having to defend my work to a group of misinformed editors with pitchforks. @MasterMatt12: I hope you will explain yourself because you are making false accusations. ---Another Believer(Talk) 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only place I know about is the Wikipediocracy discussion forums but it's been a quite a long time since I visited that website. I have visited it in the past when some dispute seemed to erupt out of nowhere, usually involving WMF, an RFA or an arbitration case, and I later found a discussion thread about it on that site. I also think there is a Reddit board devoted to Wikipedia but I don't think it is very active. LizRead!Talk! 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will join me in asking User:MasterMatt12 to explain. This is unacceptable and some editors are clearly trying to make my editing experience as frustrating as possible for reasons I don't understand. ---Another Believer(Talk) 21:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer I actually suggest posting at WP:COIN to get a larger audience but generally not as much drama as ANI. I know COIN often viewed as only the place to report suspected COI/Paid but it really is the place to discuss COI/Paid, including clearing up any misunderstandings. S0091 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thanks for the suggestion. The onus should not be on me to start this discussion, but I appreciate this may be necessary and will do if needed. Thanks again! ---Another Believer(Talk) 21:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer@Liz I will not say who brought this information to my attention for now, but the user's evidence definitely made me believe the user. First, the user showed me your LinkedIn profile which I could verify was yours from your edit history, on the LinkedIn profile it says that you "Previously, I worked for Top Level Design, the domain name registry for .wiki, .ink and .design" and you then created the Top Level Design page. You then declared a COI, but archived it and then rated the article yourself despite making 70.8% of it shown here. Another Believer also made a lot of articles related to Top Level Design like .design and .gay which he rated C-class despite making 93.5% of it and a possible COI. Another Believer is now working with Oregon Symphony and Portland Youth Philharmonic as shown on his LinkedIn profile under his about and his endorsements, and has suddenly had a large spree in writing or greatly improving Portland restaurants, despite some having questionable notability like this hot dog shack here. Another Believer's editing spree of new Portland restaurants has been so large that the List of restaurants in Portland, Oregon has surpassed the List of restaurants in New York City despite more restaurants, and 20.1 million people living there compared to the 2.5 million living in Portland. You said that it's simply because Another Believer is a "supporter of all things Portland" but it is quite suspicious that Another Believer is not doing paid editing, or does not have a COI because of the endorsements of other things related to Portland and his history of other endorsements for editing. If you are not doing paid editing and have a COI, then please make a COI on the talk page and a warning like this {{Connected contributor|User1=Another Believer}} to show a warning on the talk page that looks like this, like has been done in previous articles you've made.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Also, as for the chatting, I was just told by another user of this about 10 minutes before I left the message on the GA review and have not conversed with the user ever before. MasterMatt12(talk) 22:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does this have to do with Portland restaurants? Yes, I've created many Portland restaurant articles, but I've also created a lot of entries about Portland parks and public art and historic buildings and war memorials. What's your point? You're asking me to use a COI template which I've already demonstrated a willingness to use appropriately.
I'm not sure what crime you or this anonymous editor thinks I've committed, but you're essentially calling me out for following the rules. Unless I'm misunderstanding? As for this "chat" with another editor, I'm disappointed you won't reveal their identity because I don't like the feeling of someone I don't know trying to spread weird personal information about me in this way. You should know you're essentially enabling this behavior by not providing more details. As for Portland vs. NYC restaurant coverage, sounds like there's a content gap for NYC. I'm not sure what you want from me here but let me know if you're still interested in reviewing the Bluehour nomination. ---Another Believer(Talk) 00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No personal information is being spread about you with me and the user, he just mentioned why you may be being paid to edit or have a COI for Portland restaurants because of being endorsed by other Portland related endorsements like Oregon Symphony and Portland Youth Philharmonic and your history of being endorsed for editing. I apologize for rather assuming that you were being paid to edit, but I am wondering if you have a COI for Portland restaurants. If not, then no COI needed, and I will continue to review Bluehour and keep the original deal. Also, I asked the user why he said you were doing paid editing and to show me a possible source to verify. If you are not at all doing paid editing or have a COI, then I will tell you who the user is, although the user asked for their userpage to be deleted, and I believe is not active at all on Wikipedia. MasterMatt12(talk) 00:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterMatt12 Re: "I am wondering if you have a COI for Portland restaurants." I've already said I don't, and I don't think repeating myself is necessary. Re: "If you are not at all doing paid editing or have a COI, then I will tell you who the user is, although the user asked for their userpage to be deleted, and I believe is not active at all on Wikipedia." I don't even know what to say, that's so weird. (?) ---Another Believer(Talk) 00:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Him not being active and asking to delete his userpage? Because yes, that is kinda weird, maybe he has some sort of grudge against you, and thought I was the way to get his revenge or something. Anyways, I apologize again for not assuming good faith, and listening to the random user more than studying the problem myself. Anyways, the user is User:ThrowawayAccount4emailpurposes, and if you want I can show you the emails sent between us, although pretty much everything I said in the above messages are what he sent me. MasterMatt12(talk) 00:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterMatt12 Thanks. I doubt anything can be done about this editor but perhaps admins have some sort of access or abilities I don't as a non-admin. Anyways, just another day in the life of editing Wikipedia lately. (lol/sob) ---Another Believer(Talk) 00:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just another reason to apply to be an admin ;). Also, are you in the WikiCup? Because with the amount of GA's you've made I bet you'd do pretty good in it, if not win it. MasterMatt12(talk) 00:58, 5 Januvary 2023 (UTC)
Some general comments on this subject: To reiterate, Another Believer is a long-time editor who has edited on a wide variety of subjects. I do not believe they are a paid editor. If you believe they have a COI then I think we all are guilty of having a COI because there are some subjects we are more interested in than others. We edit articles about subjects we care about, that we have an interest in. It's the nature of having a lot of interests but a finite amount of time to spend on Wikipedia.
MasterMatt12, if you believe that an editor's activity crosses a line and violates Wikipedia policies, please take it up at the appropriate noticeboard, like WP:COIN, where you can present evidence (that's evidence, not suspicions) and other editors can evaluate your argument to see if there has been any misconduct. But you need to present evidence or the discussion could boomerang. It is also not appropriate to allude to supposed misconduct in edit summaries or unrelated talk page conversations, that's a form of personal attack and can result in a loss of editing privileges. Additionally, although admins have no jurisdiction over what occurs off-Wikipedia, please don't let discussions that occur in other forums affect what happens here. If necessary, compartmentalize your activity so that your discussions on one website don't spill over to Wikipedia. I hope this is all clear. LizRead!Talk! 01:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Little confused what "allude to supposed misconduct in edit summaries" is supposed to mean, but other than that it makes sense, and this won't happen again, and I wasn't trying to personally attack anyone. I kind of want to just act like this never happened and move on from it all, also, I won't get temporarily banned from this, right? MasterMatt12(talk) 01:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Liz. Sorry for using your talk page to host this discussion. If there's anything to learn from the deleted account, I'll let you and other admins investigate. Otherwise, seems like there's nothing I can do but deal with the ick factor. ---Another Believer(Talk) 01:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and sorry for any time wasted or frustration by anyone. MasterMatt12(talk) 01:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MasterMatt12, I'm sorry if you took these comments personally. I was making general comments about what to do if there is an editor you suspect of having a COI. I have been busy doing other tasks today and have not looked through your contributions so these weren't meant to be comments about specific conduct on your part. I apologize if that was unclear. These remarks were intended to be general advice on the subject which is why it wasn't a comment in the discussion thread because I hadn't had time to read it all but thought I should make some response as it was occurring on my talk page. Next time, I won't respond until I've had time to get fully up-to-speed. LizRead!Talk! 01:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and I can understand being busy, I mean I didn't fully look through the supposed "Paid editing" before I realized I made a big mistake, and I'm doing this while I need to finish a 6-page science packet for homework, so I better go finish that. Anyways, no hard feelings taken, I just thought you were talking about my edits in general, but I understand now. MasterMatt12(talk) 01:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to start this discussion back up on your talk page @Liz: but @Another Believer: let me know this was going on since I'm reviewing another Portland restaurant GA nominee. I got an email from User:ThrowawayAccount4emailpurposes that sounds almost exactly like the one @MasterMatt12: got. I didn't know what to make of it, because they said that they suspected paid advertising but the page I'm reviewing is for a bar that's been closed for years (who'd pay to advertise that?). It looks like they deleted their email as well, because the response I sent telling them to go to ANI or COIN got bounced back. Whoever it is must be canvassing GA reviewers interacting with Another Believer. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm gonna proceed with my GA review because it sounds like there's no real reason to suspect paid editing except that Another Believer likes Portland. All the secrecy and anonymity seems weird, it would be easier to report it normally. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BuySomeApples, I don't know what to say other than an email like that is a cowardly and crappy thing to do. Obviously an editor who wants to hide their identity for some reason. Please do not let it influence your review. Another Believer, if you ever determine who this is, I actually think this should be escalated to an email to the Arbitration Committee. LizRead!Talk! 06:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Liz that evidence of editor misconduct needs to be accurate, persuasive and presented in a way that protects editor privacy. I have improved restaurant articles. I do not believe that every small town pizza parlor that has been reviewed in the local weekly free newsstand newspaper and the local pennysaver handout deserves a Wikipedia article. Routine, predictable coverage from publications that live or die in how adroitly they re-write press releases are of use in establishing notability. These publications are expected to publish a nice friendly review of any "Tony's Pizza Parlor" that opens in their market area. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know you were contacted as well, BuySomeApples. This all feels very icky to me. ---Another Believer(Talk) 13:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, would you guys like me to email you the exact email the user sent me? MasterMatt12(talk) 13:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's nothing I could do with the email, but perhaps a CheckUser should look into User:ThrowawayAccount4emailpurposes? I have no idea how this stuff works, I'm generally a content creator on Wikipedia. ---Another Believer(Talk) 13:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that is odd, I replied to him once, thanking him for letting me know, but the second time I emailed the user it said that the user's "email does not exist" which makes no sense since I successfully emailed the same email address once before. MasterMatt12(talk) 13:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following the discussion this morning, extremely disappointing and bad for the whole community not just the editor(s) who have replied here. Taking a quick look at the sockmaster's userpage ca. October 2021, I suspect some kind of offline animosity has been carried out here. AB has been and is my friend and I hope that AB's experience is better from here on out. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bri. I'm very confused, very disappointed, and very uncomfortable. ---Another Believer(Talk) 17:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this user really doesn't like you, are there any particular users that you have gotten in an edit war or conflict with in the past? MasterMatt12(talk) 17:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and wasn't there just an extensive conversation about the sockmaster at AN/ANI? I feel like it's long mast CBAN time for him. @Another Believer you and I have run into one across across a number of articles and while I don't know you well, I've always found your edits/our interactions to be positive. Please don't be further turned off by this disappointing circus. StarMississippi 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I found concerning was you not stating you are were a paid editor. You stated, "I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details". From that statement we can not tell that you were a paid creator and editor of that page and multiple others that were connected. I do appreciate you adjusting the template on the talk pages. In my view when someone is a paid editor I believe the onus needs to be high for disclosure otherwise wiki pages can turn into an advertisement venue. As I also said on my talk page, I believe you create high quality articles, but the failure to explicitly disclose the paid relationship concerned me and made me question if there was other cases of unclear COI. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KeepItGoingForward Thanks for confirming you are satisfied with the Talk page templates. I hope you'll consider removing the "close connection" tags. ---Another Believer(Talk) 23:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KeepItGoingForward You're not responding to my requests to remove the COI tags. Template:COI specifically says, "In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor... The COI tag should be removed once the problem is fixed." Also, under When to Remove, the page says, "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." You've said you're satisfied with the COI templates I've added to the talk pages, so please remove the article tags or at least replace them with tags specific to content issues. Otherwise, you're just using the 'close connection' tags as punishment / scarlet letters. Please respond here or on specific article talk pages if preferred. Thanks, ---Another Believer(Talk) 18:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do add the COI declaration to any other articles that it may apply to, before you have to go through this whole process again… Equine-man (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Equine-man I will go ahead and add the template to all Oregon Symphony- and Portland Youth Philharmonic-related entries. ---Another Believer(Talk) 21:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep says, "I may come back at some point, perhaps next winter, with a group to examine each and every restuarant article in turn to see if it notable and try and delete the non-notable ones." Who is this "group"? ---Another Believer(Talk) 19:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this post and this post are unacceptable, in my opinion. Feels threatening. Liz, do you have any suggestions for where I can go for help? ---Another Believer(Talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I draftified this article is because the article was tagged for speedy deletion, CSD A7. When the only reason that an article is tagged for deletion is a lack of evident notability, I sometimes move the article to Draft space where the article can be improved. So, the draftification wasn't the result of an AFD discussion. I think the article can be reviewed by regular patrollers who can judge whether or not the article is a good addition to the project. But it's not appropriate to move an article to Draft space more than once unless it is part of a closure of an AFD. LizRead!Talk! 01:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Liz. I was aware that the file had been tagged for speedy deletion becuase it was asked about at Teahouse. I figured it was draftified by you to give the creator some more time to work on it. What I'm not sure about is whether it's generally considered OK for a creator to jump over AFC and move the draft to the mainspace themselves, particulary when it's already been declined once by an AFC reviewer. FWIW, I didn't re-draftify it because such a thing seemed a bit harsh, and I'm happy to leave it to NPP to assess the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For having to deal with my accusation of paid editing, and dealing with it calmly and appropriately. MasterMatt12(talk) 01:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Liz! I just wanted to make sure you saw my email :) Renée Gull (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd tell you that I'm heading to bed soon so I won't be checking my email until tomorrow. I usually only check it once a day. LizRead!Talk! 08:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Sorry for the inconvenience - it's only mid day here in Denmark :) Renée Gull (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here I can talk to you about my account Wikimedia Commons I need to talk to you about my account Wikimedia Commons i ask your permission. Tichku (talk) 7:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I published the Ek Chup article and found that the reviews were missing. Now that I have found it and got to know that the Wiki article got deleted. Is it possible that it can be retrieved so that I can complete it with the critic's section? Message -> Liz deleted page Ek Chup (Expired PROD, concern was: Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE.) -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 16:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
I have pings disabled. About 50% of my edits are to User talk pages, mostly new editors, so I get more pings than I can respond to. It's better to come directly here to talk to me. Now, I'll check out this talk page discussion. Thank you for notifying me. LizRead!Talk! 05:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Ivan Clark, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Dear Liz, thank you for inspiring contributions to Wikipedia. Your passion for Wikipedia is palpable.
I wrote a page, Akinlolu Jekins and it got deleted; i saw no notice, notification, etc like I had seen before, and I traced till I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akinlolu Jekins
Here are my requests:
1) Kindly restore the article as I'd like to improve it.
2) Two major comments contributed to the Delete/Keep, and reading both, I see no reason why the article was deleted. The delete comment admitted the individual attained notability, the links were credible, made some recommendations and the comment on Inherited Notability was to the favor of the article not the opposite and It is not a promotional article, as the write up itself shows.
The second comment hinged his response fully on the notability of Nigerian media houses, of which Guardian, Vanguard and Pulse were referenced. They are very notable and you can use your privileged opportunity on Wiki to check how many other articles have referenced from them. The article is rightful to be on Wikipedia. The consensus discussion couldn't be final. Please restore the page for improvements. There's no offline back up.
I saw a history of Akinlolu Jekins article which rightfully deserved to be deleted.
Kindly restore so I can improve the one I wrote.
Sorry for the delay in responding. First, the article creator is notified by the editor who tagged the article for deletion. This article has been deleted several times and later restored so, in this case, the AFD notification went to the editor who originally created this article as you can see at User talk:Newton256#Nomination of Akinlolu Jekins for deletion. I reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akinlolu Jekins and still believe there was a consensus to delete this article. Admins just assess and close deletion discussions so I can not revert a legitimate editor consensus to delete an article. If an admin did overrule a consensus, they would not be an admin for much longer!
There are a couple of actions that can be taken. I can restore this article to Draft or User space and you could work on improving it. You would need to submit it for review to WP:AFC...if you moved it directly back into the main space of the project, it would quickly be deleted again as a CSD G4, the recreation of an article deleted in a deletion discussion. If it was deleted in this way, it would be very hard for you to get the article restored again. So, while it takes patience, I would go through AFC, get the article approved and then have it moved to main space. This is the only way I know of to overcome an AFD "Delete" decision.
However, if you believe that I closed the AFD incorrectly, you can file a case at Deletion review. There, there would be a week-long review of my closure. But please know that Deletion review is not a place to argue for the merits of an article, it is just meant to review my closure to see if I assessed consensus correctly. Some of the time, AFD closures are endorsed, some times they are overturned, some times, a deletion discussion is reopened and relisted and some times, an article is restored to Draft space (which I offered to do above).
Those are the options that I know about. I'm sorry that you were unaware of the AFD discussion when it took place, it helps to periodically check your Watchlist to see if articles you are interested in have been edited recently and, in this case, tagged for a deletion discussion. Let me know what action you would like for me to take or what action you will be taking. LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liz,
Firstly, I must commend that you write so gracefully, and you're a gift to this platform. Thank you.
2. I perfectly understand everything, and whilst I'd request you kindly restore the article to Draft space, I'd also like to file case at the Deletion review, as I think the AFD discussion was perfect, and the judgement could have been to mark the article for further improvement based on the comments from those at the review; especially the final comment.
3. Thank you again. This helps us understand better how Wikipedia works; especially when you said an admin can't overturn a AFD consensus decision! Pshegs (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Akinlolu Jekins. 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. Pshegs (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is where individuals write and improve articles. It is not a social network or a place to find people to play with. I encourage you to seek this out on another platform. If you continue like this, you'll be seen as a troll and find yourself blocked. Find a Discord server or Facebook group where there are people with your same interests. Good luck. LizRead!Talk! 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i just wanted to play fortnite sorry can you suggest somebody who will please Goof22822733 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now blocked for de. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Blaze Wolf, I saw that coming. But just in case it is a young editor, not a troll, I like to respond. LizRead!Talk! 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, tho I assumed otherwise considering they had created hoax articles. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that now, in fact, I deleted some of those articles myself! I just didn't connect the hoax articles with this message on my talk page, especially when editors have such unmemorable usernames. LizRead!Talk! 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's very nice that you checked with me. But, yes, restoring a PROD is fine. I regularly review Proposed Deletions as part of my admin duties but I'm occasionally asked to restore them and that's part of the process, too. Good luck with it! LizRead!Talk! 06:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.. are all similar to the above mentioned debate? All these tournaments are of same stature i.e. International series. Thankyou. zoglophie 07:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zoglophie,
First, I didn't know about those other AFDs and I don't know how I would be expected to know about them. And I'm not sure if their results would be relevant as coverage of sports events can vary. Secondly, there is NO OTHER editor participation on this discussion but you. That's not a discussion, it's just your nomination statement. I'm not comfortable saying there is a consensus to delete an article based on one editor's opinion. Other admins might have a different approach but I want to see that at least one other editor agrees with you. That's my philosophy for deletion discussions.
All I can add is that relisted discussions can be closed at any time. So, it very well be that an administrator who doesn't share my philosophy will decide to close this in your favor. But I hope I explained why I chose to relist this discussion. LizRead!Talk! 07:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do have a good track record at the afd and try to be as careful as I could, I respect your philosophy. Just wanted to say it was rather undisputed. Thanks! zoglophie 08:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you are doing well! I was just curious and thought you would have a good opinion on a stub I'm trying to sort out. I was considering writing a stub about a Colorado lawyer. I don't see a clear bar for notability in this case but I'm fairly sure he IS notable. This guy has saturated the airwaves in our state (for decades) and if you watch TV or in a big city as a Coloradan you'd know the person just by his ads. I don't totally know how to document it in a way that makes his notability clear. His name is Frank Azar and his cases, political contributions and various firm actions covered statewide along with a healthy dose of self published case crowing through that his firm puts our as PR. I started a stub in my sandbox, User:Unbroken Chain/sandbox. Overage like [[22]] in the Denver Post doesn't seem like trivial coverage, nor does describing him as well known or political contribution coverage found here [[23]]. What do you think? Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mattdaviesfsic were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Needs a lot more references to establish notability. Saying he is well-known in the first sentence make it sound like not meeting WP:NPOV. Awards are mostly non-notable to the average reader.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gerard Clancy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
For when you have time: I have been lurking at AfD and making some comments and the occasional vote. I have a thought or question I would like to share with respect to the recent spate of AfDs about places in Arizona Indian country that may or may not be inhabited. I am somewhat familiar with the landscape there and can attest to the fact that several of those place are in fact extremely empty. However, what am I missing here? Surely "inhabited" is not the only criterion for notability? One of them is well-documented as an archaeological site, yet apparently this does not inherently make it notable? That's the question part. Here's the suggestion. I was just looking at an article about an extinct indigenous language in California that had been tagged for copy-edit. In doing so I looked to see whether there was an article about the ancestral homeland of that indigenous people, which is not itself extinct, just their language. (And whose name currently escapes me, sorry.) There wasn't, although there was an article about a nearby ranch. This made made me think about what's been going on with the Tohono O'odham settlements and wonder if there isn't a kind of subtle cultural appropriation being enabled there, no doubt with all good intent.
I am not suggesting that we should keep articles that are nothing more than geolocation, but it's also possible that some of these places have an importance that just isn't currently clear to us. Could we, do you think, have a rule that place names on indigenous land should be redirected to the governing jurisdiction, in these cases the reservation in question? Would that be a workable policy and does it seem like a good idea to you? If so, how would I go about getting the suggestion heard and incorporated into guidelines? I suppose it would have to be in an RfC? If so, I have never done one, and probably lack the AfD vocabulary. Do you have any suggestions? Please ping me if you reply here. Thank you, and in case anyone wonders, I have no affiliation with the Tohono O'odham or any other indigenous people, beyond a few anthropology classes in another lifetime and another place. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not Liz, but having added discussion below on an unrelated topic I couldn't help but notice this and wanted to add two cents based on the Canadian analogues. I would definitely recommend that if we can source some actual notability for a Native American locality, we should keep a standalone article — but if all we can properly source is that the locality exists, then a redirect to the relevant jurisdiction would absolutely be appropriate so long as its existence is mentioned in the redirect's target article. That would be consistent with how we handle Canadian First Nations, Métis or Inuit topics: we keep separate articles about a locality and the indigenous group that inhabits it if we can source meaningful content about those as separate topics, but if we can't do that, then we just redirect the locality to the indigenous nation so that a person who searches for the locality will still land somewhere relevant regardless. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for that input. I haven't been tracking outcome with any rigor, so this may de facto already be what is happening, but there have been quite a few nominations recently of place names on Tohono O'odham land, so if so perhaps it is not in the guidelines? I just wondered about this. Cheers Elinruby (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the creation of those "French gay actors" or "Canadian lesbian actresses" cross-categorizations wasn't really just about the "Nationality LGBT actors" categories themselves -- some of the latter, I'll grant, weren't large enough to necessarily need separate gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans subcategories, but the other half of their parentage (Category:Gay actors, Category:Lesbian actresses, etc.) was getting too large (with hundreds or even thousands of articles per category) and did need to start being diffused into smaller subcategories. And although they were created by a blocked serial overcategorizer who gave CFD a few headaches last year, CFD did actually weigh in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Category:American gay actors with a keep. So I'd say that the categories definitely can't be emptied out without a full CFD discussion, and definitely need to have their prior contents restored to them in the meantime.
Furthermore, I don't think the new user's new scheme of separating Category:Gay film actors from Category:Gay television actors is any sort of improvement -- that's a far less defining distinction than by nationality, and isn't really a viable alternative. So those should almost certainly go to CFD -- but even if the case for by-nationality subcategories is debatable, there's a far stronger case for them than there is for divvying gay actors up by a film vs. television dichotomy. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I came to the right person with my question! Thank you for that link to the older CFD concerning these categories. I think it would help if you basically cross-posted this information on the editor's talk page. I'm not sure if it's because I'm identifiably female or what but I'm kind of used to editors ignoring my warnings.
Or, hopefully, they participate in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#Category:LGBT actors by medium which you started up (thank you for opening this discussion). Categorizing people by gender, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity or religion can be a sensitive issue and should be a community discussion. I'll make sure that these LGBT nationality categories do not get deleted before this CFD closes...hopefully, it won't be open for weeks! LizRead!Talk! 02:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've started repopulating the emptied categories already, by running list comparisons in AWB to determine which articles should be moved back into each one, so they won't be empty much longer. Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention — one way or another, we'll get this all sorted out soon. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artist Jack Gunter would seem to clearly meet WP:GNG via multiple citations for his work over multiple decades in the Seattle Times, Skagit Valley Herald, etc. I would say that he also meets several clauses of WP:ARTIST. The now-deleted article had I believe 7+ citations showing notable coverage. Unclear why the deletion discussion had no other keep votes given the citations that meet GNG.
Your thoughts and/or undelete appreciated. Thanks. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was unfortunate that no one but you supported keeping this article. That's the problem with deletion discussions, you are kind of dependent on how many and which editors show up to participate. The only remedy I can offer you is to restore the article to Draft or User space and ask you to go through the WP:AFC process. One caveat is that if you choose to bypass AFC and move the article directly into main space, the article will be deleted through speedy deletion, CSD G4 and, if that happens, it will be much harder to restore. So, while AFC can take a while and involve jumping through hoops, it's the only way I know to overcome an AFD "Delete" decision. An article that has been approved by an AFC reviewer is much less likely to be tagged for deletion than one that is put straight into main space. Let me know if you'd like to take this option and, if so, where you would like the article restored. LizRead!Talk! 04:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, can you restore the article to Draft? Will try AFC. PK-WIKI (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the absolutely outrageous amount of work done in categorizing the some-thousand Signpost articles between 2005 and 2015, without which it would have been grueling-to-impossible to build Module:Signpost indices for each of those categories (all I did was write some code to put your work into the module!)
That, and the bajillion of my CSD candidates you've cleared out... jp×g 04:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, gratitude, how unexpected and appreciated! For a lot of work I did 7 years ago and then, after some months, got bored of and stopped! I was very into categories when I was a new editor on Wikipedia. It looks like you have a better model that will be more effective. It hurts a little bit to delete pages I created (I'm sure that's true for every editor) but I'm sure there are other projects I can delve into. Thanks for being a good sport about my category panic. And maybe one day I'll understand how modules work and how to get a list like the examples you offered on your talk page. Thanks for the barnstar and for finding a superior way to organize content. LizRead!Talk! 04:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, I'm also remembering that I did this massive 10 years' worth of Signpost article categorization project and later that summer decided to launch an RfA that while successful, was pretty grueling. So, I have a lot of vivid memories of July 2015. Well, I hope the categorization was useful for the 7 years it lasted. I always thought that some academic researching Wikipedia would find those Signpost archives from the past 17 years helpful, to see how the community viewed itself over time, but I think that was just wishful thinking. Maybe that's a project I should undertake one of these days! I felt closure deleting most of those categories last night and I think we got to everything but the yearly and monthly categories which I guess you'll be keeping. LizRead!Talk! 22:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I just wanted to know what happened to the Advancefd Bioncis page I noticed it was a redirect and then realized there was a lot of information removed so I restored it and began to edit it so I coudl link it to an article I want to create about the Salder case but now it's gone. It didn't look unnotable to me after all it had lots of sources but some articles here don't have any or just one. Should I not try to write about the Sadler case? Its coverage is mostly in legal journals, but it is cited precedent. Anyway, would it be OK if I write about Fewey's Pizza or Louis Graeter? And also how exactly do I start an article? I also think Salato Wildlife Center should have an article but I'm not sure because it is linked to in the box on the Newport Aquarium article but I haven't found many sources on it. From KentuckyPony KentuckyPony (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding to you, I can get busy on my regular tasks here. Do you have a link to the page that you are concerned about? Then I can look into why it was deleted.
You just start an article by creating a new page in Draft space or User space like your Sandbox. Just put the title in the upper bar (like User:KentuckyPony/Sandbox) and a new page should open up. Then start writing but make sure you "Publish changes" or save the page. LizRead!Talk! 21:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that you were concerned with Advanced Bionics and you have already started Draft:Advanced Bionics. So you are on your way to writing an article! If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse and when you are ready to submit the page for review, go to Articles for Creation and follow the instructions there. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 21:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I understand you deleted the Malabo Montpellier Panel Page due to copyright issues. Now I want to redo it. what are the steps I should take? Thanks. @LizNndiaye10 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it would be great if you could restore the draft. Thanks Nndiaye10 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, it always helps when having a discussion about an article to provide a link to the page. Was it an article or an article draft? Secondly, for legal reasons we must remove all content that violates copyright guidelines. This content can not be restored. It's better to start over, this time not "borrowing" content from other sources or closely paraphrasing content from websites, journals or books.
If you have questions about copyright on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 18:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are very limited circumstances where admins can "revision delete" or hide edits that violate content policies (usually violating BLP guidelines). Can you provide links/diffs to the edits that you are concerned about? If they are simply "vandal edits", reverting the edit is enough unless there is edit-warring. If you do revert a vandal's edit, please make sure you post a warning on the editor's talk page. These have to be edits that are damaging to the article and project, not just edits that you disagree with. LizRead!Talk! 18:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Let's start with the Ingush people article, user Reiner Gavriel deletes and rolls back the stable and neutral version: this despite the fact that he experienced users made comments, he still continues to vandalize. Ingush Orsthoy (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same story, with the same user, he deletes the neutral version of the article durdzuks, here hereIngush Orsthoy (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I saw Palpaldo in NPP and I was somewhat bemused that you didn't accept Onel5969's reasonable CSD tag based on creation by a banned user. Nearly every edit besides the creator has been by Minaro123 which has been, in effect, to take much of the content out (reasonably so). I think there is some misconception around the idea that the article has been "worked on"; rather, the edits made to reduce the article to barely more than a stub further the basis for its removal as it's the opposite of being developed (development being implied as the CSD#G5 clause "no substantial edits by others"). Girth didn't so much decline to CSD as to not propose it. Bungle(talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bungle,
Well, since Girth Summit, a checkuser, looked over the article and didn't delete the page as a CSD G5, I didn't think I should either. They are the expert on sockpuppets and usually delete articles by sockpuppets after blocking them. LizRead!Talk! 21:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't believe CSD G5 applies to the articles you just tagged for speedy deletion if you review the SPI case. The blocked editor was never connected to the sockmaster and was just blocked for being a multiple account so there was no block evasion. But if you want to try again with a different administrator reviewing the page, feel free. I'll let someone else judge them. LizRead!Talk! 21:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply (on both counts, the second being unrelated). Maybe if Minaro123 CSD tagged Palpaldo, as the apparent "substantial contributor", it would then be a valid tag? :) I find that bemusing to be honest, as there is no basis I see for retention.
I take your point somewhat more on the other articles tagged (on the basis of the SPI case outcome), though they all seem a little too WP:HOAXy for my liking! Bungle(talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the page. To be honest, I delete a lot of pages daily and it is rare that I examine the page logs unless I have questions about whether or not the page has been previously deleted and restored. In this case, UnitedStatesian has tagged a lot of old WikiProject pages for deletion in the past so I didn't question the tagged page when it showed up in a CSD category. I should have noticed that the page was tagged last year, not today. But I'm not sure why you didn't remove the CSD tag when you restored the page. So, I think we both erred here. I'm sorry I messed up your "test". LizRead!Talk! 04:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yes I should have removed that tag! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1603 London plague, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
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 Liz, I saw you deleted this, when I thought it had been redirected to Bottoms (film). Looks like when the user made that, they did it without taking care of the draft link. I don't know what's exactly appropriate here - to leave the draft deleted or to undelete it and redirect to preserve history (since that won't have been moved if both still existed) - just thought I'd mention it to you. Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I saw your note on User talk:Dmartin969 about the lack of understanding CSD. Since then the same editor has brought 2 articles on designated landmarks, one a NHRP landmark to AFD, questioning the notabilty of NRHP landmarks in general and completely missing GNG:
Something isn't right here. Since you had first contact with this editor on this subject, I thought I'd bring it to you in lieu of ANI. Would you mind taking a look? Grumpy old Toddst1 (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar to a previous discussion at your talk page, User talk:Liz#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pax Nova. I am not sure if relist is possible after two weeks, and I was involved in the AfD, but IMHO it would be great if you can relist this discussion. Thanks! VickKiang(talk) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a long reply stating I would not relist it but I see that I already agreed to this (above) so I have to honor what I already wrote. Damn. LizRead!Talk! 03:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 2nd thought per WP:RELIST my suggestion might indeed be not the greatest, so I apologise if this relist might be contentious. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 05:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The former year had a lot of help from IPs in the Top 25 Report a lot in the former year, and doing like you and checking the history of the annual report made me consider it being former contributor User:InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion evading his ban. The report is certainly up to our standards, considering it has 8 people contributing write-ups, a few very detailed. Protecting seems only necessary if IPs start changing it now that we removed the "Draft" qualification, because there's always someone to complain about our opinions. igordebraga≠ 22:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filling me in on the situation. I was just surprised to see the IP strike out the #1 entry on the list. It seemed like quite a BOLD edit for a new IP editor to make. But if it is okay with you, I'll pay it no mind. I reported them at the blocked editor's SPI but I've found that it's rare that they block IP accounts sometimes used for block evasion. LizRead!Talk! 03:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The striking out, the edit summary is "Per Christopher Scarver entry", so the IP is just resonating what I did to entry #50 (but in that case, a case of crossing out for exclusion's sake, making #51 the new #50). Only kept it because it fits my unease with the topic. If it bothers you, I'll remove it from the top entry. And yes, this kind of edit is hardly what a newcomer would make. igordebraga≠ 06:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I don't see pings. I now have a better understanding of what you were doing and why. Sorry if I came down on you strong, I just deal with this situation a lot and try to issue a stern warning rather than taking more drastic action. I'll be over on your talk page later. LizRead!Talk! 03:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, it seems like you didn't see this as well. Would you mind checking it out? Thank you. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hueman1, we typically only protect User talk pages if they are being actively vandalized and then only for a few days at a time. We don't protect User talk pages for long periods of time. I'll check out your talk page when I visit later tonight. I got kind of busy with other activities. LizRead!Talk! 05:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I should do about the situation at Kurdish coffee. It seems to be an NPOV situation, but I don't know what to do without this simply becoming and edit war. Also, I need to go to bed. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I replied to your message on my talk page. You know, I have tagged more than 400 pages on Wikipedia so far for "speedy deletion," which were obviously deleted for violating the rules. It's not like I'm achieving something by tagging the user pages or doing it for fun. I'm only here to contribute to Wikipedia and make it a better place, like everyone else. I believe a little appreciation would have been far preferable to threatening me with the cessation of all deletion tagging. I had a great reason to tag that user page, which I explained on my talk page as well, but at the end, I just want you to know that after all this, I don't think I'll ever tag any user pages in the future. Thanks! Waqar💬 06:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, just wanted to drop a quick note. I suppressed a page just now but also needed to suppress the deletion log since it contained the (suppressible) reason for deletion. I know it wasn't you who placed the summary there, but if you're deleting pages I guess I'd just kindly ask that you check to make sure the edit summary isn't revealing what we're trying to hide. Not the end of the world if you forget or don't notice, but I figured I'd mention it. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the notice but it would be more useful for me to put it into some context so I could see the mistake I made. Was it the User page identifying that there was personal information on the deleted page? That's the only recent deletion I can think of where I really should have replaced the original deletion rationale now that I think about it. Most of my page deletions just have regular standard CSD/AFD deletion reasons. You don't have to identify the exact page, just confirm the situation. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 07:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I would share the log but it's been suppressed so there's not much point! Primefac (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a preference for alternatives to deletion when they involve Merges and Redirects. I think this school is a potential search term. I haven't encountered many editors who object to conversions of articles to redirects as the result of an AFD discussion. Is there a reason why you find a redirect unaaceptable? LizRead!Talk! 03:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rosebud Primary School. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to dogs and cats so thank you for this cute kitten. I am kept very busy on Wikipedia and can be slow to reply to messages but I try. If I miss your message feel free to copy and paste it down at the bottom of the page where I'm more likely to see it. LizRead!Talk! 03:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you recreated Saridharam after deleting it. It had recently been deleted at RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Saridharam, but I cannot tag it as a G4 as the redirect target is now different. But since the reasoning is the same, I'll have to take it to RfD again. If you were not sure, you may tag it as a G7 though. Jay 💬 05:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complicated page logs I hope you forgive me for focusing on the recent CSD G10 which was the reason I saw to delete the page. And I think the RFD was for a different target article so I didn't think it applied here. Is there a problem with having this redirect exist, why does it have to go back to RFD if it is a valid redirect? My main purpose for creating this redirect was to prevent an editor for recreating an article on this page title which they keep doing. The only alternative I see is to protect the page and I think the redirect is actually more helpful than a blank page. That was what I was thinking when I recreated the page, with a different purpose, after seeing that the past efforts on this page title had been speedy deleted. LizRead!Talk! 05:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I said the new RfD reasoning will be the same, I meant the problem is with the redirect title. Now the nomination will have to say Delete unless there is clarity on whether the religion of Sarnaism is referred to by the word "sari". We don't want an editor (the original user who created this) new to enwiki to be inventing a new religion, unless you can find sources that link this name to the religion. Jay 💬 05:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay @Liz I've indeffed the creator for disruptively editing. I think it's a lack of English-langugae competence rather than pure disruption, but the outcome is the same. I leave the redirect to you two since I !voted in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_27#Sari_Santal and remain confused as to what they were trying to accomplish. StarMississippi 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had given Liz the option of a G7, but as she may seeing it as a valid redirect, I'll take it to RfD again. Jay 💬 02:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning! I’m the Director of Donations for the House of Good Deeds in NYC and our founder Leon Feingold’s page was deleted in November. He’s also a former professional baseball player for many years and has quite a bit of reputation and publicity in the polyamory advocacy world. He’s had a page for many years and one of our volunteers told us it’s no longer active.
Oh, wow, thank you and Spiderone! They are usually just listed there on the AFD page, I didn't know what was required to prompt them to appear. I'll look into this, especially if I'm ever nominating an article for deletion. Thanks very much for remembering my comment! LizRead!Talk! 06:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that they generally appear, but it is based on the nomination page name. This one had a different name so I think it needed some coaxing by manually adding it in...check my understanding there if I am way off base @Spiderone:. TheSandDoctorTalk 06:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome TheSandDoctor and Liz! I'll be honest, I just based the coding for it on one of the previous AfDs, where it had automatically generated, and hoped for the best! It seemed to have worked, which was fortunate. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the middle of writing a keep statement when you deleted. Can you revert, for now at least?
My statement was:
Keep - That he's royalty isn't relevant here. As head of the President of the Emirates Football Association, he has plenty of in-depth coverage, such as [24] and [25]. I haven't checked, but as the head of the Municipality and Planning Department in Ajman, I'd also expect coverage. Ping User:GiantSnowman. Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any support for keeping this article but I am open (some might say TOO open) to relisting so I'll restore and relist. You can copy over your statement when it's done. LizRead!Talk! 18:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious why you relisted the page for AfD with no negative votes and two editors already having worked on it to make it compliant? With a 2-0 vote over a week, shouldnt think be closed?ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just remembered you prefer notifications to pings. Mentioned an IP block you made in case you can shed some light on two named disruptive editors. No worries if it was too long ago/ you don't remember and thanks either way. StarMississippi 03:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't know, around 45-50% of my edits are to User talk pages, mostly to brand new editors regarding their drafts so I seem to get more pings than I can ever respond to. So, I appreciate the talk page notice. Unfortunately, I'm only marginally better responding to talk page messages but at least I'm better about seeing them. I responded at that AFD, I'm surprised to see that article already back at AFD. I can't remember much about that specific IP block, it is rare for me to do a range block so I must have been serious concerns. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. LizRead!Talk! 04:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the degree to which you do keep up amazes me!
Hopefully the SPI sorts out the mess for a while. Have a great day StarMississippi 14:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t find any info but I know this is true please add:
Reza Alamouti:
Former Central Committee Member of the Organization of Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas in 90s; founder of Radio Aras 206.108.213.42 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my girlfriend's account. She was having technical difficulties and I was helping her fix the quote template syntax. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; Nissan TD engine was just deleted by you. I have lots of sources but was unaware that it was undergoing discussion. Could I have access to the original content of the article so that I can rescue it with some sources added? Thanks. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A one-second search found this article, hopefully that is enough for a start. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, upon your request, I have restored the article and moved it to Draft:Nissan TD engine. Please take heed...you NEED to submit this to AFC for review. If you make a few improvements to the article and move it back to main space soonafter, the article will be deleted as CSD G4 and it will unlikely to ever be restored again. So, take advantage of this opportunity, read over the AFD to read the comments on why editors thought the article should be deleted and go through AFC. It'll take longer but you are much likelier to have success if you would like to see this article back in main space. Good luck. LizRead!Talk! 02:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, just wanted to let you know I'd be reverting your clean up of these links. I see why it happened, but it was a result of move vandalism which I've just repaired. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief because I wasn't sure exactly what happened. There were page moves I thought I'd see in page histories that weren't there. Feel free to restore the page I deleted as a CSD R2 cross-namespace redirect. I also warned the editor (28 edits!) that multiple page moves, for no good reason, are a bad idea. LizRead!Talk! 02:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also did a double take here, something was... weird. It looks like he somehow moved the page twice but I can't quite figure out how. But the original history is back in place now. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I suddenly got it. He moved the page to a sandbox. Then moved the redirect it created to a second sandbox. Weird. -- ferret (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I once had a softwear glitch and did two page moves about a second apart. It completely deleted all content on the page. Luckily, as an admin, I could restore it to just the first page move. Sometimes the results with wiki softwear is a little unpredictable, especially when there is an edit conflict. LizRead!Talk! 02:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. In case you didn't see my reply here, I did respond to your email, so you might want to check your spam folder if nothing's come through. Just wanted to let you know so you didn't think I was ignoring you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility. I also have a filter that files some incoming messages about WikiMania in a special folder so perhaps it got lost there. I'll comb through my messages. Thanks for letting me know! I hope things are going well with you this week. LizRead!Talk! 19:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Shouldn't your close here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiridates (son of Tiran of Armenia) be a regular delete? From what I have seen of your other closes, you only use soft delete when there is at most one delete vote aside from the nomination, but in this case there are two. Avilich (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I'm becoming predictable, the more time I spend at AFD. You're right, I usually reserve Soft Delete for when there is only one Delete argument besides the nomination statement. But I have used it at times when there is more than one Delete argument if I question the strength or the argument of one or more of those advocating Delete. This is usually with new editors who are inexperienced and don't provide evidence that they really understand the process of deletion discussions or when an editor just posts a brief comment like "Delete" without justification for why they believe an article should be deleted. Some closers never use Soft Delete but I find it useful when I don't really see a strong argument for deleting an article beyond the nomination statement.
But you are correct, in this instance, I should have done a straight "Delete" closure so I've appended a note to the AFD to state that I've changed my closure decision. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. LizRead!Talk!
Just as an aside, I don't like deleting an article based only upon a nomination statement with no other participation from other editors. When I've looked at past AFDs, I've seen these cases closed in a number of different ways over the years, mostly as Soft Deletes but sometimes as a default Keep. So, I leave those cases for other closers to handle. Luckily, this situation doesn't happen much unless an editor decides to mass-nominate a large number of articles on a niche subject and it just overwhelms the day's AFD log. Typically, there is usually at least one other editor weighing in in discussions so there can be an actual consensus, even if it is only with two editors. But, in general, I find the more thoughtful participation, the better! We just need to make sure that our AFD regulars don't burn out. LizRead!Talk! 20:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and thanks! Avilich (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might find this new tool interesting[edit]
Hello. Legoktm made a tool that shows editing streaks. Your stats are very impressive, but our retired colleague BernsteinBot's are even more so. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is crazy. I was out-of-town some of those days. This is the new Wikiholic tool. I really need to take some time off. But I can't compete with a bot...they don't need to sleep. Thanks for sharing. LizRead!Talk! 06:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm, I don't know, on the first list, I don't even crack the Top 50 editor streaks. An editor went over 5000+ days straight without missing a day with no edits? Unbelievable! And with the second list, there are days when I don't make a main space edit so that streak is shorter. My only suggestion is that I think there should be some list with only human editors. We aren't programmed to edit daily so people can't compete with the consistency of our bot editors. LizRead!Talk! 08:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, sorry I'm not sure what the proper process is here, but user Ekansh45 has made repeated edits of this article, despite me reverting their changes twice, and leaving a message on their talk page. Can you please assist and/or advise what I should do? Many thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you did make the first edit on this page which went by a different but similiar name when you create it. It was originally a redirect you created to Pao Pao (disambiguation). Then someone removed the redirect and created an article on this page and I think it was later moved to Draft space. When I delete a page, Twinkle goes to the first editor on the page and sends them a notice which is why you received it. Twinkle can't see who actually created the article. This kind of mixup happens more than you might think. New editors often change redirects into articles rather than going through Draft space and this confusion results. Sorry about the unwanted notice. LizRead!Talk! 04:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and found that an article named PISB (school) was deleted. I want to know the reason of its deletion? IrfanYashkun (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I look at several hundred pages a day. It would help if you gave me a link to the deleted page so I can look into why it was deleted. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 04:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the link to the article as it is deleted but the name is Pakistan International School Buraydah IrfanYashkun (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly not ready for main space as currently written (it has a general feeling of being incomplete and lacking information, with TBDs all over the place). I attempted to Draftify it, but got an error message saying that a draft already exists. The preexisting draft looks almost identical to the current mainspace article, so it appears that the page was previously draftified and then the author recreated it in mainspace without improving it. I have successfully G6'd such cases before, as we essentially have duplicate pages in different namespaces, and only one namespace is (currently) the proper location for the content. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to do a round Robbin move and re-Draftify the page, and I think everything ended up where it should be, though it's possible histories may need to be merged (I don't think so, but wouldn't hurt to have a second pair of eyes confirm). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, when discussing a page or pages, please always provide a link so I don't have to search for the page or guess at which one you are talking about. I look over several hundred pages a day. Then I can investigate whatever action I took and try to explain it. From what I can gather from your comments, I refused a CSD tag you placed on an article because there was an existing draft page. This isn't a criteria for speedy deletion that I know of and CSD G6 isn't just a miscellaneous category for whatever doesn't fit another criteria, if you look at WP:CSD you'll see it's for technical deletions. I can't explain how other admins handle these pages in the past but CSD G6-tagged pages have to fit the limited speedy deletion criteria like every other category of deletion.
But it sounds like you were able to work things out so this question is moot. LizRead!Talk! 05:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz, I am unsure whether to nominate the article Prithviraj Productions for deletion through the G5 or AFD process. The article was initially created by a sockpuppet and moved to mainspace with the help of another sockpuppet. However, it has been in existence for almost two years and has received additional contributions from other editors, including IPs. If no one else had edited the article, would it still qualify for G5? If G5 is not an appropriate option, I am considering taking it to AFD. Akevsharma (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you already settled upon sending this page to AFD and I think you made the right decision. So many other editors have worked on this article that I doubt it would qualify for CSD G5. If the block-evading editor was the sole or only major contributor to the page, then CSD G5 would be appropriate. Good luck with your AFD nomination. I'll probably look it over at some point before it closes. LizRead!Talk! 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over your message and don't really have an opinion beyond what I have already offered. I'll reply on that page when I get some time. LizRead!Talk! 13:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, don't worry, I'll do it another way. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three AfDs for "Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song)"[edit]
The first AfD received some "keep" votes that were not supported by policy or reliable sources, and were nicely debunked by other voters, but the Admin closed it as "No Consensus" with no acknowledgement of any consideration beyond counting votes. Per WP:NPASR, a "No Consensus" AfD can be renominated, and I did so with what I thought was a solid argument on how the Admin committed an error the first time. That second AfD ended with the same Admin closing it with a typo-filled rage dump that only ranted at me, ignored the rest of the voters, included a threat against me, and continued to ignore the deficiencies of the article and the votes in favor of keeping it. Allow me to cite WP:CIVIL and WP:INVOLVED.
Your comment in the third AfD shows why I never called for an investigation. Admins will circle the wagons. You critiqued my timing again, as if I hadn't already heard that from your colleague, and that minor tactical mishap is again being used as a diversion away from questionable Admin behavior. Please don't reply on how Admins have tough jobs, because you're volunteers just like me. For the third AfD I request an in-depth policy-based analysis of all votes by the closing Admin, who can then make a tough but fair choice. That already failed twice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz! I've been going through User:Lettler's article creation history and found one I think is notable and can be kept (definitely not any of the sportspeople, since I think they would all fail our current NSPORTS requirements). Specifically Ennan Alimov, which I checked out on the Wayback Machine to verify its content. I would like to take responsibility for the article. Would you be willing to undelete it? SilverserenC 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done I recommend you doing some editing on it right away. Coincidentally, I had a little down time and wandered over to ANI, which I try to avoid, and read the long discussion about these reverts and deletions, some of which I did. I definitely believe in the power of discretion and I think the editor involved just got carried away with trying to cross every "T" and dot every "I". But after that discussion, I don't think they will repeat their actions quite like this again. LizRead!Talk! 05:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yeah, I think I was a bit too harsh in my responses there. I just got a bit mad when I saw some of the more extreme reversions done, the photo one in particular. I've got a couple sources I've found for Alimov, so I'll go make some improvements. SilverserenC 05:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll confess that a couple of years ago, I got into a zealous mood and deleted all of these articles created by a block-evading sockpuppet. They were on obscure Scandinavian women of the early 20th century, primarily in education and after I was part way through, I realized that these articles would never, ever be recreated by another editor. They were gone, forever. I never acted like that again and I regret I was so dogged on removing that sockpuppet's work. I wish I could remember the sockpuppet editor's username so I could revisit those pages. LizRead!Talk! 05:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with any luck, Women In Red will end up recreating all of them someday. I wouldn't be surprised if, despite being obscure, they're still on one of the many subject lists that WiR has compiled. I can't even imagine how long it will take to complete all of the articles in those lists, even if they weren't expanded even more in the future. But it will happen eventually, even if it takes a century. :P SilverserenC 05:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have my admiration! LizRead!Talk! 05:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you bring your questions to the Teahouse. There are experienced editors who can offer you advice and support and try to give you some answers on how to edit on Wikipedia. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 05:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, can you help with something. I think this was a recreation of a previously deleted page but I don't have the time right now to dig through what exactly happened. Maybe it was good-faith maybe not -- they say it was after an "accidental deletion". But I think a bunch of article history got deleted either way. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, [User:Bri|Bri]],
It is confusing Miss World 2023 was created and deleted but the page log isn't very informative about why, something about a "cut and paste move". What I think is stranger is that Miss World 2022 was deleted by an admin and there was some effort previous to the deletion to turn it into Miss World 2023. It was deleted even though it had about 1,500 edits to the page. I asked the admin who deleted it if it was a mistake to delete that page but I haven't seen how he replied to my query. What I do know is that this isn't an instance of an article recreation after an AFD so CSD G4 wouldn't apply here. LizRead!Talk! 05:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick reply. I think I remember when MW 2023 was recreated the first time, I thought it looked familiar as perhaps a recreation of Miss World 2022. So ... does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss World 2022 have any bearing on all of this? Probably not, I think, becuase of the date, but I can't see the deleted stuff of course.
One final thing that might help you understand what's happening. MW 2022 never happened during 2022 and I asked at VPM whether it should even exist as an article. I think someone tried to move it to MW 2023 via cut-paste move. I'm fuzzy on what happened after that, maybe some editwarring and/or confused admins. Anyway. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Oh, I didn't know about that AFD. But it looked like the article was mainly deleted for being TOOSOON which wouldn't be the case once it was 2022. I do appreciate your vigilance with these beauty pageant articles. I don't think they are very encyclopedic but they do have a lot of fans who flock to this subject. I think a lot of it has to do with national pride rather than the pageants really meaning something signficant. LizRead!Talk! 05:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you're well. You recently reverted edits on Niko Omilana, turning the page from an article into a redirect. I am of the opinion that the topic ticks off the items of the WP:GNG criteria and I have attempted to get a consensus (which I think I have) on the redirect's talk page. What steps do you advise I take to get the page published if this discussion doesn't satisfy consensus? - GA Melbourne (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It takes more than an hour or two to develop a consensus strong enough to overcome an AFD decision. The discussion is great, please continue with it, maybe after a week or two, there will be enough participants and discussion to arrive at a true consensus. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 05:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I've noticed you clean up a lot of deleted article references. One minor suggestion: when the link in question is on a disambiguation page, would it be possible to delete the entire entry for that article, rather than just delinking? A disambiguation page entry should have exactly one bluelink, so a zero-link entry is not desirable (nor useful, hence the rule).
Hello, Liz! Having in mind some exchanges of opinion that we had (relatively) recently, I thought that you might be interested in endorsingWP:NOCONFED and its content. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs) 19:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of ASTM International standards delete discussion[edit]
Hi there,
I've pinged you on one of the AfDs but you probably didn't notice it. May I ask for your help with the numerous articles (List of [language] songs recorded by [singer]) put up for deletion at Category:AfD debates (Media and music). It so happens that there are now a few separate AfDs for each singer, and this makes the entire process almost impossible. So, for example, List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra is up for deletion but separately, the following ones as well:
I'm just coming home after being out of town for a few days and I have some work to get to so I won't look at this until later tonight. I'm not sure what you want done here. I can't force AFDs together into one bundled nomination. I would approach the nominator and see if they would consider bundling nominations in the future if they want to continue to send articles like this to AFD. But if these discussion pages have been created, no admin can force them all together on one page. LizRead!Talk! 00:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't see pings so thank you for coming to my talk page. LizRead!Talk! 00:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Adewale Adeyipo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Hi Liz. Apologies for this templated message. This article would appear to me in no way a WP:A7 candidate. I would usually go thought all the references before a speedy decline... but WP:G5 would appear to me the better CSD tag - please see User:Ameerah1 . Thank you. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, User:Montana Legislature - which you speedy deleted under CSD U5 - was just recreated, and appears to still fall under U5. Also, the user's name might not be permissible - it seems to represent the legislature of Montana, which realistically it doesn't but WP:ORGNAME nevertheless. Edit: userpage was deleted again under U5. CharredShorthand.talk; 16:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz; I've been corresponding with this user regarding some questionable deletion proposals, and the user finished the discussion by moving their user talk page to User talk:3 and blanking it. It might have been a botched attempt to archive the contents, but it also looks like an attempt to sidestep WP:DELTALK. Can you recommend how to handle this? I'm just picking on you because it looks like you're active at the moment. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have sorted itself out as a failed attempt to archive. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting the Jean-Pierre Petit article and the promo page for his comic series, Archibald Higgins. There is one more archived page to delete: Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit/2021/December. Will you do that, or does it need a separate PROD? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed some of the articles you tagged but I left some for other admins to review. If they are still there in the morning, I'll re-review them. LizRead!Talk! 08:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Katz Drug Store sit-in instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Katz Drug Store Sit-In and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
I reviewed some articles you tagged but they were not all valid CSD G5 taggings. I think I told you already, if other editors have made contributions to the page, it is not eligible for a G5 speedy deletion. LizRead!Talk! 06:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a big misunderstanding about my user sandbox page. It was marked as “blatant hoax” and the entire page was deleted earlier today. The wiki boxes I created are used for an ongoing alternate history thread I created for reddit. Here are a few examples:
These wiki boxes are made in my user sandbox not a public wiki page, therefore I had no intentions of spreading fake news to anyone. Alternate scenario wikiboxes were also never said to be banned from Wikipedia therefore I had the freedom to make them for personal use in my own wiki sandbox. They were no where near hoax, let alone “blatant”. Please fix your blatant mistake immediately. Lucaspig HK (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your User pages are not "yours" for hosting content unrelated to writing Wikipedia articles. You need to create your own website or blog for any personal content that is related to your project on reddit. It doesn't belong here. Content on User pages has to be used for article writing or editing resources.
If you want, I can email you the content but it won't be restored on this project. LizRead!Talk! 06:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I guess. This was just a left-over redirect after a page move that I should have deleted myself. LizRead!Talk! 00:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm confused by your decision to delete the article at Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song). There have been two AFDs prior to the one you just closed, which demonstrated sourcing as well as the song satisfying the WP:NSONG criteria. I don't see any new evidence presented in this one that would override the points made in the first two. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I could close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song) (3rd_nomination) any other way. The consensus among the editors in this discussion was that the sources were inadequate. There definitely wasn't a consensus to Keep this article and I thought the arguments made by those advocating Delete were not only more numerous but stronger. How would you interpret this AFD, not the other two, but this particular discussion? LizRead!Talk! 00:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, could you please refund Draft:Canadair (disambiguation). It was on my watchlist, but I don't remember anything about it. I'll tag it for deletion again if it was mine and I don't want to finish it. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done That's an easy request to fulfill. LizRead!Talk! 06:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the quick response. I see I hadn't ever edited it, so I'm not sure how I even found it in the first place. DAB pages aren't my strong suit, but I'm not certain this one really qualifies for a DAB. The genericized claims are from Wikitionary, but aren't sourced, and the others are all covered in the main article. What do you think? If you think it doesn't qualify, go ahead and delete it again. If it does qualify, I'll clean it up and move it to mainspace later. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is an odd AFD but you're right to do a procedural close. I don't think I've seen a Talk page tagged for an AFD before. It's an unusual AFD to do your first close on but the article and it's talk page were speedy deleted and with the mistagging, this discussion probably should have been closed by a regular closer the day it opened. Looked okay to me. LizRead!Talk! 00:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did have to make one formatting correction that happens all of the time with editors doing a closure manually and not with XFDcloser...the top archive box goes ABOVE the article title, not below it. If you look at the edit I made you can see correct formatting. I must do this a couple times a week with some AFD closures so it's a common mistake. LizRead!Talk! 00:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you dislike(d) the volume of AfD nominations on these topics. It's good to see that dislike is not reflected in the various recent closes, and that each is treated on its merits, That is what we hope for but do not always see. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as much as mass-creation of stub articles, I dislike mass-deletion tagging of articles. My point of view, having worked at AFD for 12 months now, is that those editors advocating Keep have a much heavier burden of proof to demonstrate that references, found somewhere, establish notability of a subject than those advocating deletion who can simply state that GNG (or BASIC or NSONG or NPROF, etc.) isn't met.
I'm glad that you are not upset with the relistings. I don't expect multiple relistings for this group of articles. But I think that there should be a discussion on a music WikiProject about how to handle this type of discography or song listing. I understand that Wikipedia is not a database but I'm also aware that some editors believe cataloging a performer or athlete's career can be encyclopedic. We'll see over the next week how this shapes up. LizRead!Talk! 00:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If matters like this upset me I would have left years ago. The community has a will and expresses it. We are servants to it, though we also seek to influence it. The only things that ever upset me are:
patent unfairness
WP:ICANTHEARYOU, the more so in cases where I have tried hard to get through
folk who lie
That's about it.
I hope this will catalyse a discussion about such lists, and not about anyone's behaviour. The creating editor is, in my view, acting in good faith but unwisely, and in great volume. In the same way that they appear to feel a duty to create such laborious and huge lists I feel I have a duty to the project to ask the community to consider each at a deletion process. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done You can find it at LiveLine with Mason. Liz Read! Talk! 09:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
,_Egrets_in_Snow,_1927.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
Resolved
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Theroadislong § King Gug. Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ITV1 +1 (tv channel) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9 § ITV1 +1 (tv channel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bassie f (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
—hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
