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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

July-August 2013 September-October 2013 November-December 2013 January-February 2014 March-April 2014 May-June 2014 July-August 2014 September-October 2014 November-December 2014 January-February 2015 March-April 2015 May-June 2015 July-August 2015 September-October 2015 November-December 2015 January-February 2016 March-April 2016 May-December 2016 January-June 2017 July-December 2017 January-June 2018 July-December 2018 January-February 2019 March-April 2019 May-June 2019 July-August 2019 September-October 2019 November-December 2019 January-February 2020 March-April 2020 May-June 2020 July-August 2020 September-October 2020 November-December 2020 January-February 2021 March-April 2021 May-June 2021 July-August 2021 September-October 2021 November-December 2021 January-February 2022 March-April 2022 May-June 2022 July-August 2022 September-October 2022 November-December 2022 January-February 2023 March-April 2023 May-June 2023 July-August 2023 September-October 2023 November-December 2023 January-February 2024 March-April 2024 May-June 2024 July-August 2024

6 November 2024
From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon? In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them In focus: Questions and answers about the court case Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats? Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Recommended reading for editors who are upset RIGHT NOW!:
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Staying cool when the editing gets hot!

If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply.
And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.

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]

Hello, Jõsé,

Let me think about this. This article has been deleted a number of times. It might be better to start from scratch. Liz 22:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 1. —Cryptic 22:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Maria Antònia Mínguez. 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. Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 2 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. Liz 18:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry it’s being dragged out, but it’s from a place of, like, your explanation just gave me more questions and as someone who is not an AfD regular (i.e. no real collegiate understanding with a closer), that gives you doubts about judgement. FWIW, I am realising DELREV is clearly the wrong venue, I wanted (still want) a decision that a reasoned close should be given, while the AfD regulars are focused on if the close outcome was blatantly unreasonable. As I believe you’ve reminded me before, I can’t control what direction other users choose to take a conversation, but I don’t think the purpose of my request is going to be addressed.

With that in mind, can I again implore you for a reason here. You said at DELREV that when you saw more support for keep, it was the strength of arguments, but you still didn’t (as I would expect in a longer explanation) point to what the arguments were or why some were more convincing. This is asking for interpretation of the whole AfD, no particular sides, BTW. I especially note that when you relisted, you acknowledged there were unaddressed concerns, but don’t seem to have given judgement in the close on whether those would need addressing. Thanks for reading, Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per that discussion, the creation of this nomination was out of process. It should be deleted as procedurally incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria,

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. Liz 18:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Thanks

EytanMelech (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EytanMelech,

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. Liz 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lis. Why was Draft:Janaki Sabatham G7-deleted? Best, Sam Sailor 17:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sam,

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. Liz 17:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. Do you have any idea how widespread this practice is?

Why would we have the G7-criteria worded in a way that, in these cases, allows the individual user to tag a draft namespace to main namespace-redirect after page move for deletion, when there is longstanding and clear community consensus that we retain such redirects? Sam Sailor 16:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• 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.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• 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.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

You deleted the article I created on AFC Crewe? https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AFC_Crewe_(2nd_nomination)#AFC_Crewe The team played in the FA Cup for the first time yesterday? As per football club notability guideline: Country-specific criteria:

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. Number 57 15:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 I think they meant this one:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria mentioned above apply to men's teams, so playing in the Women's FA Cup is irrelevant. Number 57 16:27, 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.

Then again, if you read it FA Cup =/= Women's FA Cup, it's clear enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is from NFOOTYT. The criteria refers specifically to the National League System, which is men's football (as defined by the FA). Number 57 18:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you blocked someone for vandalisim for closing a deleteion discussion then did the same thing yourself. clearly that's not vandalism. 100.38.231.154 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 100.38.231.154,

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. Liz 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm appalled that Ota Kohoutek's page was deleted, even though 3 people in the discussion spoke in favor of keeping it, as well as deleting it. How should I understand this? Page discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ota Kohoutek Pospeak (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, hope you're well. Just wondering if you know what article or articles were removed from this category now it is empty? Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ey up Liz, Could you revisit this, please?:

19:35, 15 June 2024 Liz talk contribs deleted page Singing Girl (disambiguation) (G14: Unnecessary disambiguation page)  Tag: Twinkle (thank)

There are now two pages requiring disambiguation:

• Singing Girl, which redirects to The Wandering Songstress
• Singing Girl is also a recognised alternative title for Girl Singing (Hals)

Thanks -- Frans Fowler (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, somebody else has helped me. --- Frans Fowler (talk) 14:10, 7 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?

Thanks. MM (Give me info.) 22:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) blocked. Definitely some nonsense afoot. Crypto + AI is a bad combo Star Mississippi 22:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Star Mississippi 22:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

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. Liz 05:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was traveling a lot this summer and have never had an interest in phone editing. But mostly back now and able to help. I think DRV in some ways is more pleasant than AfD, but I'm not there as often. Happy weekend! Star Mississippi 13:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I've revision-deleted a discussion you had with Wellington Bay on his talk page. I'm sure you probably didn't due it intentionally, but you repeated the very matter that resulted in a prior revision-deletion on a BLP article. Perhaps if you feel it's necessary to include more information about the revision-deleted BLP violation, you might want to consider using "email this user" so that it doesn't appear again on Wikipedia. Just a thought. (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Risker,

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. Liz 05:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Liz. We all suffer from periodic programming glitches. Wellington Bay recognized the situation and emailed the oversight VRT queue. They recognized your point was correct. :) Risker (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[2]] 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]

@Liz just flagging that this is also at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Abu_Ali_-_POV-Pushing_and_WP:NOTHERE Nothing related to your close, just the broader issue. Star Mississippi 14:47, 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]

(talk page visitor) @Metrosfan, your best bet would be to ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, which is a dedicated noticeboard where more admins will be able to see your request. You can request to have it emailed to you or restored as a draft. If you are not comfortable with the noticeboard, you might have your chances by contacting one of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby it's a article, do I request it to be restored as a draft or as a article? Metrosfan (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You have now become the 31st wiki editor by edit count! And your user page says 33, so you might want to change that. Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done but of course if Liz wants to do this they may. — xaosflux 17:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Liz,

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.

Thank you. Cfaso2000 (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A novelty distro is like a novelty song. It's themed around a specific thing (Among Us, Hannah Montana, UwU, Justin Bieber, Satan) to be funny. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aaron Liu,

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. Liz 01:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I forgot that not everyone here is a techie-ly nerd like me, lol. TL;DR: it's an operating system.

And here's the long version if you want it: Linux is frequently cited as an operating system (which recently passed 4.50% in desktop market share, a fabulous achievement). In reality, it's a bunch of operating systems masquerading as one. The trench coat is made of their common Linux kernel, which decides the core system questions—of how to allocate which resources, handling which instructions, that which programs throw into the ballpark.
Making that kernel was already hard enough, so Linus, the evil creator, didn't work on the other parts of an operating systems. Thus, core utilities, the command-line terminal, graphical desktop mode, really basic desktop apps we take for granted (like notepad, a browser, and the file explorer) were not developed and weren't included in the definition for Linux, the kernel.
A bunch of enthusiasts loved the idea of a fully libre kernel and dreamed of a libre operating system where they could break all the system components they wanted. So, they found, tweaked, and ran existing software on top of Linux to create an operating system. As a result of this arrangement, Linux OSes can be formed in many different ways depending on which pieces of software you choose to make up the OS. You could make windows spin around in a 3D cube and perform rituals to hear the windows scream and wail as they disappear into flames, or you could just have them disappear without an animation when you clicked on the close button. Every collection of such software to make up an operating system is termed a software distribution.

Hope that helps! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz. I figured this might be a mistake, but if not, you def want to change this from speedy delete to just delete, as the former does not actually reflect the consensus of the discussion and there is no CSD tag that applies here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vanderwaalforces, at this point I've closed thousands of AFDs and I don't think I've ever closed one as "speedy deleted" unless the article had already been deleted via CSD by another admin. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention so I could fix it. Liz 01:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there's supposed to be a category within each category that you notified me about for speedy deletion, but I don't know where it went. (ex.: Category:Railway stations in the Republic of Ireland opened in 1905 is supposed to show up in Category:Railway stations in Ireland opened in 1905) Am I doing anything wrong or is it just Wikipedia refusing to update? I'm genuinely confused... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 02:56, 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]

Hello, OpalYosutebito,

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. Liz 02:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it a little later. I'm interested in helping, but I've been busy with irl classes too... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

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.

Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AP 499D25,

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. Liz 02:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz! I'm sorry about leaving so many warnings. I was just trying to get the pages deleted as quickly as possible and forgot about the box that lets you notify the page creator. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) 13:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asparagusus,

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. Liz 02:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, any chance you can please restore Draft:PlateUp!, as I would like to work on an article for this game.

Thanks Garuda3 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Garuda3,

 Done Happy to. There is not much there to the article. It would be easy to improve it. Liz 02:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A bit of work to do then... I'll have a go. Garuda3 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had a quick question I thought I'd ask here instead of possibly polluting the ongoing AfD. Pardon my ignorance, but you mentioned that I have seen Speedy Keeps and there is a policy page on it at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. But there is no similar policy on Speedy Deletes — is that not simply WP:CSD? (Sorry if this a daft question or I've misunderstood something!) GhostOfNoMeme 23:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GhostOfNoMeme,

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. Liz 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for explaining! The AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation), closed a short while ago. I think the exchange was probably clear enough to anyone else; just my brain being slow. :) GhostOfNoMeme 02:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was reading an RfC before voting and noticed [3] 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.

All the best, Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BrocadeRiverPoems,

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. Liz 02:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter 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.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	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]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; not knowing the process I incorrectly copy pasted the much improved Draft:Spartan Cars to Spartan Cars rather than use the move function. Could you help rectify this? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr.choppers,

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. Liz 06:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was hoping you'd do - I have never moved a draft to mainspace before and missed the part where it explained how to do it. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

[4]

This is how the page should be [5]

Your help in keeping Wikipedia a safe and a reliable space is greatly appreciated. Amanda439 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amanda439,

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. Liz 06:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Best Regards,

Sahgalji Sahgalji (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sahgalji,

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. Liz 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz - Thanks for your quick reply. I cannot find it. It was called "Uzma Beg". This is the talk page for the deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzma Beg - Wikipedia Sahgalji (talk) 18:45, 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]

Bill de Blasio Gavin Newsom Julissa Reynoso Pantaleón 2600:4808:9C70:6600:39FC:FA8E:740D:568F (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shades of black has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 03:20, 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]

Hello, Traumnovelle,

I'm not going to reopen this AFD but you are free to merge content to multiple articles and you can discuss a change in the article's redirection's target article on the talk page. The redirection can occur after any merges are completed. I don't think you will face much opposition to a proposal but it would help to ping the AFD participants as you suggest. Liz 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hello, Jhazy99,

Can you provide me with a link to the deleted page? Then I can see why it was deleted which will impact whether or not it can be restored. Liz 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! Would it be possible to restore this article? I forgot to remove the PROD tag with my last edit(s)! I had added about 6 new sources and was preparing to make a larger edit this evening. Please let me know, thanks! Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Savvyjack23,

 Done Liz 19:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TYSM! Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alinur Velidedeoğlu. 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. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheJoyfulTentmaker,

Thanks for letting me know. Liz 05:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Would you be able to authorize creation (by another user) and/or recreation (with editing by another user) of this topic? There is obvious notability that was previously agreed upon in 2023 and the notability has increased since then. A Google search quickly verifies this as well. Specifically under the athletics category. In the past there had been some "troll account" involvement and more recently some level of misunderstanding; but to my understanding not at all related.

Thank you for your time. Maxeran (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just adding the link to make it easier.

Creating Draft:Khashayar Farzam - Wikipedia

A different user had also developed a draft previously in November. I'm not sure if that can be retrieved but nonetheless, appears that a mainstream established user could rapidly create a page and that conclusively 100.0% rules out any COI related concerns of any kind.

Thanks again. Maxeran (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxeran,

First, thank you for providing a link, that helps a lot. The situation about Draft:Khashayar Farzam is complicated though. It has been deleted as a stale draft, CSD G13 which could be restored but it was also deleted as the work of a sockpuppet, CSD G5 and that can't be restored. May I ask what brought you to Wikipedia and what your interest in this article is? Have you edited Wikipedia with any other accounts? Thank you for providing some additional information. Liz 05:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response.

I'm interested in expanding Powerlifting, and especially Canadian Powerlifting. Similar to some strength sports, there's lots of room for growth online and that's the trajectory right now as strength sports grow.

Through 2015-2018 & parts of 2022, I had some sporadic editing on Wikipedia with 2 (and later a subsequent account) prior accounts; though only minor editing.

The goal here of course would be to ensure there is no remote possibility of any COI related optics. So as someone proposing, I would not want to be involved. This would ensure 100% of the rules are followed. Maxeran (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

It appears the page is unlocked now.

How would I go about suggesting this topic and other similar topics for creation, but without being directly involved in editing as to avoid any remote possibility of COI optics.

Thank you. Maxeran (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

It seem that this article was subsequently re-created by an IP user and was turned down twice at AfC in September. Given the extensive history of sockpuppetry, previous deletions, and COI editing around the subject of this article I wonder if anything can be done, as I was under the impression that the article had been salted to prevent further re-creation. Further details of the history on this can be found here [6], including August 2024 threads at ANI, COIN and an SPI investigation.

I'd be grateful for your input.

Also copying in user:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath who was previously involved on this subject.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting also that the current draft demonstrates the same refbombing technique that has been noted as a feature of the editing of the previous sockpuppet accounts, so I think we can be fairly clear as to what is going on here... Axad12 (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I got replied to above... It appears these users are doing targeted on this individual for some reason. Some of the reasons quoted, such as refbombing, are not even logical if the page editor requests more references.

It looks like this targeting is motivated by dislike of the sport. In general, meeting international level criteria is satisfactory for notability. Exempting the sport of Powerlifting from that does not make any sense other than to say it is specifically targeted. Maxeran (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this has nothing to do with dislike for either powerlifting or Khashayar Farzam. What I dislike (and what all other responsible Wikipedians dislike) is that for seven years a sockmaster has been repeatedly trying to recreate this article, to curate it with multiple single purpose accounts when they get it into article mainspace, and then to create further sockpuppets to try to prevent its deletion. Overall there have been many sock accounts blocked as you well know, details of which are here [7]. Other features of this activity have been the spamming of the name of Khashayar Farzam into various other articles (a search for the name reveals 13 different Wikipedia articles where it has been spammed by your various sock accounts).

Your attempts above, and under an IP address here [8], are transparently just the most recent attempts by sockmaster Guptalab to get an article (probably about himself) onto Wikipedia. Further discussion on that point occurred here [9] and here [10]. Details of previous deletions of this article are here[11].

The reason you have always refbombed is because the sources about you are not sufficient to demonstrate notability and you seem to believe, incorrectly, that multiple bad sources make up for a lack of good sources - but this in incorrect because 100x0 is still 0.

In any event the draft has quite correctly been declined on notability grounds three times in the last month by three different reviewers. Thus it would save everybody (including yourself) a great deal of time and trouble if you would simply stop evading your many site blocks and give up.

Copying in IntentionallyDense who recently declined the draft in the last 24 hours. Axad12 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info, the Khashayar Farzam article has now been deleted 4 times in mainspace [12] and 6 times while in draft form [13], following further deletion a short while ago. These deletions represent a consistent message which I suggest that you take to heart. Axad12 (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1600s
• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1610s
• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1620s
• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1640s
• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1650s
• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1670s
• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1680s
• Category:Lighthouses completed in the 1690s

These categories were repopulated and had their tags removed on September 11. They were populated for three days before being emptied again and tagged for deletion less than 24 hours ago. The timer is reset and they must once again be empty for seven consecutive days before deletion. Your original deletion was out of process and you reverting my restoration has resulted in you wheeling warring.

Seeing as you have wheel warred before with Pppery before, as evidenced by your re-deletions of 14–12(New South Wales Rugby League first premiership final), 19th Division (United States)(Prior to World War I), and 1971(movie) without consensus to do so and violating WP:CWW by re-deleting page histories without appropriate attribution. this appears to be WP:RFAR worthy. ✗plicit 11:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks is advance for your response! TechPaths (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz hope you're doing well:) Could you be so kind as to answer the email that I sent you? Many thanks. TechPaths (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, TechPaths. I don't look at my email very often because I get so much junk email. I'll go look for it today. Liz 16:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by your redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1940–41 Primera Fuerza season; this is for the highest league in Mexico! I don't see the consensus there to do anything other than keep. Especially with the three additional sources raised by User:Svartner. I doubt that even the sole dissenting "vote" (User:GiantSnowman) would disagree about those 3 sources. Can you please change this to a keep?

More fundamentally - I am concerned that we'd ever seriously consider deleting the seasons article from a 100 years ago from any major league in the world! WP:NSEASONS applies to teams, but not leagues - but if NSEASONS allows for 1941-42 articles for every team in this league - then surely the season article for the league itself is unquestionable (which does surprise me with User:GiantSnowman's redirect). Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nfitz,

I'm out doing errands right now but I'll look into this when I get home. This is beyond the capabilities of my cell phone. Liz 18:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the 'keep' !votes came after my comment, and nobody pinged me, so I didn't re-review. Had I done so, I would possibly have !voted 'keep' as well, subject to Nfitz clarifying what the sources actually cover and their detail. GiantSnowman 18:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources in the Spanish-language Wikipedia article, User:GiantSnowman. The closing statement said that no sources had been provided - and I was highlighting that they had. Obviously two of them are offline; but the third (a 286-page book) can be reviewed at https://archive.org/details/oncedcadasdeftbo0000ramr. Aspects of the season are discussed in Chapter 9, particularly starting at page 77.

But hang on. This is the Top League in Mexico. Of course there are sources, though seldom online. Is anyone going to question the existence of 1939–40 Football League (which was abandoned after only 3 matches)? There's even 3 articles for different 4th level leagues in England, such as 1939–40 Northern Football League! Nfitz (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I found the AfD's conclusion inaccurate because the book sources in the article on es.wiki seem credible. Svartner (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if any editor had brought up sources from an article in another language Wikipedia in the discussion. I won't close this discussion as Keep but I'm willing to revert my closure and give the discussion a final relisting and let a different closer handle this closure. Now, the nominator could very well come here to complain but I have more editors challenging my closure than supporting it and I don't think this needs a trip to DRV. Will this next step suffice? You'll have the opportunity to bring additional sources into the discussion, Liz 03:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Liz 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. Those sources had been the basis of the Keep from User:Paul Vaurie, and he explicitly mentioned two of them. Perhaps I should have pointed to them as well, but the other two keeps already had. Nfitz (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to state that I concur with User:Svartner and User:Nfitz above: the offline sources back up the claim of notability. I was also surprised by the decision to redirect. Good to know that the AfD is back up and the sources have been more properly displayed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz,

You said the article 1940–41 Primera Fuerza season is back, however you vandalized the article by deleting all the improvements I had made.

If you do this again, you will likely be blocked, please respect other users improvements.

As it happens though, I reverted the edit. SinisterUnion (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SinisterUnion, I've been editing Wikipedia for 11 years and am an administrator, you're threatening to block me? Did you not understand the message I left on your User talk page? Ignoring the results of an AFD closure could lead to a block for you. Liz 04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh User:SinisterUnion - at worst Liz hadn't noticed you'd improved the text, rather than just restoring the close. No one gets blocked for that kind of thing! Liz is a good and conscientious admin - there's no reason to die on this hill! Also, by assuming that it was vandalism(!) you are acting in bad faith. This violates WP:Assume Good Faith and also the 4th fundamental principal of Wikipedia Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility. That's about as serious a thing one can do wrong. Please assume good faith, and please be kind. We really need help improving these articles, and you have been doing that. I want editors who do improvements like this to stick around! (11 years?!? How did that happen - I feel very old suddenly). Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An autoconfirmed user threatening an admin with a block is one of the funnier things I've seen this week.
I second what Nfitz said. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hey, Nfitz, you've been editing even longer than I have! Liz 05:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand @Nfitz, but it's hard to see someone going to your talk page threatening you for an improvement you made. Imagine the situation: you make the improvement, receive a threat of blocking on your talk page and the article you made the improvement to is restored, believe it or not, without your improvement. I'm sorry, but no one has the blood of a cockroach.

Anyway, that's what you said, focusing on improvements, vision of progress, that's why I created my account. SinisterUnion (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you know who you're talking to?" That's what it looks like to me when I see a message like "I've been editing Wikipedia for 11 years and am an administrator". I don't care about your background at all, let's discuss the situation at hand and make Wikipedia always better, that's why I'm here for, we lose time talking about other stuffs.

As I said before, I didn't ignore the AFD closure, because I didn't know about it. My bad for this situation. SinisterUnion (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for recreating Deleted AfC. Draft: Olusola David Ayibiowu Recently, l was trying to create article about a visual artist Olusola David Ayibiowu on Wikipedia AfC draft. But the draft was first declined by an Editor who asked me to improve on it. As l improved on it and resubmitted. Another Editor suddenly rejected it. Finally another Editor tag the draft for speedy deletion.And later it was deleted. This is the deleted draft link as the draft no longer exist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:Olusola_David_Ayibiowu on 16th September 2024, but how can l create or request AfC About it again or reinstate the draft that was deleted, so that l can continue to edit the draft by rewriting and resubmit. Is it allowed? Eecogru (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eecogru (talk page watcher) I think you would be better to start from scratch. First find the references that verify notability, then create a storyboard from those references, and then write in you own words what the references speak about in a brand new draft.

Starting from a draft that was deleted for unambiguous advertising is likely to be a lot of hard work leading to the same result. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 08:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great and l like your opinion. Thank you for your words of kindness and encouragement.

For better understanding. Can you provide me the link to find references that verify notability and Link to the storyboard for example for me to follow as a guide if any?

I appreciate you Timtrent.

Thank you Eecogru (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Timtrent here: from the version of the draft I have available, it would likely be easiest to start from scratch. Make sure to avoid using sources that are published by the subject or their affiliates: they generally are not usable to establish notability. Also, see WP:BACKWARD. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guessitsavis, l really appreciate your opinion. Big thank you.

But If l May suggest this example below for Article for Creation.

Articles for creation!

Please, let me start from the scratch with this easy process below:

The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor with creating a new page as a draft article, as well as submitting their draft article for review.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation

Wikipedia Article Wizard

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Article_wizard

I can follow the Wikipedia Article Wizard for me to start from scratch.

If there's any other contribution.Please let me know.

Thank you. Eecogru (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– DreamRimmer (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DreamRimmer, for coming to my assistance! Draft creators will be thankful even if they are unaware of what is happening. Liz 03:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaranBOT 7. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, can you respond to Editortest1112 at WP:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Romina Gingasu, User talk:Editortest1112#Speedy deletion of Draft:Romina Gingasu or User talk:Editortest1112#May 2024? Jay 💬 15:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jay,

Thank you for the User talk page notice. I've replied at REFUND. Liz 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up from your edit here: can you please delete the above per G4. I agree with the tagging editor that nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_28#Category:Fulbright_Scholars, and you can actually straight-up delete it yourself and have it emptied at WP:CFDW, as shown in this edit ミラP@Miraclepine 04:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miraclepine,

Nice to see you around! Unfortunately, this category has 858 articles in it. I believe there are editing tools that can empty categories so you don't have to make 858 edits but I'm not familiar with them. I'm also not acquainted with how things work at WP:CFDW, the admins who close CFD discussions probably are and they could probably give you a faster response than I can. But this query gives me a good reason to look into it. Thanks for providing the link as a starting point. Liz 23:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've asked an admin who has some experience G4ing categories. Hope I'll get the issue solved more quickly. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre § Massacre? Mass Shooting? - what to state in the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shearonink,

Thank you for the invitation but I don't really know anything about this subject. I'll review it though. Liz 23:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just went through the edit history and tried to tag editors who had contributed over the past few months. Want any possible decisions to reflect editorial consensus. - Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases where you have recently removed links to deleted categories, such as "Division I men's lacrosse records", you have removed the link but left the anchor text. However, in cases where those links are used in the "See Also" section of the page or similar location, the anchor text should be removed too or replaced with a link to a remaining category, such as NCAA Men's Division I Lacrosse Records in this case, when one does not already exist. For an example of the issue, see [14] 107.77.203.55 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 107.77.203.55,

If you could point out the pages where this is a problem, like here, it would greatly speed up the resolution. I end up deleting a lot of pages and there are often dozens and dozens of links to each page so it is impossible to check them all when removing red links. Highlighting the ones you are concerned about really aids in the process. Thank you. Liz 23:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the 'See also' section of [15] and most other pages in that were previously in the "Division I men's lacrosse records" category. 107.77.203.55 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC):[reply]

 Done Although, knowing nothing about lacrosse, I wouldn't have known a suitable replacement article if you hadn't identified it. Liz 23:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you can't simply replace the old category with the new one either, because in some cases, links to both categories were already listed so if you do that you'll create duplicate links to the same category as you just did for this page [16] This doesn't really require any knowledge of lacrosse. You just need to slow down and actually read the pages that you are editing. (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be clear about expectations here. I delete hundreds of pages each day, mostly draft articles but some main space articles. They may have links to anywhere between 0 and 100 other pages, from articles to talk pages to User pages. I have two options when deleting an article, I can leave a red link or remove a red link. I can not check every single page that has a link to a deleted article, no administrator does this. There are just too many links to check. So, you can offer me your opinion on whether you would prefer a red link or no link at all. Liz 02:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, leaving the red link in this situation would be preferred since it would make it easier so someone else to find and correctly fix the pages. Otherwise, there is no reason why a bot cannot made made to automatically remove the links to deleted pages. However, the ideal solution would be to improve the tool you are using to be able to handle the situation correctly, e.g. at a minimum remove the anchor text as well as the link for links in the "See Also" section and similar locations and optionally conditionally replace links and the link text in those locations with a suitable replacement. I am not saying you need to be the person to make this change to the tool, only that such a change would completely resolve the issue without leaving a red link, leaving bare text or duplicate links in the "See Also" section. 107.77.203.55 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I'm closing this as Keep as the deletion rationale is not true. The content of this article hasn't been merged to Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police which is a redirect, not an article."

I'm pretty sure that the nominator meant "The Daman and Diu Police is now merged with Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police" in real life. And should have said, for greater clarity, "The Daman and Diu Police is now merged with the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Police to form the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police". Either way it's not a reason for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! Thanks for your work on the AFD for list of landlord members of parliament. I don't disagree with your conclusion about the consensus. I started the article - to help my editing in future can you help me understand what lessons I should take from the AfD in terms of P&G, or simply what makes a good/bad list article?

One of the comments, starting "The subject of MPs who are landlords may be notable, but attempting to keep a list that is accurate, up-to-date, clearly defined in scope and manageable, seems doomed to fail", seems to be the clearest summation of most delete !voters rationale.

This seems entirely reasonable, but I've struggled to find a very clear-cut way of making this distinction for myself. I guess that's what consensus and discussion is for? :) Your views appreciated! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Could we have an urgent revdel here please? [17] Thank you, Axad12 (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also [18] and [19] from a separate discussion, as those 2 posts are liable to attract attention to the material referred to in the post above. Axad12 (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come back on this again, but it might even be worth revdelling the entire COIN discussion all the way back to the original post of the thread. I will probably be retiring in the near future so I'm not troubled either way (re: the content of the thread), but I do have privacy concerns about both the OP and subject of that thread - and those do, I think quite strongly, outweigh very heavily any discussion on the nature of COI. Axad12 (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this entirely. DavidRJD (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axad12, I have revision deleted the first diff you presented but the two others just pointed to that diff and didn't reveal personal information.

DavidRJD, if you allude to the off-wiki identity of another editor, either by naming them or pointing to an online source of that information, you will be blocked. "Outing" is something we take very seriously on this project. Liz 18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I have revision deleted another comment on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I'd appreciate it if you redacted or struck any other comments you made in that discussion that you belive are inappropriate in hindsight. Liz 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will also strike all other comments and defer to my mentor regarding the CoI issue. DavidRJD (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, DavidRJD. It's appreciated. Liz 21:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure why categories like Category:Low-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages have been deleted, because they seem to be in use? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, this was @Gonnym's fault — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MSGJ,

Let me restore these. We have had some problems with template changes emptying categories. Liz 17:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I'm not sure why they were deleted after less than 24 hours. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for deleting empty categories instead of waiting 7 days, but since when did we start doing that? Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is a good reason why we have the 7 day wait. These should be done under C1 and not under G6. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section of an article is for links to other Wikipedia pages; if an entry points to a now-deleted page, the entry should be removed completely, not just have the link brackets removed, as there's nothing left to also see. Guy Harris (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guy Harris,

That is not possible with the current way we handle page deletions. I have been removing red links to deleted pages but I can leave the red links if that is an arrangement that editors would prefer. I can not check every single article that links to a deleted page, there are often dozens and sometimes even a hundred links to a deleted article. So, it's either leave the red links or change them red links to text. Another editor has asked me to leave the red links so maybe that's what I will start doing, Liz 00:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't xfdcloser have an option to remove list items entirely? (I don't use it myself, it conflicts with the twenty years of cruft I've accumulated in my javascript.) See-also sections shouldn't ever have either redlinks nor unlinked text. —Cryptic 01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a job for a bot - remove the link if it's not in a "See also" section, remove the whole thing if it is. Guy Harris (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is done by a script, which is more or less the same thing. @Guy Harris, can you provide a diff? If the See also section was correctly formatted, my understanding is that XfD closer will indeed remove the item. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Can I recreate the page "Freedom Fighter Abdul Hamid Cantonment"? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted by you, In the year 2023. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) as a contested PROD, I have done so. Not watching the article @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet so feel free to ping Liz or I if further is needed. Star Mississippi 01:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Star Mississippi to the rescue! Thank you. Liz 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

always happy to pitch in @Liz Star Mississippi 01:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please don't be rude and condescending about my signature in a completely unrelated AN post. Thanks WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 15:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WeaponizingArchitecture,

I don't think I was rude and condescending in my remarks--I do think your signature is too much and non-standard--but you are right, it was inappropriate for me to mention it in an AN discussion. I should have posted that comment to your User talk page instead. I'm sorry about that and am glad that the remarks were hatted. Liz 19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alr cool ur good dw 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 19:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I wanted to ask about RodrigoIPacce who you seem to have had some experience with. He nominated a page I created for deletion but it seems a stretch and his account is littered with questionable behavior which he has been warned about. The page is NinjaOne and if he had done any search you can see there are weekly press sources on the company. I would let it play out but he used the exact reason word for word on another page he nominated. Basically just cut and pasted the reason for deletion. Seems like possible vandalism if you look at his talk page. Thx! SmileyShogun (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SmileyShogun,

I just wanted to let you know that I have seen your message and will look at it when I return from some errands. We are very careful when we use the word "vandalism", that implies that the editor has malicious intent and is purposely doing actions to hurt the project. That normally isn't true for nominating an article for deletion but I'll review the AFD and see if anything is amiss. I know it can hurt when an article you have worked on has been tagged for deletion but the best course of action in a case like this is to participate in the AFD and address any problem that is brought up. So, if the sources are not of the best quality, try to find some ones that are more reliable. But I'll look into this this afternoon when I return. Thank you. Liz 19:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, after checking his editing history, vandalism might be too strong at this point but there is certainly signs he doesnt understand notability. SmileyShogun (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't template me over empty album cats. Any other cat it's fine.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Rich,

I'm sorry because I believe you have told me this before. I will add your name to my mental list of editors who opt out of CSD C1 notifications. Again, I'm sorry for the unnecessary notification. Liz 18:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I found your previous notice right here. Liz 19:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I missed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Murray. It's hard to believe that the founder of two notable educational institutions (and president of a third) isn't notable. Anyway, I found a newspaper obituary that was evidently missed in the discussion.[20] Would you be able to userfy this for me? I'm pretty sure I can get it up to standard. StAnselm (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz if you're offline, but willing happy to do this for @StAnselm since at least one participant noted a willingness to reconsider if sources were found. Star Mississippi 01:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Star Mississippi. StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm it's available at User:StAnselm/John W. Murray

Not watching, so please ping me if you need anything. Defer to @Liz but you don't need my OK to move it back when you feel it's ready. Star Mississippi 14:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It turns out, looking at the edit history, that I created the article, back in 2015. I don't know why I wasn't informed of the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind that you userfied this deleted article, Star Mississippi, but StAnselm, I think it was too soon to move it right back to main space after it was just deleted in an AFD discussion. I know you are a very experienced editor but we typically ask editors to go through AFC when they want to put an article deleted through an AFD back into main space or it could be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. And that could very well happen here.

As the article creator, Altenmann, who nominated the article for the AFD, should have notified you of the deletion discussion when they tagged the article. I see that unlike many editors, they don't use Twinkle which would have automatically posted a notification so the responsibility was on them to post a notice on your User talk page. I try to spot-check AFDs when I review them to make sure this has happened but I didn't notice in this case. Liz 18:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I didn't want to ask you before (for fear of committing a WP:OWN violation) but is it worth re-opening the deletion discussion? I have certainly provided the references some of the editors were asking for, and I would have added them to the article during the discussion if I had known it was happening. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be reopened @StAnselm. I think if Altenmann or another editor feels your edits aren't sufficient, another AfD can be opened. Just my opinion, not policy. Star Mississippi 01:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Southern Nigeria Protectorate by period has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Marcocapelle. Liz 18:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, sorry to disturb you, but I noticed that yesterday you edited this page Expressways of Henan by rolling it back to the May version and gave the reason of damaging edits. The edits in 26 and 27 September were made by me and I want to make it clear that I was NOT damaging the article. What I did was to update the outdated information. The changes I made and the redirects I added to the article have absolutely authoritative sources which you can check on this website (https://jtyst.henan.gov.cn/2024/07-18/3023621.html). This is a government website of Henan Province in China so it's in Chinese, and you may translate it into English using Google Translate. Then you'll find that I did nothing wrong. Maybe you consider my edit as not so valuable, but I just want to make my hometown be known more to the world. Actually, the version that you rolled back to was also edited by me. A few days ago I spent many hours to edit the article, and now I beg you to restore the page Expressways of Henan to its version at 15:22, 28 September 2024, or I'll have to spend another 3 or 4 hours to edit it again. Thank you! And best wishes. Greencarp (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And restore this template Template:Highway system of Henan, please. Greencarp (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. I don't think there was consensus for a merge here or that a merge is appropriate as an ATD. As I pointed out in the discussion, we shouldn't be merging over OR in-universe description of the character, and that point wasn't really responded to by the merge !votes. I think the character can be properly summarized in the list, but the material in this article as written isn't really merge-able at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, voorts,

I'm sorry you don't agree with the closure. This is the typical closure outcome for AFDs for articles aout characters from movies, TV series, video games even novels, we normally Merge them to the artistic work. A merge decision allows great leeway to the editor doing the Merge, they can add as much or as little (or none) content as they feel is appropriate and turn the page into a redirect. Liz 04:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When i first made them they sounded good, but i figured reptile and amphibian sounded better than reptilia and amphibia YourAverageWeeb (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YourAverageWeeb,

No problem. Thank you for letting me know. You can always tag any unnecessary categories you no longer want CSD G7. Tagging pages for deletion is made easier if you learn to use Twinkle. Thanks. Liz 23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have seen your comment of ANI [21]. I have resarted the RfC [22] as per the discussions on ANI. However it was reverted again [23]. Please have a look.DwilfaStudwell (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at it. Liz 04:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate DwilfaStudwell (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are currently deleting a bunch of draft UK road articles created by Roads4117 (talk · contribs). Are you aware that he has been following your actions and re-creating the exact same articles with the exact same content? e.g. Draft:A1032 road. This is tendentious behaviour by a largely problematic editor. Might I suggest you look at every single-sentence draft created by this editor then just delete all of them regardless of whether they hit the six-month limit? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be willing to restore Tom Gubbins in draftspace? I'd like to work on it.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz,

I've been working on the outline drafts, but these two slipped by me. Please undelete. Thank you,    — The Transhumanist   14:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Transhumanist. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Outline of Mahatma Ghandi".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Transhumanist. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Outline of meat".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized from September 2024 Maybe a tiny bit too soon? — GhostInTheMachine 21:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GhostInTheMachine,

I guess it technically is early but the standard monthly practice has been to delete empty monthly clean up maintenance categories on the last day of the month. If there have been no pages put in this category for 29 days and 20 hours, I doubt that one will be in the last four hours of the month. It's easier to do it at some point during the 30th or 31st day of the month than waiting until midnight UTC on the 1st. But your point is taken. Liz 21:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore this one as it does concern you. Liz 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cat does take a lot of traffic... — GhostInTheMachine 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have been indefinitely blocked for using multiple accounts at the current martial arts Afd discussions. Today a new IP showed up to make the identical arguments. Is it possible to limit new editors there? Also, is striking out the edits of the now blocked users permitted? Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Papaursa,

I wouldn't strike their comments because they weren't tied to a sockmasters, they are just socks of each other. So, as far as I know, they were not evading a block. Most admins use a script that shows that editors are blocked by striking their usernames so trust that the closer won't put much weight in their arguments. I was even thinking of looking for other AFDs they participated in to see if I could close them. I'll try to get to it later tonight. Liz 05:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was particularly thinking of striking BL70's comments since he was named as a sock of IE23. I'm glad you closed most of those discussions with a reference to the socking that was going on. I didn't really want to have to post rebuttals to those walls of text. Thank you for your help, both with my question and your handling of the AfDs. Those socks seemed to focus on just those few articles, though it might have been worse if they hadn't been quickly identified. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…to an IP, as you do here:

“Oppose Attention should probably be given to his usual coterie of enablers as well. 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9, if you are going to cast aspersions at some unidentified people, you should log into your regular account. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]”

…would catch a certain amount of hell for “attempted outing.” 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

telling an IP to log in isn't "attempted outing". Trolling perhaps, but not outing unless a specific account is named EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the user were to log in and “claim” the IP edit, the practical effect would be the same. If the editor were to log in and leave the IP edit dangling, he could be accused of double voting. Bad either way. You might be right that “trolling” might be a better term to use; I’d hope that isn’t a normal part of the admin toolkit these days.2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EvergreenFir. Yes, this is what I meant. If you are the same editor who commented at AN, you weighed in on a dispute with your very first edit. It is very very rare that we see an IP editor participating in discussions on WP:AN so I can only assume you wanted to comment anonymously so you logged out. I just was encouraging to log back into your account if you want to continue in the discussion because some editors do not take IP editors as seriously as registered accounts. I have no idea who you really are and I don't care to know so accusations of "outing" are completely off-base. It seems like you are just trying to be disruptive by purposely misreading what I said. Liz 05:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could far more parsimoniously assume that someone commented anonymously because they’d forgotten to log on, no? In fact, that would appear to be what WP:AGF would suggest, an accident rather than skulduggery. 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

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

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

Hello, Liz,

How are you?

Thank you for your constant work and help at AfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Liz 02:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello, User:Nyulrlogo,

Why aren't you discussing this disagreement with Randykitty? Liz 05:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hello, User:Dbgbr,

I don't know what page you are talking about can you give me a link to the deleted page? Thank you. Liz 05:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Dbgbr

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

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

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

Hello, User:Wofgane,

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

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

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

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

Hello Liz,

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

Hello, Mushy Yank,

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

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

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

Hello, Cryptic,

Thank you for letting me know. You're so good about these notifications when editors forget to post them, thanks. Liz 19:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, PamD,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Liz:,

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

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

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

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

Dear Liz,

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

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

Hello Liz (and Kittehmaster,)

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

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

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

Hello, Darrion "Beans" Brown,

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

If you want a second opinion, bring your questions to the Teahouse. Liz 06:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz, hope this finds you well.

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

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

Hello, Michael,

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

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

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

Hello, Toadspike,

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

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

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

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

Dear Liz;
Thank you for your help in fixing this, by deleting the unwanted ‘Archive 3’. Please keep well.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 00:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

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

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

Hello, HHMMJ,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Benmite,

This article deletion is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Ivy Wolk if you would like to weigh in there. Liz 03:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, SmileyShogun,

Can you provide a link to the deleted article or the AFD? Thank you. Liz 03:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, thank you.

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

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

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

Hello, Gotitbro,\

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Robert McClenon,

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

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

Hello, Timtrent,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Hameltion,

Thank you for the notification but I wasn't the closer for this AFD. It was another administrator. Liz 02:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, 2000editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tavantius, can you provide a link to the draft article? Are you an AFC reviewer? How long have you been reviewing drafts? Liz 03:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, I dream of horses. The unprotection of this page title has been fraught with drama over the past month. Liz 03:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

GoldenLift5

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

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

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

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

Good day!

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

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

Hello, 180 Degree Open Angedre,

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

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

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

Hello, Jclemens,

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

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

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

Hello, Das osmnezz,

 Done Liz 00:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Inquiry Regarding Page Deletion

Dear Liz,

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

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

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

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

Best regards, IJWBAA

Hello, IJWBAA,

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

I think if you want to tell the world about yourself, you should get a blog or your own website. Liz 01:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz,

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

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

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

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, CMD,

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

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

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

Thank you for the explanation, MSGJ. Liz 15:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liz,

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

Cordially,

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

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

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

Category:Buildings and structures in Rivash, Iran has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, 칼빈500,

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

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

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

Hello, DreamRimmer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, FromCzech,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, 180.252.56.220,

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

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

Hello, dxneo,

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

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

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

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

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

Hi Liz, could you give this a quick look please [24] to see whether it should be procedurally closed. There is an active unclosed merge discussion and this seems to have been started as a novel means to close the merge. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sirfurboy🏄,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Necrothesp,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

Hello, Oldsanfelipe2,

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

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

Hello, Oldsanfelipe2,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, JamesMLane,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I realize it could appear like I'm trying to work around a consensus to merge, but FWIW I think those arguments should also be considered by a future AfD closer. I.e. I believe this should be evaluated as a deletion, but with consideration of all relevant arguments. — xDanielx /_C\ 22:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XDanielx,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Snow Rise,

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

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

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

Hello, Piotrus,

I've already responded at the deletion review but I wanted to thank you for the notification. It's appreciated. Liz 07:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, みしまるもも,

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

Additionally, I just noticed that User:45.128.80.181 is blocked for two weeks so that might help out with any problem you are having. Liz 02:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you, FkpCascais, this is very kind of you. I'm not sure that I'm always civil but I try! Liz 02:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Crafterstar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Number 57,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, 1Skywriter,

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

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

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

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

Hello, BeanieFan11,

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

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

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

Hello, Smasongarrison,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Ainty Painty,

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

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

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

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

I'm leaving that anonymous here in case it breaches any outing policy 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 19:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed it hereon 9 Nov 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 19:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is peculiar. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 19:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, Shrug02,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

Hello, DMacks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, SumoAvocado,

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

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

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

Hello, SumoAvocado,

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

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

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

If you want to make a complaint to WMF about this, I recommend going to the Teahouse and asking them how to contact our parent organization. Liz 04:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello Liz,

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

I saw your comment on my prior talk page [25], and it seems you may be familiar with my actions. I’m open to discussing the situation further in case there has been any misunderstanding or if I missed something. Any insight you have to help me understand the reasons behind the block would be truly appreciated.

I’ve written a response here [26] and would be grateful if you could take a moment to review it. I’m more than willing to engage in a constructive conversation to clarify things and if I had indeed done something wrong to get 72 hours, I will take responsibility for those actions. But it's hard to take responsibility when you don't even understand the error.

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

Hello, 49.180.201.206,

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

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

Hello, 49.180.201.206,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Just Step Sideways,

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Star Mississippi, I appreciate your support, as always. Liz 02:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

And the same to you, Daniel. Good luck! Liz 03:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, things are looking much better this morning. Best of luck. Just Step Sideways 16:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

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

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

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

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

Hello, Blue-Sonnet,

I moved your comment to start a new discussion as it had nothing to do with the rather intense conversation that you placed this in the middle of. Please do not insert content that is not relevant to a discussion, especially in the middle of an ongoing conversation. I don't think you have enough editing experience to be advising other editors (maybe when you are extended confirmed) but I encourage your efforts to deescalate situations. We always need more peacemakers as long as they aren't telling other, more experienced editors what to do. That will not be appreciated. Liz 05:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Two years ago I created a page for Bojan Ilievski after his debut for the Macedonia National Team. You deleted it, saying he is irrelevant and it was only one friendly game. He is now summoned again by the national team for the upcoming UEFA National League fixtures. Is there a possibility to bring back his page?

Greetings. Msb73505 (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I assume you are talking about the article that was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bojan Ilievski? First, I didn't say anything about the quality of the article or the notability of the subject, I just assessed the consensus arising out of the discussion and closed it. I have no opinion on the subject.

Secondly, I'm willing to restore this article to Draft space or User space but you MUST submit the draft to Articles for Creation for review. If you just move it back to main space, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 which is for articles deleted through AFD that have been recreated. It will then be much, much more difficult to restore it a second time. Are you willing to do this? If not, then it is better to write a new article in Draft space from scratch. Thank you. Liz 19:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. Still wondering if you could possibly restore my userspace draft for Ivy Wolk so that I could get a look at it and possibly move some things to the page that exists there now. Thanks! benǝʇᴉɯ 18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benmite,

First, sorry that I didn't follow up your original request that is somewhere in the middle of this User talk page. I typically just look at the bottom of this page and can miss updates to older discussions.

Secondly, as you mention, there is an article, Ivy Wolk, in main space that was moved from Draft space. Is there yet another version of this article that was deleted? Please provide me with a link to the page of the deleted article so I can look into the circumstances of its deletion. Thank you. Liz 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine! The draft I'm talking about was located at User:Benmite/Ivy Wolk. I moved it to mainspace before it got deleted so I'm not sure if the page's history will still be intact, but let me know if it is. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benmite,

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with other work on the project. Here's what I can see, there is only one deleted edit at User:Benmite/Ivy Wolk so there is no content on that page. However, there was content that you made at Ivy Wolk which had gotten deleted when the article was tagged for speedy deletion CSD A7, G4. I have restored your edits now that this article has gone through a deletion review. I did not restore deleted content that was removed through an AFD discussion deletion and I don't think I could, but that is not what you are asking for. However, even though this content has been returned to the page history, do not revert this article back to your original edits. The edits remain there as a source of content you could draw from to add to the new version of this article but do not just restore this article back to a version of the one you created. That would erase all of the work that has been done since this new version was created. Make sense? Thank you. Liz 23:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, There has been major disruption in the article and the version you restored for maintaining the Afd tag is about a different politician. It was earlier about a different person who is serving as a minister in Government of Bihar. But, now the version you restored is about a poltician, who is not notable.[27] Adamantine123 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See, this person File:Chief Minister Nitish Kumar with minister Santosh Kumar Singh (cropped).jpg, about whom the article was earlier is notable, but someone changed it to present version, and this person with same name is not notable.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adamantine123,

The AFD might have the same outcome that you were trying to achieve with this article. It's just that once an AFD has been opened, it can't be bypassed. Tags should not be removed or the article redirected, moved to Draft space or blanked until the AFD is closed. Your best bet is to go to the AFD discussion, if you haven't already, and make your case there. If it is persuasive, you'll probably achieve the results you want. But the decision has to come out of the AFD discussion consensus. Liz 00:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I no longer need any of my advanced rights. Can you please remove them? BilledMammal (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I removed the rights for you BilledMammal. Fathoms Below (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fathoms Below. I'm not sure what brought this on, BilledMammal but I hope you are okay. Liz 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't action this as closer of the ANI but echo @Liz's concerns. Don't hesitate to be in touch @BilledMammal Star Mississippi 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Primefac blocked Saqib by --Sunuraju (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

ArbComm blocks such as this will not be discussed in public @Sunuraju

Given your close call at SPI, I'd suggest a focus on articles. Star Mississippi 23:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sunuraju,

I was surprised, too, so I inquired about the block at Primefac's User talk page even though I expected the reply that I did receive. But Star Mississippi is correct, ArbCom blocks are not discussed publicly so we'll just have to accept what is as reality. But know, if Saqib wants to be unblocked, they can appeal their block, also, to ArbCom for review. Liz 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no rush and no answer needed. Star Mississippi 01:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re [28], I think it was clear enough there wasn't going to be any more bickering, so I wonder about your comment. I'll take minor offense to the half of it directed at me. No big deal. The main point there was that GoodDay was in the wrong from the start of that issue, and never said as much (nor did anyone else). Cheers, ―Mandruss ☎ 12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss & I were both in the wrong, IMHO. That being said, I thank you for the close. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mandruss, I apologize if you found the word "bickering" as implying that you didn't have a valid reason for opening a complaint. That's not what I meant. By bickering, what I typically mean is a discussion that goes back and forth between two editors who disagree, that is not moving towards a resolution. I closed the discussion because I've found is that, often, on ANI, the longer a complaint stays open, the more frequently it receives unhelpful comments from the peanut gallery that watches noticeboards. I also see that the longer a complaint is open, the more likely it is that sanctions will be imposed on one or both of the editors involved and I did see that as an appropriate outcome to this dispute. You outlined your disagreement, there was a response, GoodDay withdrew from participating on that article which seemed like it resolved the problems you cited. If it instead continues on a different article, you are welcome to open a new complaint and cite this one for reference.

I see my job as an administrator on ANI as trying to resolve and deescalate disputes and so this was my mindset when I closed this discussion. Liz 23:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were referring to bickering between me and GoodDay, which had clearly ended some time before your closure. withdrew from participating on that article which seemed like it resolved the problems you cited No, the problem was resolved (far too late) by GoodDay's self-revert. Their participation at the article was never an issue—as I said in the ANI thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have sparked a major scolding operation on my User Talk Page on a irrelevant thread which was not supposed to be some sort of discussion so I moved it to a new section UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnsungHistory,

Except that you invented a new header that I didn't add. I don't think of this as a "controversy", other editors are just sharing their opinions. Look at any long-term editor's User talk page and you'll see a mixture of compliments and complaints. And, believe me, this is not a "scolding" and I definitely didn't start anything. You moved my comment down from the middle of the page, where no one would have noticed it, to its place at the bottom of the page, where editors are trained to look for new messages.

You seem to be ignoring the advice that experienced editors are offering you which is to focus more on improving articles and less on the "discussion" aspects of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a forum or social media channel. Please focus less on socializing and more on article improvement. Liz 02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting restoration of this article deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Winning, I believe circumstances have changed, and I plan to rewrite the article. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 24eeWikiUser,

I can not restore an article that was deleted through the AFD deletion discussion process. Your best bet is to start a new article in Draft space. If you think my closure was an incorrect reading of the consensus of participants, you can make an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz 06:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz,

It is noted, thank you.

Happy editing! 24eeWikiUser (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. It was unpleasant on WP:AN, but I had no idea, and you probably no idea, just how ugly it would get on WP:ANI so quickly.

I will be back in about three hours, and will post something, but I have no idea what will happen in the meantime. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]