This page was last edited or modified by Jhazy99 (talk).
Note: When emailing me, please also post a {{You've got mail}} template to this page. I check my Wikipedia email account infrequently.
Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position. Basalisk⁄berate 4 August 2013 Well said!Liz
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.
While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)
If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply. And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.
For your loss
Hi Liz,
I saw your comment at AN—I'm so sorry for your loss. Grief is so difficult, and I hope that you are doing alright.
Best wishes, ꧁Zanahary꧂01:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message of sympathy. Since the end of April, my sister, brother and I were caring for my mother who was put into hospice care. I'm glad for the time I got to spend with her but it was very sudden and unexpected when she was diagnosed with cancer and it upended our lives. She passed away on June 21st so it's been a lot of taking care of her things and getting back to our old lives that are now changed. But through it all, taking care of routine editing tasks on Wikipedia were kind of the way I handled my stress but I neglected requests on my talk page. I hope to be more responsive from here on out. Thanks again for your kindness. Liz05:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, you must have been too busy deleting empty categories to notice my request at CFDS.
You deleted several pages that needed to be moved. These were some of large group of categories that need to be moved together, because they are populated by templates.
Your deletion log entry stated that the categories had been moved under C2, but although the former contents were already populating the redlinked target page, the category page had not been moved pending nomination of the rest of the hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon12:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to respectfully request the recreation of the Wikipedia page for Akuma Saningong. I understand that the page was previously deleted and I appreciate the efforts of Wikipedia editors in maintaining the quality and accuracy of content on the platform. However, I believe that Akuma Saningong holds significant notability and relevance, and I would like to address any concerns that led to its deletion.I am committed to ensuring that the content is neutral, well-referenced and adheres to Wikipedia's standards. I am open to any feedback or suggestions you might have. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your positive response. 41.89.125.3 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus there was clear, IP41 and the article is not eligible for restoration. You're welcome to start a new draft about Saningong and put it through AfC. Please declare your connection to the subject. StarMississippi17:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to my talk page stalkers who gave you the response I'd have given you. Write a new draft. Liz04:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy 4th of July!
Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!
Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
Hello Liz, I have a lot of new information and quality sources about the Boukari Laouali Chaibou page that you locked, can you please unlock the creation so that I can recreate it with all the new sources? Best regards, Wikipedien28 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, it really helps if you provide a link to the page you are talking about. But if this is a protected main space page title, just create a draft article and submit it to WP:AFC. Once the draft is approved, the protection can be lifted when the article is moved from Draft space to main space. Liz04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted the page Applied Minds in 2022. Right now information on the company is split between sections on both founders pages, which makes it hard to link to. Could you restore the page, I will try to improve it, otherwise I'll turn it into a disambiguation page that links to both founders articles for convenience.. — (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might this and related cats be better as a navigation template? I have not declined your CSD, it just struck me as a potentially better route. 🇺🇦 FiddleFaddle 🇺🇦 05:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a load of annoying work, creating a template, and adding it to all the various articles. I don't really fancy it, nor care enough to do it. 🇺🇦 FiddleFaddle 🇺🇦 07:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
That's not how I interpreted consensus in that discussion. But if you want to change the Merge target on the tag in your role as an editor, you can bring it up on the talk page. Also, if you are willing to do the merge, you can merge content to wherever you think is appropriate. You don't need permission to do so. Liz04:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very good point that there's a difference between summarizing the discussion, and coming to a conclusion that makes sense! I think that the discussants didn't read to the bottom of the list. My approach with other discussion, in such cases, is not to close the discussion, but rather to join as a discussant and point out the problems. Regardless, I'm very happy to manage this on the talk page of individual articles where the target seems inappropriate. Klbrain (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Would you be open to relisting this? I had just done so as I don't think the Keep !votes have full policy behind them since a merger is viable outcoome and the argument being made. Totally understand if not and of course TY either way. @Qwirkle, I didn't revert your post close comment, but would you if Liz doesn't reopen? StarMississippi12:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, it wasn’t closed when I started editing it. Had the closure been a little fuller, addressing the WP:NOPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFF, I might have won that race. (Yeah, almost an hour is a long time, although you never know with server sync issues.) Qwirkle (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The reason I relisted is they didn't IMO refute the nom that a standalone wasn't required. But it may close as keep in the end. Hope you're hanging in as best as possible @LizStarMississippi12:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a decision to remove a page's categories, I use XFDcloser to close AFD discussions and I guess it is programmed to remove all content from an article page that is changed to a Redirect. I'm sure you'll find the same result from any article that is changed to a Redirect through an AFD discussion as almost all discussion closers use XFDcloser to close discussions. But I'll look into re-adding the categories. Liz02:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sul Ross State University Lobos
Hey there, Liz. Hope you are well. What is the process for withdrawing an AfD where there are no keep !votes? Another user has suggested a better alternative to my recommendation to merge, which I agreed with and implemented accordingly. Please see the discussion here for more context. JTtheOG (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient math problems speedy deletion - i do not agree
"This criterion applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven days" - SEVEN DAYS
i created this category 24 hours ago. i think this category helpfull for categorization Ivan191navi (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
promptness?
Regarding your closure of this AFD discussion, the {{afd-merge to}} that you added to the "Michael Larson" page says, If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. Now, I'm not in any way advocating for haste, or chomping at the bit, or up in arms about anything. I'm just asking: in your experience, how long qualifies as "promptly"? As I said in the discussion, and mentioned in the merge-discussion I began, I don't think there's any actually mergable content that isn't already at the target article. Given enough time and unparticipation, I'm inclined to again just redirect the BIO1E to the event article, but I absolutely don't want to take undue haste in anything. I've just never partifipated in this sequence of events before and don't know how long is typical or expected. Many thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= |17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think editing your talk page is lagging my browsers? Not sure if it's templates, length, or anything else, but I'm not experiencing this at any other pages—for what it's worth.
I found a couple of better reliable secondary sources that can improve the Kamal Gray article but it might take me a day or two to do that so please don't end AfD discussion at least until tomorrow afternoon EST. Note it will still be an edge case but both sources I found have more coverage about Gray. Nnev66 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only closer so you might post this update on the AFD itself so that others see it. There is no obvious consensus right now so unless there is a sudden influx of editors coming into participate in the AFD (which doesn't happen that frequently on relisted AFDs), I don't think you need to worry about an early closure. Just keep participants informed on your progress. Liz16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi! How's it going? I was meaning to ask: I remember a deletion nomination where you pointed out to watch out for the correct citation of WP:BEFORE. From what I understand of what you said, it isn't an argument to argue to keep an article, but rather something that should be considered before starting a deletion discussion, is this correct? Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I've just been notified that I have been given access to wikipedialibrary tool. This is the first I've heard of the wikipedialibrary and appears to be a superb tool for newcomers creating their first few article drafts. I wish I'd known about this sooner. Are there any other tools that you might be able to recommend?
cheers, Rockycape (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Yang Ming (basketball)
Hi Liz, I noticed you deleted Draft:Yang Ming (basketball) for CSD G8 (Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page). I don't mean to criticize you or anything, but as far as I know it was a draft that was awaiting review by the AFC team. If you can view the draft's history before its deletion, would you like to review your decision, and by any chance, restore the draft to where it should be? Regards. 23.165.40.219 (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You'll note that not one of the redirects were valid; each and every one was for a species article that does not exist, redirecting to a misspelling of a genus name that redirects to a valid genus name - but that's a genus that none of those species are placed in - so they very much should not point there, as your reversion is now making them do. Yes, really, not one of those species is in the genus Stylochirus, and there is no genus "Stylochyrus". Regardless of what happens to them, there is presently nowhere for them to point that is either a valid species article in Wikipedia, or a valid genus article - yes, I pointed them to redlinks, but at least those redlinks are where they would point if those articles existed, or if someone creates them. As it stands, they're all orphans, and will probably always be, since they are all based on misspellings and incorrect genus combinations. Whoever created those original redirects created a problem for every future editor to have to contend with. I'd be very happy if, instead of reverting them to point to articles they shouldn't point to, you know the proper way to speedily delete them, given that they have presently have no viable destinations to point to. If you know how to initiate a speedy delete, let me know and I'll happily vote to delete them. There's no easy fix for it otherwise. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you undid all of the redirects, including the ones pointing to actual Stylochirus species like giganteus. Either delete them all, please, or let them all point to redlinks; the present situation is not viable. Dyanega (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a redirect points to an inaccurate target article, you can change the target article but please do not change it to a red link or it will be corrected or deleted. Liz01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Books & Bytes – Issue 63
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024
Please provide a link to the page you are talking about. I don't even know whether it is an article or a draft. Then I can tell you why it was deleted.
It was an entire page of my figure skating career and coaching career. I attempted to go back and edit with new details about my career and it is no longer clickable. You had removed a dead link to a page connected with Tim mckernan, aka barrel man, as we have the same name but no family connection. 5.30.140.63 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I wanted to edit with updates to my new career in Dubai and also list the page on my CV and low and behold, it is gone :( 5.30.140.63 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done In this instance, with a deleted PROD, I can easily restore the article. Please know that it might be sent to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. But as for now, it's up and present on the project. I encourage you to register an account and if you are Timothy, abide by our Conflict-of-interest guidelines. Good luck. Liz02:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
A concern about an editor's objectivity and a request for arbitration(?)
Hi Liz, I'm a newer editor who generally works on IE linguistics. I've been having some issues with a more established editor on a page about the originator of a 'new religious movement' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Talk:Abd-ru-shin_) and I believe this editor's objectivity is, at best, severely compromised regarding that specific topic. This editor, tgeorgescu, posted in the administrator's noticeboard to which you replied very recently (I'm not sure how to link that). Since I am new and don't quite understand how things work here, I was hoping that someone could arbitrate (or at the very least, read) the discussion on that article's talk page, as this editor seems to embody the quote at the top of your page:
Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position
The biggest issues:
a) The editor misrepresented several WP guidelines until I read them and challenged those notions.
b) The editor claimed that dictionary definitions are WP:SYNTH or OR (which I don't believe they are, but please correct me if I'm wrong).
c) The editor also, on my talk page, explicitly stated that they "[weren't] a fan of [the individual about whom the original article is written]." After I asked the editor to clarify, instead of doing so, they went to the admin notice page thingy and blatantly lied about my desire to have them 'indeffed' (which I don't actually understand the meaning of).
d) It appears that everything added to that article must conform to this specific editor's viewpoint on the matter or it will be deleted.
I think it would be prudent for a moderator or administrator (however these things work) to simply read the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Talk:Abd-ru-shin; I think it would be abundantly clear that the editor in question's objectivity is questionable on that specific topic. All I was recommending on that page was that a dictionary definition should be added but the editor claimed that could not be done because it "sounds odd and contrived." If you could please let me know how these issues are resolved I would greatly appreciate it as I honestly feel that it's getting close to cyber-bullying, viz. harassment from an established editor to a new(ish)comer and I am absolutely sure this isn't the first time this editor has behaved in such a manner. If I am in the wrong place here, I would also appreciate a point in the right direction.
You are asking for a lot. First let me state that tgeorgescu has been editing for over 21 years which is almost from the very beginning of this entire project and racked up over 51,000 edits. So, they have been around a long time and are probably very familiar with the majority of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Of course, this doesn't mean that they are perfect.
Secondly, disputes between editors are very common here, it's the nature of a collaborative editing project. You will have disagreements with other editors about content and interpretation of policy. This is especially true for all editors, even editors who have been around for a long period of time. So being in a dispute with another editor does not make headlines here and shouldn't be taken to ANI unless there are serious allegations being made that are supported by evidence. We encourage editors to talk out their differences.
I'm willing to look over this talk page over the weekend but I don't tend to take sides unless I see policy guidelines being violated and even then I typically issue warnings. I am an infrequent blocker unless I see vandalism. So this request will not result in sanctions against the editor you are in a dispute with unless I see something very, very wrong which I don't expect to see.
You can go to official arbitration but if you want to pursue this next week to take advantage of one of our other dispute resolution processes. You can learn more about these by asking at the Teahouse. Some new editors expect that admins will step in and remove the other editor from the discussion but that's just not how it works, you need to find a way to work with or around editors you have disagreements with unless we are talking about trolls, vandals and socks. Liz00:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can often help in these situation is to get other editors involved in the discussion which eliminates the "me vs. you" part of a dispute. Is there a relevant WikiProject where you can neutrally invite other editors to offer their opinions? Just having 1 or 2 more editors as part of a discussion can often clarify what the problem is and diffuse a situation. Just a suggestion. Liz00:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Hi Liz, thank you very much for your response. I just wanted to clarify that at no point did I request that this individual be blocked; I simply stated that I think that their objectivity in this specific matter is compromised and that it would be prudent for someone to take a look at that article's talk page because it seems to be this editor's personal fiefdom and everything must conform to their POV (even though it is a low-importance article). It seems that this topic is very near-and-dear to this editor and I think it would be a manifest absurdity for an editor not to have personal feelings about one of the 21,000 edits they've performed -- I believe that this topic is one of those personal matters for this specific editor. Vindafarna (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was described at Wikipediocracy as "Wikipedia's resident religious fringe fighter". And yup, I have edited with criticism about other gurus, such as Rudolf Steiner and Gregorian Bivolaru. In respect to Bivolaru: I was never a fan of him, and, by and large, I did not read his works (except for his anti-Masonic review).
You never asked for me getting blocked? Somewhat more than a month ago you wrote You should have your privileges to edit on this website revoked.[1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning my friend. Hope you're enjoying a relatively quiet weekend after your rough months. I'm happy to perform the merge here, but as closer would you mind if I rev del'ed the copyright violating text before doing so? Didn't want it to appear as if I was end running your close. No worries either way. Thanks! StarMississippi12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We moved all of the furniture two days ago and now have two more days of clearing out my mother's apartment before we turn in the keys on Monday. So, it's been a lot of cleaning, sorting and packing her things up for the past three weeks. Next Saturday, 7/27, we have a "party" (that's what she wanted it called) for her and life will begin to return back to the way it was back in April before she entered hospice care. And I'll remove the "stress" tag from this page which I don't think most editors even noticed!
As for the "merge", I don't do merges myself so if you could take care of this, it would be some welcome help. Thanks for the offer. Liz02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rev del done.
A party is a wonderful way to celebrate a life well lived. Glad you're able to honor her memory that way. I hope the packing and cleaning has been as stress free as is ever possible. All the continued love your way StarMississippi14:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How Come ?
My User talk page is not appropriate place to have a battleground argument. Don't come to an admin's talk page attempting to get another editor blocked. It can backfire on you. No one comes off looking good here. Consider whether you are making allies or enemies when you make accusations and counter-attacks. It can matter if you are ever brought to WP:ANI which is a very unpleasant experience, believe me. Remember, Civility is policy, too. Liz02:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am writing to address the concerns and accusations regarding my contributions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I have reviewed your feedback and would like to clarify a few points @Gabriel601. I have been going through your user contributions here on Wikipedia and seeing your negative feedback on editors.
Firstly, I have made numerous contributions to Wikipedia, including uploading pictures to Wikimedia Commons. Some of these pictures have been removed, and others have been added to various pages such as the "Enchanting" article and others. The sources of these images vary, including screenshots, images from the internet, and Facebook pages. I have always aimed to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines when uploading and adding images.
I understand there have been accusations of sockpuppetry and other violations of Wikipedia's policies. I assure you that I have never engaged in any activities that violate Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are specific issues with the images I have uploaded, I encourage you to address these concerns through the proper channels within the Wikimedia Commons community. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could provide concrete evidence to support any claims made against me.
I am committed to continuing my contributions to Wikipedia in a manner that upholds the community's standards. If there are any misunderstandings or if further clarification is needed, I am open to discussing them constructively.
@SafariScribe have asked me to ignore and overlook this false accusations but i cant if @Gabriel601 keeps trying to tarnish my image here on wikipedia his not the only editor here and definately not an admin here Stop Personal attacks and Disruptive to my contributions. Afrowriter (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regarding the conflict of names, I understand there have been concerns about editors using similar names. Unfortunately, I do not have the power to control or choose the names that other editors decide to use on Wikipedia. If an editor is attempting to impersonate me, I assure you it is without my consent and beyond my control. If this is a significant issue, I recommend reporting it to Wikipedia's administrators for appropriate action. and its absolute non of my business honestly i dont know whats your problem is with me first you complained about the draft i was working saying because am from a certain region am not suppose to edit or create articles that has to do with people from other region, who made those laws or rules ???? wikipedia is not your personal blog or platforms where you get to choose how or what topics an editor gets to edit or create
Secondly, I would like to address the comments made about my ability to edit or create articles related to regions different from my own. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where anyone can contribute to any topic, provided they adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. There are no rules that restrict editors from editing or creating articles based on their regional background. I believe these comments are unfounded and do not align with the principles of Wikipedia, which promotes a neutral point of view and open collaboration from all contributors.
I have always strived to follow Wikipedia's guidelines in my contributions, and I am committed to improving the quality of content on the platform. If there are specific issues with my edits or drafts, I am open to constructive feedback and willing to make necessary adjustments. Afrowriter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my final response to the accusations of sockpuppetry and paid editing. These allegations are both unfounded and distressing.
Accusing editors of collecting money for editing or engaging in sockpuppetry without evidence is not only unacceptable but also damaging to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Imagine if similar baseless accusations were made against you—it would be equally unjust and disheartening.
I urge you to refrain from making these deceitful claims. Your actions are making Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment for editors. Please remember that you are not an administrator, and such serious accusations should be substantiated with concrete evidence and addressed through the proper channels. Afrowriter (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Gabriel601, going around accusing an editor of WP: SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:UPE can be considered as WP:PERSONAL ATTACK especially without evidence. It can also be disrupting going to talk pages of different administrators after filing a report at WP:SPI. Please add all your claim there, as the patrolling admin or SPI clerk will take care of it. Also, there was no claim of the blocked user formerly answering Afrowriter. Safari Scribe16:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe I will advise you say what you know and don't say what you don't know. What happened to the images? or has wikipedia turn to a community where COI are now being welcomed and not disclosed by such user. Why didn't you say anything about that. Also make sure you read User_talk:Gabriel601#Personal_attacks_to_my_contributions_and_false_accusations. I have no issue you being accepting the article but you have a mistake over there and you know that now. So you can either take care of that or you over look that and stop shutting me up of what I know and if you need evidence then provide your email. Gabriel(……?)16:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to engage in conflict or use any inappropriate language, but your actions are pushing me to my limits. I have the right to edit and make contributions to Wikipedia without being subjected to unfounded accusations and harassment.
Please stop making baseless claims and allow me to continue my work in peace. If you have legitimate concerns, I urge you to follow the appropriate Wikipedia processes and provide evidence which i believe you have done, there was nothing to match both account also u can go ahead and cook up your lies. damn this is not the first time you are accusing an editor for such. Afrowriter (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrowriter I have not provided any evidence. All what you saw was just a report. The main evidence I kept them for any administrator who cares to look forward according to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Keep acting like you don't know what am talking about. Until an admin cares then I will forward everything I have and know against your account. I don't have to start uploading here as they don't suite the Wikipedia guidelines for uploading. I have never accused anyone for sock. All your fishy grammars to make editors believe you are cool and of course you can edit in peace but don't forget I have never provided any evidence even if I have them. I am ready to forward all evidence via email for the community to take a look and then come back to finalise this case. Gabriel(……?)17:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe You also said have been going around to other administrators. Can you point out any administrator have been going around except being here. Bunch of lies. Something I cant just put on my laptop and start typing if they ain't a truth. I vow to always accept what is right. Gabriel(……?)17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You vow ? similar to how you have been attacking other editors. I must remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, not a personal blog where one can make unfounded accusations.
Your initial claim that I was switching edits using the draft "Samklef" as a reference against me was unfair and not neutral. I have always aimed to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and contribute positively to the community.
If you believe there are specific issues with my edits, I urge you to address them through the proper channels.
this is 21st century, where anyone can fabricate evidence with the help of AI or computer-generated images, I want to address the accusations against me clearly and unequivocally.
I categorically deny any allegations that I have ever collected money for editing or that I am associated with the account you claim is mine. Despite any so-called evidence you might present, the truth remains that I have always adhered to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. baseless accusations and fabricated evidence are not only unjust but also detrimental Afrowriter (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just hold on till an administrator gives me the rightful email to reach out and I will forward all the evidence starting from day one I nominated the article Willie XO. They haven’t been any evidence so far I have uploaded. So just hold on. And if I am lying to the community I should be blocked permanently after providing those evidence. I see no reason you responding to all my statement if you are clean. If I was you I would have been encouraging the other editor to go ahead to forward all evidence to the community via the appropriate email. Gabriel(……?)17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to AI evidence. If I ever provide any AI evidence to the admin community my account should be blocked permanently. I look forward to the admin email to contact. Gabriel(……?)18:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol you are funny so the admins should believe you and not me because you are who ??? founder of wikipedia anybody can cook up lies,swear, and at the same time say shiiiit about other people that doesnt change the facts that my contributions here have been from a neutral point of view. like i said earlier i would stop responding to your baseless accusation and focus more my edits here. thanks have a nice day Afrowriter (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Zjq0qlkqjqjab"
What actually happened there is that an editor vandalized and then page-moved a real article that had already existed since April, so I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted all of their vandalism and put the page back where it was before they tried to crap on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for figuring it out. I couldn't figure out what was going on because it looked like the edits had been done by an experienced editor, not by a vandal. I think it was a couple of days ago so the details are already fading in my memory. But I appreciate the update. Liz22:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It confused me too, to the point that I actually reported it to WP:ANI because I couldn't figure out whether it was a good editor gone rogue or a good editor who had been hacked. But they ended up doing something else that got them editblocked shortly afterward, which kind of resolved that mystery (or at least rendered it irrelevant). Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: @RedParrot, we can't have two same draft and article at the same time. Why should yours be accepted and another editor's work moved to draft. Fwiw, you are the one at fault, and please, always check whether there is an existing draft or article before creating new pages because from the page creation dates, the draft was created earlier, and because yours has a better content than Imsaneikigai's, hence my move. Cheers! Safari Scribe07:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this is wrong, I created the page first with production section as well. Why to credit the page creation to some one else. Please consider @User:Liz @User:SafariScribe. I have waited patiently to improve the article and then seek permission to move to mainspace. I think my article should be credited.Imsaneikigai (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not watching, so please ping me if anything needed. You can disregard the AfC headers of course, that's a factor of the draft script. StarMississippi01:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this was deleted on my watchlist and didn't remember it being nominated in the first place. Up until just about a week ago, this was a full-on article with citing 19 sources, then it was converted into a redirect (admin-only link) (which I did miss at the time) and now deleted. I think it should probably be restored and discussed on its own merits. Just Step Sideways21:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the recent deletion of Hatim Zaghoul's Wikipedia page. Hatim Zaghool is a highly prominent figure in the wireless internet industry and has made substantial contributions to the field, deserving recognition on your platform. His achievements include:
Pioneering WiFi Technology: Hatim Zaghoul was instrumental in deploying some of the earliest WiFi networks in Calgary, in collaboration with WiLAN, the inventors of WiFi. This pioneering work has set a foundation for modern wireless connectivity in the region.
Given these significant achievements and his substantial impact on both the industry and community, I strongly believe that Hatim Zaghool's Wikipedia page should be restored. His contributions are of public interest and importance, deserving of proper acknowledgment and documentation on your platform.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey, the issue has been solved now, so please do not worry about the email :)
I just saw on your page that you are dealing with a lot of stress. I am so so sorry to hear that. I really am sending you all the best and well wishes. I really hope things get better. *Virtual hug* DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help explaining why we remove unreferenced material?
Hi Liz. I might be wrong in admonishing an editor at User talk:Therealangelo1177#Reverting back unsourced material but I have the feeling that they just don't understand how referencing works. They have reverted me a number of times with difficult to understand rationales, including [2]. Over here they reverted me a second time, and introduced a source for a table of over a dozen people that only mentions three of them. Again here with an edit summary that doesn't make sense to me as an English statement. There may be language issues as well as policy-comprehension issues.
This is a heavy beauty pageant editor... they have a number of talkpage warnings about sourcing and other issues. Maybe a third opinion from an administrator at the conversation would help them? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I really apologize. I know very little English. I have contributed a lot to Wikipedia and other family sites for years (19 years). But I really wanted to have an English version of this article. I do not find it acceptable to delete the page in line with this policy you developed. I am currently making this comment again via Google Translate. I am getting more and more disenchanted with contributing to Wikipedia every passing day. Therefore, I do not find the permanent deletion you have done justified. But you are one of those people who do whatever they want. Therefore, do as you know how. I am very upset. I am really upset. My faith in Wikipedia is shaken. In fact, it is finished. You, the people who know best, do not see the help that others give here. You do not want to see it. I hope that one day you will be face to face with the truth.
I suspect this will not move forwards at all. What are your thoughts on an AFC acceptance to let the community sort it out? 🇺🇦 FiddleFaddle 🇺🇦 07:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Growth team released Community Configuration at all Wikipedias. You can access it at Special:CommunityConfiguration.
This new special page replaces Special:EditGrowthConfig. For now, all Growth features can be configured using Community Configuration. Configuration for AutoModerator (T365046) and other features will be available in the future.
We will add a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version available to beta wikis. We will conduct an A/B test at our pilot wikis using the new Metrics Platform. We still welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.
As part of the Growth team 2024/2025 Annual Plan, the Growth team will explore various ways to increase the percentage of newcomers who successfully start editing.
Editing a Wikipedia page requires too much context and patience. It means many trial and error for newcomers to contribute, meaning a steeper learning curve and potential discouraging reverts. To support a new generation of volunteers, we will increase the number and availability of smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows (E.g. Edit Check and Structured Tasks). The Growth team will primarily focus on Structured Tasks, while working closely with the Editing team to ensure our work integrates well with Edit Check.
Stay informed
Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
Hey there, welcome to the 25th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 March 2024. We've got a ton of wonderful editors taking back their pitchforks today. Don't worry, for they come in peace, to forcibly fix and extend existing scripts you use with sheer passion. There's so many, them forks have got what's basically their own column now! gift us with some rows before it's too late Aaron Liu (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
An easily configurable script to add a link to the #p-vector-user-menu-overflow portlet with a name, target, and icon. This one should be a relatively easier one. I would do it myself, but I'm too busy rotting away on Celeste (video game).
After the ＲＩＩＪ update, Aaron Liu: Watchlyst Greybar Unsin has a dismiss button that allows you to mark an item as read in one click and cycle to the next Watchlist item.
Lordseriouspig/StatusChangerImproved is just like Enterprisey's script, except you select your status from a dropdown instead of cycling through them with a button. The WMF operates out of car-centric infrastructure anyway. Shame!
Newly maintained scripts
Aaron Liu has created Duplinks from Evad37/duplinks-alt; his fork adds a config variable to automatically highlight duplicate links on the loading of any page where the portlet link would've appeared.
Tired of staring at a bunch of filtering text and waiting for darn filter logs to load? Msz2001/AbuseFilter analyzer can parse abuse filters into a visual syntax tree and evaluate locally on-demand!
Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences finds references with the same link and displays the number of them along with a button to add the {{duplicated citations}} tag under the references section. Being lazy has never been easier!
fastest gun on the net Ponor/really-quick-block really quick add to contribution lists three buttons awesome
I can't restore a page created by a sockpuppet. And if you are a sockpuppet, please stop editing because any pages you create will also be deleted and your edits reverted. Go back to your original account and submit an unblock request. Liz08:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor seems to be intentionally misrepresenting an image
Hey Liz,
I was hoping i might ask you for some guidance on how to handle something I noticed. There was a photo on an article by a user who has been blocked for, um, lets just refer to it as turkish-nationalist editing tendencies. The caption provided said that it was "indian troops departing Samsun." However, I did some digging because something about the image didn't strike me as correct, and the original image had a caption of its own dating it 5-6 years prior to the event alleged in the article and stating that the soldiers pictured were in fact Ghurkas in France. I have concerns that whoever added the image was making an intentional misrepresentation, but I am not sure if it is ANI worthy. I figured the best course of action would be to reach out to an admin for advice instead. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, an article that you moved to Draft space earlier this year has (sort of) had an attempt by the author to move it to main space - it is now at Wikipedia:Charles Corm II. Though it has citations I doubt the subject has been proven to meet WP:GNG. I'd be inclined to nominate it for deletion, but because it isn't an 'article' yet, that might be complicated. Do you think the best thing to do would be to move it back again to Draft space? Sionk (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk, I have deleted the draft on the project page. Also, there' no need to nominate the draft for deletion because the author has draftified it and it's now on the draft space. I added an {{AFC draft}}, which will help them submit it for review via AFC. Cheers! Safari Scribe12:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Because the article didn't agree with your suggested new article title. We can't move an article to a new title unless the content of the article agrees with the new title name. The article stated the name was the original title not your suggested new title. Changes to the article should be done and approved before a page move not after. Liz05:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why you hesitated on closing that discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention so I can correct it. Liz05:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Because of a system lag of almost 100 hours, we haven't gotten updated bot reports that alert us to pages like broken redirects. Liz07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination for Brownstones Coffee
Liz, I noticed that you recently closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownstones Coffee discussion as speedy delete per G11. I'm guessing that this was simply a cleanup action following Seraphimblade's speedy deletion of the article during that first day it was listed at AfD. That's where I first noticed it and started to fix it just before it disappeared. After discussing the matter with Seraphimblade, and with his permission, I went ahead and recreated the article with sources in the most sterile and neutral tone I could muster. I'm just wondering if anything needs to be adjusted now on the Afd page, and how it will reflect on the article's talk page. StonyBrookbabble13:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've only made 6 edits. That's not a sign that you are even going to stick around. Get some experience editing first and come if you have any questions. Better yet, bring them to the Teahouse, that's a place for new editors to ask their questions about editing. Liz08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about not "sticking", but perhaps that could be averted by posting a message on their user talk page explaining why the article was redirected and what (if any) options they might have if they disagree with that consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged as a Proposed Deletion. Editors had a week to consider the deletion and no one removed the tag. So it was deleted. Just because someone is rich, doesn't make them notable. But if you want to work on this article, you can ask for it to be restored at WP:REFUND. Liz08:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I see your edit notice and I apologize for adding to your stress, but ... your second response to Bloodofox suggested that disparagement of neopagans is not on the same level as "discrimination faced by members of established religious groups". I'm not sure it's useful to imply a comparison to discrimination when Bloodofox's complaint was about incivility. I'm very sure it's not useful to imply that neopagan religions—what the insult in question referred to—are not worthy of the same respect as "established" religions. I'm sorry, but that's prejudice. Please don't imply that some religions are less than others; what are neopagans to think of your trivializing their religion in passing like that, whether or not you were responding to one? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I find this outrageous. Open discrimination against any religion should have no place on Wikipedia, nor should any user engage in such conduct. This is simply not the place to express one's personal disaste for any group of people. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Yngvadottir, I saw your message earlier, I just didn't know how to respond or what you were asking of me. If I was insensitive, I apologize.
In hindsight, I should have not commented in this complaint. It's just the circumstances of this incident, where the edit was almost immediately reverted and the editor stated regret for making the remark, seemed less serious than an incident I just dealt with, where an editor told another to "stop pushing muslim pov". That edit was not reverted or apologized for and I told the editor if it happened again, they could face a block. Liz02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking about it and for getting back to me. You have every right to comment in an AN/I section! But I hope you can now see that one religious-based jibe being worse in your mind doesn't mean another religious-based jibe is ok?
I am curious about your reasoning for the relist of Mark Malecki. Since the last relist, there were four comments (including mine), in support of keeping the article because sources exist and no other positions were taken during the discussion (or refutation that the sources meet GNG). Thank you - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Why did you delete the article Yaroslav Kysil? Imho the article is ok, so it can stay on wikipedia, and will be grown and better over the time. Is there a copy of the deleted article somewhere on Wikipedia? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The first page you provided does not qualify for G8, even if it has redlinks. The second page is in the user namespace and does not qualify for G2, and I don't think it'd qualify for G8. Rusty🐈14:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Falls under G6 redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended. The addition of "(film)" by a subsequent editor to a page about a novel was obviously done in error, it was moved away accordingly. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I know you hang around AfD a lot so I was hoping you might be able to help me with a question. In doing a RS search for a currently-nominated article, I found zero evidence of notability for what's currently in the article (very positive, philanthropist, etc) but at least 3 RS naming the subject as someone who was willing to meddle in US politics on Russia's behalf, among other allegations. I was confident in my vote after checking the currently cited sources, but now I'm flummoxed. The article would need a complete rewrite and I can't see how it could be anything but heavily biased against the subject, which feels wrong. Do you have any advice? Thanks for reading, and I wish you an excellent day! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I’ve notice that you’ve closed several debates for which I’ve commented on. In several of those, I didn’t vote, but merely discussed the pros and cons. Are my comments useful to you? Bearian (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
yesterday (2024-08-16) you have deleted the article Roman Savchenko (footballer). I found some references ref-1 and ref-2 that I think can be considered as having significant coverage of the subject. Especially the first source is in my opinion a good one if we talk about significant coverage.
What do you think about the references, especially about the first one?Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't restore an article deleted through an AFD (twice) to main space or it will just be deleted again as a CSD G4. I can restore it to Draft space where you can work on it but you can't move it into main space or it will just be tagged for deletion. You have to go through an AFC review so the reviewer can see that the problems that caused it to be deleted don't still exist. Would you agree with this option? Liz22:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz,
I don't know what is an AFC review, and how it works. I can imagine to go through the review, but it does matter only if I would have answer to my question: Does the ref provides WP:SIGCOV or not, if we talk about the above article? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon this before seeing this message because you created a lot of broken redirects through your page moves. Somehow, a main space article wound up at Draft:Move/Teenage Dream so I moved it back to main space along with its talk page. I'm not sure what move you were attempting to do. It's just that this is a well-known song and shouldn't be in Draft space. Does this take care of your problem? It seems like these round-robin article page moves often end up with extra redirects or unpredictable messes. Liz22:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Utopes. We can end up with these pages when Robert does a round-robin article page move which can involve extra, unnecessary pages in his User space. I see them tagged CSD G6. Liz23:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz and @Utopes, thank you so much for the help. Yes! The intended changes are now in order. I’ll have to be EXTREMELY cautious next time. Once again, thank you. Best, Reading Beans02:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, I think that page mover is the most underrated privilege on the project. New editors tend to focus on rollbacker or extended confirmed status but there is more potential damage that can be done with improper page moves. That's not the case here, this was a mistake, but I see a lot of page move vandalism and it can result in valid pages being deleted. But in this case, I'm glad we got everything straightened out. Liz02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to do. XFDcloser, which we use to close AFD discussions, should have removed all red links when the discussion was closed and the article deleted. Are you saying that they still exist? Because I can use Twinkle's "Unlink" tool to remove them, just let me know if this is what you mean by "backlinks". I do sometimes have to use "Purge catch" on individual pages (like CSD categories) because, especially categories, do not always show all changes that have been made to them. If you are asking me to do something else, you'll have to explain a bit more. Liz00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Backlinks" means "What links here". Did you click at plenty of backlinks?. When you remove an item from a template the backlinks to articles listed in this template live for a long time. I was thoroughly confused when I run into this for the first time: I saw the page backlinked, but I could nit find the link in the page itself. --Altenmann>talk00:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being busy, you misunderstood me :-) The "what links here" resolved itself; it just too time until your change in the template propagated all across wikipedia. My question was whether you know how to speed this process up, like "Pure cache". --Altenmann>talk07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that a recent edit in the Nearby Share article added a link to a malicious website. Would be greatly appreciated if you could delete their revision; I already reverted it.
Acidananas (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I see you deleted the article Soe Win (general) because Appes900 moved it to userspace the same day. I am not sure why they chose to move the article to userspace, but it is a very important article about the second-most powerful man in the country and we need it back. Not criticizing, just need it back thanks. I am not sure if there’s a new title, but all the internal wikilinks including at Soe Win (disambiguation) are red now. TEMPO156 (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of you not following me. And what do you want to achieve? I know don't worry. But how you manage to put us on the same scale is remarkable.
== Request for comment ==
Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you submitted the draft Draft:Quarry Amphitheater on behalf of User:Quarry Amphitheater. I just declined the draft, but I feel like the author(s?) could definitely improve it to a good state if they provides the sources they used to get to the state it's in. I can't tell by the user talk page - was there a rename request granted? Or did this user just disappear to the aether after writing their piece? Reconrabbit20:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the draft creator has been blocked since December over username issues. It's just that I look at expiring drafts every day and if I see one that seems promising, I submit it for review, even if the editors are long gone, just to see if it will pass or to see if a patrolling editor takes interest in it and works to improve. Submitting it to AFC also takes it out of the "drafts to be deleted", even for a few months. I'm sorry though if you thought it was a waste of your time since the draft creator is blocked. I probably submit 1 out of 500 drafts/sandboxes I review so it doesn't happen that often. Most old drafts are in pretty bad shape but sometimes you come across one that is well-written and referenced so I try to give a shot. Thanks for reviewing it. Liz20:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Knowing that the draft creator probably isn't coming back to finish their article, I may just finish their work - there look to be some okay sources out there ([4][5] and surely some on newspapers.com). Reconrabbit20:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Reconrabbit, that is great of you to spend time doing that. Draft space doesn't get much attention from experienced content creators so cleaning up this article is appreciated. Thank you. Liz20:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GCSD, these apply to every type of page ... and so apply to articles, drafts... WP:G4 says that it excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement. I don't see why it wouldn't apply to AFC drafts. I suppose it might not be sufficiently identical to the deleted page, but how would I know? Srnec (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not accusing you of anything. I guess it's more of a custom among admins patrolling CSD categories to allow attempts to rewrite articles in Draft space that have been deleted in AFD discussions rather than anything written in policy. But it's pretty standard among administrators. In many of my AFD closures, I even advise editors that I will restore a deleted article to Draft space where it can be improved and all of these attempts must get AFC approval before being moved to main space. That is mandatory. And I know admins who work at WP:REFUND will restore deleted articles to Draft space, especially if it is okay with the admin who closed the AFD that led to its deletion.
Think of it this way: If we didn't allow people to write better versions of deleted articles in Draft space then AFD decisions would last forever and I don't think that's what the community wants. We want more well-written, well-referenced articles about notable subjects in main space and if there is crappy article in main space on a subject and the consensus in an AFD is to Delete, then we delete that version. If an editor says, "Hey, that was a terrible article but I believe the subject is notable and I found some new references that show that", rather than going to DRV and arguing, incorrectly, that the AFD wasn't closed properly, we direct them to Draft space so they can write a much better version of the article and submit it to AFC for review so we can be sure that this new version is better than the deleted version. If it's not, it's declined or rejected, if it is accepted then, hooray!, we have a better version of an article that had been deleted. All in all, it's a much better solution than for editors to try and slip it into main space where it WOULD most likely be eligible for a CSD G4 speedy deletion.
There is an accepted exception to this "No CSD G4s in Draft space" unwritten practice. If an editor, often UPEs, just keep recreating the same article over and over again and it was deleted in an AFD discussion and maybe in a few CSDs, too (probably G11s), then I've seen admins use CSD G4 as a deletion rationale, even if the article is in Draft space. But the custom has been to allow well-intentioned editors, especially those with good content creation backgrounds, to be able to write new and improved versions of deleted articles in Draft space. Liz20:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have made a mistake in the close decision. I feel that the consensus was a redirect, rather than a merge, as the article has no sourced content TO merge.
In response to your comments closing the AfD I started, I'm actually not satisfied. Yes, sources were provided with the AfD, but the commenter did not add them to the article, which was part of the reason the AfD was started anyway. I won't add them myself, because I don't speak the languages they're in, and I don't trust any online translator to be 100% accurate. TrueCRaysball03:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Email from Saqib
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I see you were the closer for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Harrity. Given the discussion I'm not sure why the article wasn't draftified rather than deleted as elected members of a large American city council often have a Wikipedia page provided there are reliable secondary sources and some of the commenters suggested this. While my main purpose here is to restore the draft so it can be improved, I also want to understand what was missing from AfD discussion such that it was deleted rather than draftified. Note Philadelphia City Council member Anthony Phillips (politician) stayed as a draft for a while before finally being reviewed and moved to mainspace, although it went through AfC. Nnev66 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frytown
Note about Frytown, Iowa - the state is not a "useless dab" but actually a rule of our naming conventions - WP:USPLACE states "When weighing a US city against other possible primary topics, the US city should never be considered a partial title match if the base name of the city is the same as the term being considered. For example, Nashville, Tennessee, includes the state name in its title and is also the primary topic for "Nashville" alone, which redirects to the city's page." and "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named "City" unless they are not the primary topic for that name." Frytown is not listed in the AP Stylebook, therefore it needs the state dab. Are there any other articles you have made this kind of change to, so I or you can fix them? Also, can you please consider clearing your talk page? Writing this caused my computer to lag incredibly. wizzito | say hello!23:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, sorry about the length of my user talk page. I'll archive it this week. Thanks for the prompting.
Second, I need a reference for your remarks about "Frytown". Does this concern an AFD or some other action I took? I make hundreds of edits a day and this isn't ringing any bells. I need more context to understand exactly what you are asking me to do. Thank you. Liz03:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've come back to review my User talk page, I can't remember which editor this is about but I think I replied to them last night. I spend too much time on Wikipedia and all of those expired drafts, CSD-tagged pages, AFD discussions and ANI debates start to blur together in my mind after a few hours passes. Thank God for my contributions lists because otherwise I'd never remember who I talked to yesterday. Liz03:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"New phone, who dis?"
I so know what you mean. They narrowly missed the boomerang at ANI. They wants charter and verse after your reply to them about having their user page deleted. They still smell of duck to me. 🇺🇦 FiddleFaddle 🇺🇦 07:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Today, after adding the "criticisms" section to the article on the Innovation Agency, which operates under the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport of Azerbaijan and is one of Azerbaijan's major state agencies, I realized that I had mistakenly edited the ministry's page instead of the agency's page. However, I later realized that the Innovation Agency's article had been redirected to the ministry's article, and since I accessed the article through language links, I was automatically redirected to the ministry's article. The issue is that this redirection was done without any discussion, and moreover, the content about the agency was not transferred to the redirected article. The user who carried out the redirection, Thenightaway, similarly redirected the articles of other Azerbaijani state agencies and committees to the respective ministry's article without transferring the content, simply deleting it instead. (State Agency for Compulsory Health Insurance, State Fund for Development of IT, State Service for Registration of Plant Varieties and Seed Control, State Agency on Renewable Energy Sources,State Service on Property Issues, Academy of State Customs Committee, Azersu Open Joint Stock Company) Despite my investigation, I couldn't find any discussion or consensus for this action. As a result of this action, information about more than one organization has been lost because no content was transferred during the redirection, only deleted. There is also no consensus. Generally, I should note that I believe the said user (Thenightaway) is not neutral toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. Previously, the same user accused two administrators of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia of a conflict of interest without any evidence, and both administrators have been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia since then due to this accusation without any evidence. (you might find this discussion interesting as well). As an administrator of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I have been familiar with the activities of both administrators for years and am confident that the accusations are unfounded. The user even did not provide any evidence. I had already noticed that Thenightaway was not neutral regarding Azerbaijani topics, but this action, redirecting articles without discussion and deleting content, is also against the policies of the project. I suggest applying a topic ban to the user. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how these things are handled on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but topic bans are generally imposed after discussions on WP:ANI (see this discussion for an example on this subject). Alternatively, you could look over Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and approach an administrator who is familiar with disputes in this subject area who is listed on this page. We all have our areas of expertise and mine ISN'T contentious topics and topic bans. I think if you approach an admin who is knowledgeable about disputes in this field, you might have more success here. Good luck. Liz03:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m trying to create Actor Amod Jande Wikipedia Page.. but my article deleted why nd how i create New Page About Amod Jande (Actir) Amod474482 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My New Article Delete
I m trying to create Actor Amod Jande Wikipedia Page.. but my article deleted why nd how i create New Page About Amod Jande (Actor) Amod474482 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First scenario: Article is nominated for deletion, a single participant provides a valid delete !vote, and a second participant provides a valid keep !vote. Article gets hard deleted.
Second scenario: Article is nominated for deletion, a single participant provides a valid delete !vote. Article gets soft deleted. Later on, a second participant requests undeletion at RFU. Article gets refunded.
This seems like system gaming to me. "Don't participate because it will allow a soft deletion which can then be refunded." What are your thoughts? In the AFD I link, the RFU requestor is the article's primary author. - UtherSRG(talk)12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the user responded to the AFD notification and had some conversation on their talk page about the nomination, but did not participate in the AFD. - UtherSRG(talk)12:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page deletion - List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria
Hello Liz, I would like to request a review of the deletion of this very page since it was a very useful resource in researches about the history of the Ottoman Empire. I believe that it didn't violate any policies. I am more than open to discuss what can be done in this situation.
The creator of that nomination copied another AfD and switched the signatures to mine. Previously, I closed several of their AfD nominations for also being copies and repeatedly warned them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of redirects were deleted as broken redirects because, for some unknown reason, most page movers don't leave a redirect behind when they move a page. Regular editors must leave a redirect when they move a page but page movers can opt out of that and, I don't know why, most of them do opt out. So, we end up with a lot of broken redirects, especially with mass page moves like what happened with the ARS archive pages. Broken redirects are ordinarily deleted as CSD G8.
Feel free to recreate any redirects that might be useful as long as they point to an existing page and are not broken. You can find the master list here at this page(. It's quite a lot of broken redirects but I don't think they all need to be restored. Maybe other editors who participate in ARS could help out, too. And if you come acoss another situation like this, where bad page moves are reverted en masse, please tell the "fixer" to either check "What links here" or leave a redirect when they move a page back. I mention this dilemma a lot to page movers (sometimes more than once) but the message hasn't really gotten through yet. Liz02:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I've recreated those that needed to be restored (the shortcuts and the one with /Article list instead of – Rescue list). Thanks a lot for the advice! I personally always leave a redirect except when it fits one of the redirect suppression criteria (in this case, the two moves I did were a {{db-move}} and a WP:PMRC#3). If there's any essay about page movers needing to be careful with suppressredirect, I'll be happy to share it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a question about my page mover user right that only occurred to me after placing the {{db-g6}} tag (which is why I didn't bother doing it myself). But in the future, could I have simply moved the redirect myself (given it does not have a substantial page history) to the draft space in a swap and retargeted it to the article so that the end result is the same: an article in the mainspace and a redirect left behind in the draft?
I'm glad you asked. But there are two answers: While it is technically true that you could have made some round-robin move, and we have some long-time editors that I can't persuade to stop doing this, I prefer doing a Twinkle CSD>G6 Move request. It seems to me when I've seen round-robin moves, there is always an extra page leftover that was the orginal redirect that ends up being tagged for speedy deletion. I don't like deleting these pages because there might be some page history there before the page became a redirect. With a G6 Move, the redirect gets deleted but all of the page history stays at that page title instead of being on a deleted page in Draft or, worse yet, User space where it is generally lost forever. It could be that this page history is never examined but I like having it all in one place in case questions come up.
Plus Twinkle CSD>G6 Moves are very easy to handle. I have to explain to some editors who are AFC reviewers how much easier they are than tagging a redirect for deletion and then providing a mention (not an active link but just a mention) of the draft name in a CSD tag so that the patrolling admin has to cut and paste the draft page title in the search bar, go to the draft article and look it over, delete the redirect, then move the draft. The Twinkle way is so much easier, it presents a live link to take you right to the draft article and the page move and deletion happen in one edit. Presto! Liz23:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be writing this had you not acknowledged that it would get you in trouble....
My experience is that articles about Wikipedians are created with more rapidity than they are for equivalent levels of notability in other fields. This is for the obvious reason that Wikipedians have a conflict of interest (so our judgement is impaired), a great deal of subject area knowledge (so people are hyper aware of who has gotten press) and lots of skills at writing articles on Wikipedia. Given all of this it's not surprising that most Wikipedian articles are created when a person just barely has or just barely does not have notability and thus would be nominated for deletion more than most new article topic areas. Anyhow I said a version of this as a participant in the discussion rather than bringing this bias to administrating the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Since I offered an opinion, in a round-about-way, I will not be closing this AFD. I try to be neutral in my relisting comments but sometimes, an observation peeks through which could lead to an accusation of bias or preference. Best to let another closer handle these cases. Liz22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain
You left a cryptic/opaque reply in the article-for-deletion thread for Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik. What, specifically, are you "shocked" by? I'm unable to reply there, because the deletion has been enforced, so the thread is closed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you left a rather curt/snarky comment in the text closing the AFD. If this is due to the difference between my writing that "I haven't read the article" and "I haven't read the article in detail', then by all means, I guess that's a failure on my part. Did you read the article in question, top to bottom, before tendering the castigation? It was larded with unsourced material, lots of narrative on what amount to trivia and irrelevances. It was written by a user who sockpuppeted in order to vote, and what parts of the article I did read were written like a fan page. It doesn't take a deep reading of a new article with numerous red flags, overriding a decade old redirect, and a complete absence of said article since the murder of Cassie Jo Stoddard, to propose it for deletion, not in my opinion at least. I think it's inappropriate as an admin to insert an opinion in the closing text of the AFD. Do a little deeper investigation on the genesis of the article before telling an editor not to nominate articles for deletion or to comment within same, please. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.23:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, a closer is not assessing the article, we assess the discussion about the article and about its sources and determine if there is a consensus on what to do with it. You should know this if you participate in AFDs.
Secondly, I stand by my comments. I have closed thousands of AFDs at this point and I am truly shocked that you nominated an article for deletion that you admit you hadn't even read! That is just bewildering to me. Please read WP:BEFORE for the obligations on what a nominator should do before nominating an article for deletion. Did you review any talk page discussions? Did you evaluate existing sources and look for new sources that could help establish notability? Did you follow all of the required checks as outlined in BEFORE? Reading the article is just the start of what you should do before filing a nomination and tagging an article for deletion. Follow these guidelines with every nomination.
Assuming good faith, my only conclusion is that you DID read the article and your remark was perhaps referencing a citation that you didn't read. Did I misunderstand your comment and you actually did read the article? Liz02:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>"that you admit you hadn't even read!"
Did you not read the second sentence of my comment?
I stand by my comments as well. There's a fine line between 'due diligence' and 'obsessive-compulsive'. If you're unwilling to verify what I wrote regarding the content of the now deleted article (if that's even possible once deleted, I don't know), I think you're being a bit unfair. If a cursory review of a new article reveals: it fails WP:N, fails WP:RS, fails due to WP:NOT, is larded with WP:OR, violates WP:BLP, reveals no new information about the subjects that would lend them notability, fails WP:MURDEROF (while acknowledging it's an essay) was written by sockpuppets, replaced a functional and appropriate redirect that was in place for ten years, had a snowballed deletion vote...I don't know, to me, indulging a sockpuppet with a tedious examination when the article had gross failures in multiple ways, seems a fool's errand. I'm pretty sure most people would agree that WP isn't (or at least, shouldn't) be a playground for fetishists of murderers get their jollies. We don't glorify or lionize murderers, which the destination article existed to do.
The impression I get is that you started to review the AFD, and the moment you read my admittedly very badly expressed 'didn't read', you immediately stopped reading, dropped your comment in place and proceeded with the deletion, without reading any of the other comments and arguments in support of the AFD - by me or others. It was basically a snowball, and yet you've determined that I performed no due diligence somehow because of a casual error in expressing myself.
Yes, I've been a bit heated about this. I'm a longtime editor, I keep a low profile and have learned to stay away from drama (as much as is humanly possible), mostly wikignoming, and I don't propose article deletions on anything resembling a regular basis, unless 'two or three times, maybe, in the last two decades' meets 'regular basis'. All that said, aaaaalllll that said: I apologize for the heat I've generated. There's no question that it was idiocy to express myself so unclearly: "I haven't read the article" was shorthand for me that I haven't pored over the article with a fine-toothed comb, because it's so glaringly not an article that should exist based on numerous policies. For that, I'm to blame, and I can guarantee I won't make that mistake the next time I start an AfD, probably around 2029... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.02:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2024 Canada railway shutdown. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — I would like to add that you do great work at AfD and I'm glad that you do; I just read this one differently is all. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask how you came to conclusion of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Antònia Mínguez as keep? After you relisted it, the only comment was a vote to redirect, citing BLP1E. None of the keep votes - one which had no reason at all, natch - addressed the fact that the BLP subject does not receive meaningful coverage as a notable individual. Worse, the main keep advocate tried to defend this by adding personal information. I don’t know how you came to a conclusion to keep when there were no convincing arguments, either source or policy wise, and after you asked for more input and that input was to redirect. I implore you to revisit. Kingsif (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw more support for Keep than Delete or Redirect. I respect the opinions of all of the editors arguing to Keep, especially Cielquiparle who typically works to improve sourcing on articles whose AFDs she participates in. I specifically said that editors could discuss the possibility of changing the article to a Redirect on the article talk page and I think that would be a better use of your time than spending a week debating the closure at DRV. Would you have preferred a No consensus closure? Liz22:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred a closure that acknowledged the lack of sources proving notability, not one that merely vote counted, regardless of the opinions of editors who don't know that BASIC says primary sources cannot be used to show notability. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also invite you to look again and notice that there was not more support for keep than redirect, even being that you were just counting. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Liz: I would like to retrieve the deleted material for the above article you deleted for improvement and I equally want to request for its undeletion, again. 19:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think about this. This article has been deleted a number of times. It might be better to start from scratch. Liz22:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. I'm sorry that my explanation of my closure here was not sufficient. I have responded on the deletion review page. Liz18:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry it’s being dragged out, but it’s from a place of, like, your explanation just gave me more questions and as someone who is not an AfD regular (i.e. no real collegiate understanding with a closer), that gives you doubts about judgement. FWIW, I am realising DELREV is clearly the wrong venue, I wanted (still want) a decision that a reasoned close should be given, while the AfD regulars are focused on if the close outcome was blatantly unreasonable. As I believe you’ve reminded me before, I can’t control what direction other users choose to take a conversation, but I don’t think the purpose of my request is going to be addressed.
With that in mind, can I again implore you for a reason here. You said at DELREV that when you saw more support for keep, it was the strength of arguments, but you still didn’t (as I would expect in a longer explanation) point to what the arguments were or why some were more convincing. This is asking for interpretation of the whole AfD, no particular sides, BTW. I especially note that when you relisted, you acknowledged there were unaddressed concerns, but don’t seem to have given judgement in the close on whether those would need addressing. Thanks for reading, Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Often pages tagged CSD G6 provide some additional information included on the tag that explains the error that caused it to be a G6. Can you retag the page if you haven't already? Thank you. Liz18:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misao Okawa
Hi Liz
You recently left a notice on my talk page that you have deleted my draft, Misao Okawa, because I have not edited it in 5 months.
This is simply not true. I made an edit yesterday (unless I messed up clicking enter or whatever), and I added at least 4 new sources to the article. Did I mess up making an edit or was this a mistake on your end?
No mistake on your part, I had the draft open in a tab on my browser and I should have refreshed the page before deletion and then I would have seen the recent edits to the draft article. So, it was my mistake. But, to be honest, usually pages that have gone unedited for six months don't see edits on the day of the G13 deletion date if no one has been working on the article, in this case, since March. But, obviously, it does happen as it did here and I apologize that you had to come and inquire about it. Draft restored and lesson learned. Thank you. Liz18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This situation happens quite a lot with this content creator. Draft:Janaki Sabatham was moved to Janaki Sabatham. Kailash29792 was the editor who a) created this article, b) moved this article and c) tagged the draft redirect for CSD G7 speedy deletion. Ordinarily, we don't CSD G7 redirect pages when the editor who was the page mover tags the redirect because the page mover is usually not the same editor who created the article that was moved but in Kailash29792's case, it was. I'm not sure why Kailash29792 doesn't create articles directly in main space (they are very experienced) or why they don't like Draft space>main space redirects but this is the pattern with the articles they create. I hope this explains what happened. Liz17:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing. Do you have any idea how widespread this practice is?Why would we have the G7-criteria worded in a way that, in these cases, allows the individual user to tag a draft namespace to main namespace-redirect after page move for deletion, when there is longstanding and clear community consensus that we retain such redirects? SamSailor16:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 of the National League System (level 10 of the English football league system), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria. How does this not make them notable? The club has news articles from accross the country, has played in the FA Cup has a Premier league player as manager and sources from the BBC. I urge you to please reconsider your decision. It's taken me lots of time to create. I am an avid follower of non league clubs and this is quite frankly putting me of being an editor on this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblethebible (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As they have posted similar on my talkpage, I thought I'd mention that what Iblethebible says is untrue. The club has not played in the FA Cup, nor any of the other competitions mentioned. Number5715:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the criteria are from the WP:NFOOTY essay (which only says meeting criteria makes it likely you meet GNG, and, you know, essay), IMO it's not that clear on men/women.
It's a LTA (longterm abuser) that closes AFDs even though they are editing as an IP account or brand new registered account. For all I know, it could be you. We revert all of their improper closures and issue short blocks. IP accounts and new editors should not be closing AFDs or any RFCs or deletion discussions. If you are the LTA, please stop doing this. Liz16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm appalled that Ota Kohoutek's page was deleted, even though 3 people in the discussion spoke in favor of keeping it, as well as deleting it. How should I understand this? Page discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ota Kohoutek Pospeak (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. ‘Recently Active Admins’ says you’re on. What do you make of These 2 contribs? Reads to me like a spambot, where its creator didn’t have a clue where to send it, after it was reverted?
literally in the AfD queue. Sorry to have been MIA for weeks, hope to be able to help you again with the backlogs. Hope you had a good week and better end of summer than your start. StarMississippi22:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there. I assume real life has kept you busy. But it would be great to get your help at AFD. You can be more decisive than I some days. We've been seeing some new admins coming to help out, it's nice to get some new perspective in there beyond the half dozen regular closers who handle the bulk of the closures. OwenX has been taken to DRV a lot recently for taking on some controversial closures, I'm really grateful for his willingness to review those discussions. Liz05:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was traveling a lot this summer and have never had an interest in phone editing. But mostly back now and able to help. I think DRV in some ways is more pleasant than AfD, but I'm not there as often. Happy weekend! StarMississippi13:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there
Just wanted to let you know I've revision-deleted a discussion you had with Wellington Bay on his talk page. I'm sure you probably didn't due it intentionally, but you repeated the very matter that resulted in a prior revision-deletion on a BLP article. Perhaps if you feel it's necessary to include more information about the revision-deleted BLP violation, you might want to consider using "email this user" so that it doesn't appear again on Wikipedia. Just a thought. (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my goodness, I didn't make the connection. I don't know how you even came across this talk page comment but I'm glad you did and took care of my mistake. Thank you for your vigilence. My apologies. Liz05:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Liz. We all suffer from periodic programming glitches. Wellington Bay recognized the situation and emailed the oversight VRT queue. They recognized your point was correct. :) Risker (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFD on Committee for a Workers' International (2019)
Hi Lix,
Thanks for your ruling that the above article should be merged into Committee for a Workers' International (1974). Unfortunately one editor, who argued on the AFD for deletion is reverting any attempts to merge content
into the 1974 article and is resisting a rename of the article to remove the now unnecessary disambiguation suffix. Could you possibly pay a visit to [[9]] to clarify your ruling on the AFD, and ask the editor in question to respect your decision. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I heard from a user that information on deleted articles are never lost, and that I am able to ask a admin for a copy for a deleted article, is it true,i want to ask for a copy for the deleted article [[List of Lufthansa destinations]], thank you! Metrosfan (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting you because of a post made by @Gabriel601on my page after nominating my article Paul Oluikpe for deletion. He made no concrete points on the reasons why the subject is not notable. I have responded and refuted his point of view. However, I am not happy with a post he also left on the page accusing me of colluding with @Maradmomi12 whom i notice has been banned or blocked from Wikipedia due to vandalism. I looked up @Gabriel601 talk page and noticed he had been disrespectful to other users in the past and also blocked in the past. I am concerned that this user is a menace to the community here. I also request that his malicious action on the article Paul Oluikpe be reversed.
I understand the "novelty" part, I didn't know what "distro" referred to. The article talked about a "distribution system" but that didn't make sense to me. Thank. Liz01:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I forgot that not everyone here is a techie-ly nerd like me, lol. TL;DR: it's an operating system.And here's the long version if you want it: Linux is frequently cited as an operating system (which recently passed 4.50% in desktop market share, a fabulous achievement). In reality, it's a bunch of operating systems masquerading as one. The trench coat is made of their common Linux kernel, which decides the core system questions—of how to allocate which resources, handling which instructions, that which programs throw into the ballpark. Making that kernel was already hard enough, so Linus, the evil creator, didn't work on the other parts of an operating systems. Thus, core utilities, the command-line terminal, graphical desktop mode, really basic desktop apps we take for granted (like notepad, a browser, and the file explorer) were not developed and weren't included in the definition for Linux, the kernel. A bunch of enthusiasts loved the idea of a fully libre kernel and dreamed of a libre operating system where they could break all the system components they wanted. So, they found, tweaked, and ran existing software on top of Linux to create an operating system. As a result of this arrangement, Linux OSes can be formed in many different ways depending on which pieces of software you choose to make up the OS. You could make windows spin around in a 3D cube and perform rituals to hear the windows scream and wail as they disappear into flames, or you could just have them disappear without an animation when you clicked on the close button. Every collection of such software to make up an operating system is termed a software distribution.Hope that helps! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I figured this might be a mistake, but if not, you def want to change this from speedy delete to just delete, as the former does not actually reflect the consensus of the discussion and there is no CSD tag that applies here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vanderwaalforces, at this point I've closed thousands of AFDs and I don't think I've ever closed one as "speedy deleted" unless the article had already been deleted via CSD by another admin. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention so I could fix it. Liz01:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; apparently I'm supposed to add each sub-category again to its corresponding category. I think that fixes it. I'll fix the categories as soon as I can get on my computer - OpalYosutebito (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all of those CSD C1 notices on your User talk page. You can just delete them. We recommend that editors don't go on a category-creating spree unless they intend to fill them right away. You were creating a quite lot of categories yesterday and I wasn't sure when you would get a chance to put articles and categories in them. The category C1 tagging is a formality as it starts a 7 day waiting period until the categories might be deleted if they are still empty.
But thanks for your help with categories, it's a very niche area of editing and many of our editors who used to create and work with categories have retired over the past few years (actually it started during the pandemic). If you are interested in doing work with categories, you might review some discussions at WP:CFD. There are a small group of editors participating in these delete/merge/rename discussions but they really know a lot about categories and how they should be organized and named. Liz02:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP address 125.160.107.180 needs a block. This is the very IP that was reported over at the ANI thread § Ban-evading IP editor which you had responded to before (although you seemed to miss my tagged reply regarding the latest IP here), and while it is no longer disrupting pages in the article space at least as of now, it is still continuing to restore those "diary"-like postings in the user talk space which you had reverted before.
Oh, and make sure to include no talk page access in the block too, as its very own talk page is one of the pages where disruption is happening.
I get a lot of talk page messages and I usually check this page at the end of the night. I also don't look at pings as I receive so many. I post a lot of messages on new editor pages and I find myself pinged a lot regarding basic questions. So, you were right to come directly to my User talk page with your request and it looks like PhilKnight got to this editor before I saw your message. I'm sorry that my response wasn't very timely but glad that this editor has been silenced. Liz02:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pitstop Pop
Hello, Liz! I'm sorry about leaving so many warnings. I was just trying to get the pages deleted as quickly as possible and forgot about the box that lets you notify the page creator. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks! —asparagusus(interaction)13:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, when working with experienced editors, I usually find after a problem is pointed out, it doesn't happen again. Thanks for your patrolling. Liz02:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PlateUp!
Hello Liz, any chance you can please restore Draft:PlateUp!, as I would like to work on an article for this game.
Hello, I had a quick question I thought I'd ask here instead of possibly polluting the ongoing AfD. Pardon my ignorance, but you mentioned that I have seen Speedy Keeps and there is a policy page on it at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. But there is no similar policy on Speedy Deletes — is that not simply WP:CSD? (Sorry if this a daft question or I've misunderstood something!) GhostOfNoMeme23:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct, I should have been more specific. Articles get tagged for Speedy Deletion all of the time and I've deleted ones that fit a CSD criteria. But I've never seen an AFD closed with a Speedy Deletion closure. Sometimes, articles that are the subject of an AFD gets tagged with a CSD tag and gets deleted before the AFD closes. But I never see Speedy Delete used in the way that Speedy Keep is used as a closure explanation.
Now could you do me a favor and let me know which AFD this was? I look at hundreds of these discussions every day and I'd like to modify this statement. Liz02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading an RfC before voting and noticed [10] this post. Is this okay? I'm unsure if information about where he went to highschool, etc. is widely published, and I don't know if this is something that Wikipedia should be concerned about or not.
To be honest, I don't know. I'd suggest starting a discussion at WP:BLPN about this for all of our benefit as it could affect other articles. Liz02:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.
Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive:Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.
Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Uhm Hello there would you please unblock users Bina.biny99 PickMe10 and CelesteCoutresi. they're not falsing information, users are they good editors. Celestecourtesi sends edit request for Miss Grand International 2024. Please unblock these users, they not falsing information Malincharanan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Books & Bytes – Issue 64
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024
The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
Wikimania presentation
New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library
I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. I can move the draft to main space, it will delete the current page but keep the article's page history. Why did you do a cut and paste move? That's something we scold new editors about. Liz06:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amanda439 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Hello, I hope you are well. "Editor Thenightaway has posted several personal attacks on DAMAC Properties page. They are posting false, vandalizing information without a reliable source, and every time it gets deleted they add it again."[reply]
I see no discussion at ANI about this article subject. Did you mean a different noticeboard? Please know that messages like this could be seen as canvassing which is against our guidelines here at Wikipedia. Liz06:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request related to deleted article on Uzma Beg
Dear Liz,
Hope you are well. I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia.... so I apologize in advance for anything I might have misunderstood.
I noticed that you had deleted an article about Uzma Beg the Pakistani actress. I wanted to ask you how I can go about providing the right information so that the decision to delete can be reversed.
I understand the desire to ensure that articles are well referenced and to maintain a high standard. So I'm happy to work on the article to improve it.... and any guidance you can provide would be gratefully received. Uzma Beg has acted in many TV serials and also one movie. She became a household name in Pakistan for her role as Bakhto in Chupke Chupke and also had a prominent role in the hit TV serial Hum Tum. She has acted in more than a dozen other TV shows and also acted in a movie called Dum Mastam. I would like to take steps to restore the page that was deleted. The page that was deleted had links to many references including magazine articles and interviews of her.
Can you help me understand the additional information needed to be provided to fulfill the rules for allowing restoration of the article? Also is there a way to find a draft of the article I had worked so hard on - so that I can use it as a starting point to add further details?
Thanks for your patience and your ongoing selfless contributions.
I review a lot of articles for a lot of different reasons every day in main space and draft space. Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article page so I can see why it was deleted? Thank you. Liz18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I think we should ignore the request from SPA because they joined WP just to write about this actress and have even stated on their user page that they have a COI. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have mentioned it in the AfD, although Paora already stated my thoughts, but Manurewa#Religion seemed like the best target to me. The subject is already mentioned there and it wouldn't be undue as most mosques are not mentioned in the article Islam in New Zealand and it would seem weird to mention it there without a proper section on the Ahmadi sect. Traumnovelle It might be best if I mentioned it on the Islam in New Zealand talk page and ping the AfD participants? (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a backup of the Kaluthara Balika Vidyalaya's Wikipedia page
Dear Liz,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to in hopes of restoring the Wikipedia page for Kaluthara Balika Vidyalaya. I recently found out that the page was deleted. The page is an important source for our community and visitors who wants to learn more about the school. I would greatly appreciate if you could consider restoring the page.
Best regards. Jhazy99 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry for the delay in responding. I have restored this PROD'd article. Liz 04:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Technical news
Miscellaneous
Best, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 15:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scripts
Arbitration
Looks like a duck to me but whose duckling? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 08:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Not done but of course if Liz wants to do this they may. — xaosflux 17:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amanda439 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Hello, I hope you are well. "Editor Thenightaway has posted several personal attacks on DAMAC Properties page. They are posting false, vandalizing information without a reliable source, and every time it gets deleted they add it again."
