Jump to content

User talk:Liz/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45


Jans der Enikel

Hi Liz, I see you deleted the on-going GA process from Talk:Jans der Enikel. As I don't have a lot of experience of GA yet, could you explain this to me? Has the GA proposal been rejected or is there something I should be doing? Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doric Loon, the problem was with the reviewer, who wasn't doing the review. So the original review page was deleted, and as I imagine you've noticed, a new reviewer has opened a new review. At this point, all you have to do is to respond to the issues raised by the reviewer. I hope the new review goes more quickly this time! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for explaining. I was wondering why nothing had happened. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Liz, article that a did input on Sino-Uralic languages, was deleted, the reason says, that it was base on the hypothesis of only one autor. I have now new information that will correct this shortcoming :
These three were pulished in top journals in Estonia.
1) Kaplinski 2014: 230 [In Estonian]
Kaplinski 2014 = Jaan Kaplinski: “Veel mõni mõtteke etümoloogiasõnaraamatust ja etümoloogiatest”, Keel ja Kirjandus 2014, 2, 239-243.
[7]
2) Künnap 2010 [In English]
Künnap 2010 = Ago Künnap: "Review of Gao 2008", Linguistica Uralica 2010, 3, 218-222.
[8]
3) Künnap 2009 [In Estonian]
Künnap 2009 = Ago Künnap: " Eesti keel koos teiste läänemeresoome keeltega ja germaani keeled Hiinast vaadatuna", Keel ja Kirjandus 2009, 2, 148-150.
[9]
This Chinese one was pulished in a top journal in China, it has a link:
4) Jiang, Zeng, Yang, Hong, Zhou, Zhang 2021: 475
Jiang, Zeng, Yang, Hong, Zhou, Zhang 2021 = 蒋冀骋, 曾晓渝, 杨军, 洪波, 周赛华, 张富海. 音韵学研究现状与展望. 语言科学, 20 (2021), 5, 474-490.
[10]
We can start with these, + our there is an article of Gao with Tõnu Tender, link https://aaatec.org/art/a_jg3.
I think these are enough for the start.
There are more Chinese scholars who have cited and promoted it. I can provide if needed more information, because I also study Sino-Uralistics.
Märt Läänemets and Urmas Sutrop have pulished essays on it in Estonian newspapers.
Can the article be restored, please? Belolipestky Roman Belolipestky Roman (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up after deleted GA reviews

Liz, many thanks for all the work you've been doing when GA review pages need to be deleted, including today's Talk:William Chaney/GA1 and Talk:Jans der Enikel/GA1 (the latter has already attracted a new reviewer, which is why it has a blue link). In addition to deleting the review pages on reviews that never got started, you've also been removing the transclusions of those review pages from the article talk pages, which also helps.

While you're at the article talk pages, if you're willing, it would be great if you could do one final step: delete the "onreview" status value in {{GA nominee}} while leaving the required "|status=" parameter in place. This is the final piece of cleanup that needs to be done. I've already done it for these two, and I'm happy to continue doing so, but I don't always notice when it's needed. (What does catch my attention is the WP:GAN history; in this case, it showed both of the articles as being On review "by Example"—see 04:41 this morning for the relevant entries. That's always an indication that the review page has disappeared, but the GA nominee template still has a status of "onreview".)

Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BlueMoonset,
Thanks for telling me about that, I have no involvement in GA or FA so wasn't aware of any extra steps that needed to be taken. I'll try to follow your instructions next time. It took a while before I realized that it is okay to delete incomplete review pages if the review is cancelled. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hi Liz, can you please look at this article, I seriously doubt that it's ready for live space. Neo the Twin (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neo the Twin,
This page has been moved around a lot today but can now be found at Draft:DiepCity (South African TV Series). It can stay in Draft space until it is improved. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Followup to Question 3

Regarding the deletion of Sbiis Saibian, that's fine. I obviously didn't understand the concept of *notability* when I wrote that :D Regarding the page I asked about earlier though, I remember now. I cut'n'pasted most of the content from Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals into the new page Ultimate, solid and more types of cardinals (which also got deleted). Could you please give me what was written on the latter page so I can put it somewhere? Binary198 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Binary198,
What you have to understand is that there is a different standard of quality for articles that are put directly into the main space of the project. Articles put into main space are reviewed and tagged for speedy deletion if they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for article sourcing or completeness. That is why we encourage editors to create and develop articles in Draft space or User space like their Sandbox, where they can improve articles over time and submit them to Articles for Creation for review. In Draft and User space, articles do not have to be perfect, there, they are a work-in-progress. They can still be deleted if there is copyright infringement or if they are seen as overly promotional but they are not held to the same standard as main space articles.
Can I restore the article and move it to your User space? Please note the reason it was deleted was because the tagging editor thought it was a concept you made up. This means that the page will require substantial reliable sources to establish notability if it is ever to be moved into main space and not be deleted again. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz!
> there is a different standard of quality for articles that are put directly into the main space of the project
Yes, I fully understand that now. Maybe not back then though.
> Can I restore the article and move it to your User space? Please note the reason it was deleted was because the tagging editor thought it was a concept you made up.
Yes please, that would be very good.

Binary198 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Umm, Liz? Can you please restore the article and move it to my user space? Best wishes, Binary198 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Binary198,
Sorry, I was distracted. The page is back at User:Binary198/Sandbox. Thanks for the reminder. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Great Liz, thanks for doing that! For some reason most of the content is empty, but nevermind. Maybe the old link (Ultimate, solid and gargantuan) was actually the correct one, and the stuff I was looking for was just hidden in the revision history. Hmm... Maybe you could check? You don't have to, but I would appreciate it. Sorry, am I being annoying? Binary198 (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there was less content on that restored page than I was expecting to see. But I looked into your deleted contributions, you didn't have much, just Sbiis Saibian, a biography, and Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals which only contained a comment from you about losing an article. There was nothing else there that had been deleted.
I see a couple of possibilities. Either you wrote content and didn't "Publish changes", you didn't save the edit. In that case, the content can't be recovered. Or, you were editing with a different account, like you weren't logged in and were editing as an IP editor. Did you have a previous account? If you were editing as an IP, that could be very difficult to locate. Or, the content is obscured because of later edits to the page, it is buried in the page history. I'd look carefully through your Contributions and your subpages. But there is nothing else in your contributions that was deleted, just those two pages. Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Just in case you are curious, I restored Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals and moved it to User:Binary198/Ultimate, solid and gargantuan cardinals so you can see the content that was deleted. Except for Sbiis Saibian, you have no more deleted edits. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Weird. Nevermind then. Thanks for your help anyways. Binary198 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD tags

Please stop aiding vandals by putting them on articles that have been vandalised. If you persist in this I will have to raise an issue at WP:ANI, and will ask for at least your admin rights to be taken away. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Phil Bridger,
Can you be more specific? On which articles were the tags inappropriate? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The one where I contested deletion today (you should have had this watchlisted and known) was Chaehoi Fatihou, but there are many others where I don't have time to restore the sources that were deleted, including today and many previous days. You may well nominate that particular article for deletion on the basis of lack of notability, but it does not qualify for WP:BLPPROD, which says, "review the biography's history to confirm that it has not been vandalized especially if sources have been removed, and there is no more suitable referenced version to revert to." The same goes for many other articles that you have put this tag on. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Your a definition in a theorys world of douts you cant keep contained and keep caged. In your unability to learn. Where do your facts come from except from he or she said this or that. Or a true measurment in wheight or distance or age. You wouldnt have much of a site in just this. These are the only certified facts at all You can try keep the worlds growth in your fear from falling in what youve learned thats a fact why your so adment like you know enough to judge the writings of mine. Honestly you dont though is fact aswell. What is oviouse skips you. In definitions you learned instead of exspirenced. The only facts should be exspirenced that you have a right to delete as an admin or claim to know not to falsely and acuse and cant prove and over state the wrong in someones obviouse theory you have no choice in coming out your world of fals definitions. Or prove otherwise. Not over use your authority to stay in the safty of your confinement where your more comfortable. Crsvncnt (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Champions League

Please don't do mess i again and again and you do whatever you want Divyakaran Singh Joshi (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Divyakaran Singh Joshi,
I don't know what you are referring to. Is there a particular article or draft article this is about? Can you provide me with a direct link to the page? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

About CSD:G13

Hello, Liz, sorry for interruption.

In the CSD instruction, I found G13 is suitable for Draft namespace have not been edited by a human in six months.

However, if a user used other kind of namespace instead of draft, see User:Zezen/Draftbox5 but is actually a draft page, could this kind of CSD be applied to that kind of page? Or WP:XFD should be used when intend to delete this kind of page?

Thank you Pavlov2 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yugosphere

I had started work on turning Yugosphere into a stand alone article but die to the RfD on it I couldn't delete so posted it underneath. Would it be possible for me to find it again so I can create the page ?

Lankyant (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lankyant,
I'm not going to be all judgey but it's not a good idea to spend time improving a page that has been tagged for deletion that no one has supported keeping. But I hate to see efforts at improving content wasted so I've restored the page and moved it to Draft space at Draft:Yugosphere. PLEASE just don't turn it back into a redirect. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! It was because it was supported for deletion that I decided to start working on it, appreciate it Lankyant (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

RfD relist

Not a big deal obviously, but for your relist of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_4#Gamma-amino_butyne_acid, why couldn't this have been closed as delete per WP:RGUIDE #3: "If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.? Closer's prerogative I guess, just curious your thoughts. Cheers! Mdewman6 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdewman6,
You may very well be right. But what I've seen lately is there are now just a handful of admins closing deletion discussions and I saw a lot of discussions that needed closures and so I closed them or relisted them. They may not all have been perfect decisions. But since you brought this one to my attention, I'll reexamine it.
If you could drum up more participation in RFD discussions by other editors, it would make these decisions much easier. It's a challenge to make a decision when there are only 1-3 editors voicing an opinion and each one has a different idea on what should be done. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your nomination, I really would like to see at least one more person express an opinion about your proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
No worries! I figured it was something along those lines. Always better to err on the side of more discussion over deletion if consensus isn't immediately clear I guess, or is just WP:SILENCE. I definitely appreciate your work at RfD and elsewhere! Mdewman6 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

DominosThermometer Hostility

Hello there Liz, I noticed that this user who you previously confronted a couple of days ago is being very hostile and rude towards me, I noticed that you did warn them about being rude towards admins and other people, but they didn’t seem to get the message at all. The user is practically accusing me of all sorts and I’m afraid it will get worse for me and other people. For example, when I edited Linda Carter, they said in there summary “don’t talk SHITE” when I never was, that was just plain rude. So I went to the talk page and noticed all those previous warnings just to ask “why are you accusing me” and then they just erupted fast in rage for no reason, I wasn’t trying to stir up any trouble or anything at all. Just thought I’d tell you since you where on the page too. WikiFlame50 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely no rage at all. You’re quite lacklustre in your editing abilities and your knowledge of where aliases should be and I was trying to explain in language you'd best understand as you have a history of abuse and shouting. Apologies if you've changed your way of communication. Please be wary of where you are adding aliases in the future. Regards.DominosThermometer (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
You just had to stalk my summaries didn’t you. How rich. There you go again, accusations accusations. Please stop telling lies saying that I’m the hostile one when an admin can easily review your talk page and be able to identify your own wrongdoings in terms of communication. WikiFlame50 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, WikiFlame50, I was going to simply suggest you stay off their user talk page except to post necessary notifications but it turns out that DominosThermometer has been indefinitely blocked by another administrator. I don't think I would have done this myself but it does solve the immediate problem that you came here with. My general advice, should this happen again is if you find a dispute has gotten personal and off-topic, disengage from the editor and focus back on content. If the dispute persists over multiple articles or talk pages, then ask for administrative intervention. But sometimes, just putting distance between yourself and the other editor is the quickest solution. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I did put distance in the end. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Petr Nesterov

Hello there Liz. An article I created about the Bulgarian tennis player Petr Nesterov was deleted in the past, but today he made his debut for the Bulgaria Davis Cup team which from my understanding should make him notable by the WP:NTENNIS standarts. [1] Is it possible for that page to be reinstated or would I have to make it from scratch all over again? Kr1s71an (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://live.daviscup.com/en/tie-detail.php/M-DC-2022-WG2-PO-BUL-PAR-01

Ayan Nayak

@Liz: User:Anachroliz has now engaged in page-vandalism and block evasion. They are now busy adding 'Ayan Nayak' in various articles like [1], [2], [3], [4] and also submitted User:Anachroliz/Sandbox per [5]. I understand that blocking the IP might not help as they will come up with new IP but at least can you WP:NUKE User:Anachroliz/Sandbox as a WP:PROMOTION and WP:HOAX piece or any other criteria. Thanks 2402:3A80:1A4E:B619:CCCE:35B1:8CD7:A8 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin closure by involved editor

Hello, I see you've recently closed RFDs so I bring this to you. I noticed that an RFD I participated in, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Abeceda, was closed (less than 24 hours after the RFD was initiated) by a non-admin who had also !voted in the discussion. As I understand it from WP:NAC, only uninvolved editors are supposed to close discussions. Should it be reopened? Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I Cannot Find the "Draft:Abu Torab Fatemi Mehra" as notified. thx!

Hi.

I spent considerable time on this deleted document Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UserCmehrasandbox.jpg

Please resolve ASAP.

Thanks!

Cmehra (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Cyrus C. Mehra

Hello, Cmehra,
If you look at the page, Draft:Abu Torab Fatemi Mehra, you can see that it was deleted for copyright infringement. You should talk to the deleting administrator, Deb, if you have further questions. Liz Read! Talk! 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Will do. Thx. Cmehra (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Bots and Template

  • Hello Liz, a question for you ma'am, how does one create a Bot account/user?

I think I have a perfect idea on where the bot would be of use.

  • I created this template which I do not know if it was good idea or not, I've waited for it to be review, moved to draft space or rather deleted in a short amount of time but no measures where taken thus far. My question is, is the template a good idea or it has been avoided by editor/administrators for certain motives? Neo the Twin (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Neo the Twin,
I know very little about bots and templates. But if you want to run a bot, you need to get it approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. You can find more information about templates at Wikipedia:Templates. There are editors who spend most of their time working with templates and their advice would be worth more than mine.
If you have questions like this in the future, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where there are more editors who have a greater pool of knowledge than I do. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about Potash Twins

This is meant to be a question, not a statement, or a claim that you made a mistake. You declined the G5 tag I put on Potash Twins as not ban evasion. I understand that G5 can be complicated, but would like to know why this was not within the meaning of G5. I know that edits made before a sockpuppeteer is blocked do not count as G5. In this case, CrystalizedCheese had already been blocked when the article was created. Did you decline teh G5 because NebraskaJazz had been created back in 2012 as a sleeper account?

I think I will use a PROD because the socks have now been blocked. And I would appreciate a clarification about G5 (and I know that it has exceptions, or perhaps that it is for exceptions). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert,
This is a confusing case because typically, with CSD G5s, the sockpuppet account is created after the sockmaster has been blocked. G5 is a speedy deletion for ban evasion. So, technically, I guess your tagging could be correct because NebraskaJazz did create the article after CrystalizedCheese was blocked. But NebraskaJazz was a ten year old account while CrystalizedCheese has only been editing for 3 months so I would judge NebraskaJazz as the actual sockmaster. And in the SPI case, NebraskaJazz was only judged to be "Possilikely" to be CrystalizedCheese and I'd prefer to see a stronger confirmation. NebraskaJazz was only confirmed to be AugustusBlue1888 and that account was not blocked so there was no ban evasion there. So, I guess I prefer things to be a little more clear cut and am glad that another form of deletion was found. I hope this better explains my decision. Liz Read! Talk! 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay. As you said, it is complicated, and speedy deletion is for uncomplicated cases. With all of the socks blocked, the PROD will delete the article in a week unless the PROD is removed either by a neutral editor or by another sock. If it is removed by a neutral editor, then the article can be considered on its merits. If it is removed by another sock, then another sock gets blocked, and notability can be considered by AFD. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Robert,
So much effort has been expended to both keep and delete an article on this subject. I wonder if paid editors realize that their persistence usually ends up with the page title being protected from ever being created at all! I'm sure their clients would be unhappy with that result. It's better to have no article YET than have the possibility of a future article being zero. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

How to disclose Conflict of Interest?

Hey how to disclose Conflict of Interest can you give an example of someone article from that i can see how to. I just read the policies of the conflics of interest article doesn't help me well. Will you Please Dr. G K Goswami (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. G K Goswami,
That is not the correct page to read, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has information on how editors here deal with COI issues and there are instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI on how to disclose a conflict-of-interest. I hope this helps.
If you have questions in the future about Wikipedia policies, you can ask at a talk page and the Teahouse is a great resource for answers. Liz Read! Talk! 15:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why did you blank my user page?

[6]

Seems an odd thing to do? Was it an accident? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, EnlightenmentNow1792,
I don't remember what led me to blank your User page on February 20th. I sometimes blank, rather than delete, User pages if there is inappropriate content but there was none here. My apologies to you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey!

I noticed you undid my request on the DanTDM talk page. How come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8900:55FC:111B:EAB1:A935:77EB (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2603:8081:8900:55FC:111B:EAB1:A935:77EB
If you are also 2603:8081:8900:55FC:6D64:785F:B61:210A, you had been doing a lot of vandalism with that account so I reverted your edit. Looking at it today, I don't see anything wrong with this particular edit so I reverted myself. But please stop vandalizing pages. Liz Read! Talk! 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Matthew Rojansky

Hi Liz. You deleted this as an expired Prod back in 2016. He's been in the news a lot since and I'd like to work on the entry. Could you or one of you page watchers please restore it? Thanks very much. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy,
 Done Happy to. Good luck with the article. Liz Read! Talk! 15:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that the version restored is from 2021. I thought I saw that an entry was deleted in 2016 but maybe I mosread it or there was an earlier version? I don't know the answer but I did notice a discrepancy from my statement that it was deleted as an expired prod in 2016 and the article's history. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your deletions

You deleted this template despite the fact that it still in use, contrary to the nominator's statement.

You deleted this file, despite the fact that it was used, contrary to the PROD.

You closed this discussion as soft delete despite the fact that it survived the previous AFD, making it ineligible for soft deletion.

You closed this discussion as soft delete despite the fact that it was previous nominated for deletion using PROD, making it ineligible for soft deletion.

If you could stop abusing your admin tools, that would be great. ✗plicit 14:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Explicit,
It is always such a pleasure when you come to my talk page to chat with me. It's like we've become old friends.
I will check on these cases and make corrections, if I made a mistake. And I know if I do make an error, and even you make errors, Explicit, that you will be there to gently bring it to my attention and help guide me to become a better administrator. Take care! Liz Read! Talk! 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done I believe I mentioned earlier to you that I'm new to doing admin work at deletion discussions (just since January or February) so it shouldn't be a big surprise that I'm not perfect. But it looked like there was a need for more admins to assist there so I'm helping out as best as I can and learning along the way. And I wouldn't call occasional mistakes "abusing" admin tools, that's pretty harsh. Liz Read! Talk! 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Liz, article that a did input on Sino-Uralic languages, was deleted, the reason says, that it was base on the hypothesis of only one autor. I have now new information that will correct this shortcoming :
These three were pulished in top journals in Estonia.
1) Kaplinski 2014: 230 [In Estonian]
Kaplinski 2014 = Jaan Kaplinski: “Veel mõni mõtteke etümoloogiasõnaraamatust ja etümoloogiatest”, Keel ja Kirjandus 2014, 2, 239-243.
[7]
2) Künnap 2010 [In English]
Künnap 2010 = Ago Künnap: "Review of Gao 2008", Linguistica Uralica 2010, 3, 218-222.
[8]
3) Künnap 2009 [In Estonian]
Künnap 2009 = Ago Künnap: " Eesti keel koos teiste läänemeresoome keeltega ja germaani keeled Hiinast vaadatuna", Keel ja Kirjandus 2009, 2, 148-150.
[9]
This Chinese one was pulished in a top journal in China, it has a link:
4) Jiang, Zeng, Yang, Hong, Zhou, Zhang 2021: 475
Jiang, Zeng, Yang, Hong, Zhou, Zhang 2021 = 蒋冀骋, 曾晓渝, 杨军, 洪波, 周赛华, 张富海. 音韵学研究现状与展望. 语言科学, 20 (2021), 5, 474-490.
[10]
We can start with these, + our there is an article of Gao with Tõnu Tender, link https://aaatec.org/art/a_jg3.
I think these are enough for the start.
There are more Chinese scholars who have cited and promoted it. I can provide if needed more information, because I also study Sino-Uralistics.
Märt Läänemets and Urmas Sutrop have pulished essays on it in Estonian newspapers.
Can the article be restored, please? Belolipestky Roman (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Portland Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon: March 12, 2022

You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Stale sock mess

Hello, I want to ask you about an article and if speedy deletion G5 applies to it or not. Emil Mammadov was once created by EXParen and was deleted later, then recreated as a draft by Vuqi777, which is suspiciously their only edit. The draft was later moved to mainspace by KhosrovAO. Both EXParen and KhosrovAO are sockpuppets of Elshadiman, who still creates new sockpuppets from time to time. Does G5 apply here? And what should I do if I encounter similar confusing cases where speedy deletion might or might not apply? (Besides jumping ahead and tagging, I've learned enough to not do that anymore). - Kevo327 (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Prem Pandey

Hello Liz ! Recently, you had deleted the article which i have mentioned on title. I think redirect would be a better option than delete where as the films or tele-films played by him is notable and well recognized in the context of Nepal and anywhere else around the world as well as he had won several awards also which has been elaborated in well recognized news portal of Nepal and as per WP:ATD. At last, I respect your every decision/action/edits but this time I have little bit concerned about this. If still you think that delete is a best solution then I will not say anything about that. Hope for your positive response. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fade258,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I see no problem with you creating a redirect for this person so go ahead. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Liz No worries about that. If I create the redirect then there would be a some problem. So, I request you to create redirect as you are the administrator who had deleted this article. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

OE1995

Hello, Liz. Following a discussion at ANI, admin TomStar81 has temporarily blocked OE1995 (talk · contribs) for recreating deleted articles. But they resumed the same after the block expiration. They recreated Ravanasura which you deleted which was subsequently salted by TomStar81. Now they re-created it again as Ravanasura (film), same is the case Faria Abdullah. I've notified this to TomStar81 on their talk page but felt to inform you as well, since you previously deleted and salted their page Kabza (upcoming film). I think it reached a point where no amount of protection would stop them and an indef block (or atleast partial block from creating new pages, if possible) may be the only solution. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ab207,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention and, especially, for supplying so many details. I'll look into this today. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

About your close at AfD

Hey Liz. I just wanted to ask if you could elaborate your reasoning for the "no consensus" close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Bukuru (I was the nominator). IMO it was fairly clear from the discussion that none of the keep votes offered any policy-based explanation for their keeps, as the WP:NFOOTY SNG that was cited is due to be significantly reworked as a result of this RfC. Also, to quote the explanatory notes at the top of WP:NSPORTS, of which WP:NFOOTY is a part: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. I did a check of Burundian media and a general WP:BEFORE and founding nothing that would allow this to pass WP:GNG, and most of the "Delete" votes shared this policy-based reasoning. Since you did not write much in your closing note, would you be willing to offer more insight into your reasoning? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Indy beetle,
At your suggestion, I added a statement to my closure decision. I don't think you'll be satisfied with it so feel free to take the AFD to Deletion review. Since the sports notability criteria is currently in the process of being reevaluated and rewritten, the participants there might find grounds to overturn my decision which, of course, I'll accept. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. That said, I probably will take it to DRV. Nothing personal, but it will be helpful to see what the wider waters are for navigating these things in the future. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 11 if you're interested. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Indy beetle,
I understand. Thanks for letting me know. Six years as an admin, I had never been brought to Deletion Review. Now, in 2022, it's my third trip. I guess I'm not just taking on the uncontroversial cases any more. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Indy beetle,
You didn't tag the AFD with a Deletion Review notice so I took care of that. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This was a tough close, and, as you said in the DRV, likely to have brought criticism no matter what the result was. ––FormalDude talk 06:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


thanks 4 deleting my draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydroow (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcoming suggestion

Hello! :)

You recently wrote Removing CSD tag and blanking page. It doesn't need to be deleted. Try welcoming them. as a summary on a revert you did on me on an IP's talk page. I'm not sure if you use SWViewer but the web app doesn't really have a blanking option for newly created pages. You can either let the edit go through or mark it for deletion if it is considered unproductive.

Also, I'm confused. You write Try welcoming them. but you don't do any welcome beside blanking the page. And who exactly should we welcome? As far as we can tell from the contributions, that IP had literally only 1 contribution and that was those random characters it had written in its talk page. - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Klein Muçi,
I went to my Contributions and did a search for "Welcome" and found that I posted 20 Welcome messages to User talk pages in the past 5 hours alone. I post thousands of Welcome messages and "Come to the Teahouse" messages, I thought I'd leave this one for you. I encourage you to Welcome every new editor that you post a warning notice to. I think it's important for new editors to not just have warning messages on their talk pages when they start editing but also guidance on how they can find help. And, yes, I have welcomed editors who only have made 1 edit.
I edit on a desktop so I'm not familiar with SWViewer so I don't know the situation for editors who use mobile devices. I'm sorry if I didn't appreciate the limitations you face. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
No problem. But I'm not sure if we should welcome IP users who only have less than 10 unconstructive edits. I could of course be wrong. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Chahat Pandey satisfies WP:NACTOR with her multiple lead roles

Chahat Pandey has done multiple lead roles in notable TV shows/dramas that are required to prove notability. The draft also has in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Plus, the wordings I have used is the same as the article of Aishwarya Khare. Infact, I copy-pasted a lot of words from that article. So how is it possible that no one noticed that Aishwarya Khare's is written like an ad while giving invalid judgments in this draft. I strongly believe the reviewers was following WP:COI and simply give invalid reasons only and only to decline the draft. So, I kindly request you to please review Draft:Chahat Pandey 61.3.231.132 (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 61.3.231.132,
I don't review draft articles for the WP:AFC so I can't help you out here. It would be best if you addressed your questions to the reviewer, Nomadicghumakkad. I'm sure there is a link to their talk page on their review.
If you have general questions about editing on Wikipedia and article creation, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ma'am, the latest reviewer has declined the submission again saying that I did it on purpose to evade my block. I promise I had no such intentions. I know I am blocked but if you look into my edits. I usually never login in to do edits here in wikipedia. I always edit anonymously making my ip visible so I don't really understand what does my block has to do with my submission? Anyhow, if it again some silly rule in Wikipedia, I'm okay with it.
  • However, I wanted to know if I can submit the Draft:Chahat Pandey once my block gets over tomorrow? Because I personally feel that reviewers themselves don't want the article to be published!! The very first reasons they gave during my first submission were very "invalid".
    • Also an "administrator" should review this draft because the mainspace article is protected by admin JBW such that only admins in Wikipedia can "move and publish" this article in it's mainspace
      • Believe me Ma'am it seems more as though there are some people here who do not want this article to be published at any cost when everything in it completely proves that Chahat Pandey is notable actress to have an "independant wikipedia article". 61.3.231.132 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

RDRAFT CSD

Regarding WP:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Polar Bear (film), I can restore it, but I had pinged you to know your opinion on whether drafts that were moved to articles, can be deleted on user request (regardless of whether the requester was the substantive contributor). Jay (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,
I didn't foresee a problem with this obviously, or I wouldn't have honored the deletion request from the page creator. The draft had been moved to main space and the page creator requested that the draft redirect to Polar Bear (film) be deleted. I don't see why an IP editor would want this draft redirect restored and go to WP:REFUND with this request. Draft redirects are frequently tagged for deletion as CSD G6, uncontroversial deletions, which is not correct per WP:RDRAFT...I always untag these pages but some admins do fulfill these requests and see them as unnecessary redirect pages.
But I assumed if the page creator requested the page deletion, that this was an acceptable exception to the rule of keeping them. I don't think a draft redirect needs to be restored but if you want to go by the letter of the law, please honor this request from this unknown editor who is somehow familiar with WP:RDRAFT. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't get the answer to my query so I've asked at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#RDRAFTs. However for this specific case, G7 (under which you deleted this) says for redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move, which this was not. Jay (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Jay,
Well, User:Cardei012597 was the primary creator of the article and he requested the page deletion. Yes, he didn't move the article but I think that is a technicality. Out of all of the requests you see at WP:REFUND, I don't know why this odd restoration request by a logged out editor for a draft redirect has caught your attention. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
G7 specifically talks about the substantive contributor in case of any kind of pages, but talks only about the mover in case of redirects. So this is more than a technicality, but this may be subject to interpretation and can be clarified at the CSD talk. I go through all requests at Refund; I didn't resolve this one as I was waiting for clarification as I haven't seen a request for RDRAFT deleted via G7 in the last half year (unless I missed any). Jay (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Jay,
Okay, so this is all about you seeking clarification on some aspect of policy that you are unsure about? I can understand that, even though I think it's unlikely that you will encounter this particular situation again at REFUND. I mean, why does this IP editor want this page restored? Any way, it was just beginning to feel like you were planning to take this incident to a noticeboard or something. I mean, I can simply restore this page myself if this is going to become a big problem.
Any way, I lost an hour of sleep last night so it's time for bed. Good night. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
😁 why will I take you to the noticeboard, you were my Guru at REFUND when I started in October. Again, this is not about the restoration or the IP editor, it is about CSD and RDRAFTs. Good night. Jay (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, Jay, that is a relief. If you look at my talk page, you'll see an admin who comes to me with every mistake I make and tells me I'm "abusing your admin tools". And, after 6+ years of basically no problems, I've now been taken to Deletion Review three times in 2022 which feels like an admin colonoscopy (even when editors endorse your action). It can get very personal and critical there, I feel like I'm back at my RFA which was brutal. But I'm trying to focus on the work and not be oversensitive about criticism. I think I'm a net positive here but I'm not perfect. Any way, I hope you find your answer. Night. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I had gone through your RFA where the contention was more about content editorial skills than administrative ones. As long as the discussions are about policy and process, it should not be seen as personal. Jay (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Category:LDS temple map

Thank you for your request for speedy deletion of Category:LDS temple map. I realized this initial category page wasn't worded the way it should have. I saw no option for move page and didn't know how to request speedy deletion. I do confirm the request for speedy deletion. Thanks again! -Dmm1169 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dmm1169,
Well, the great thing about CSD C1 empty category taggings is that categories like Category:LDS temple map sit for a week in case an category has been emptied "out of process". Sometimes, editors empty out old categories and move pages to a new category they have created which is not ideal when you have long-standing category hierarchies so these actions need to be reverted. But I found a script that shows any recent activity on a category, pages that have been added or removed, and this category shows no activity at all which means that any pages that it contained were deleted.
If you ever want a category renamed, merged or deleted, please put in a nomination at Categories for Discussion. The process can be slow but if the nomination is approved, there are bots that will take care of the recategorizing work which, in some situations, can be very involved. If you expect to do any more tagging of pages for deletion (or tagging for any other reason), Twinkle is the tool that most admins and many editors working in new page patrol use. It's a silly name but it is very easy to use, it will post a notification to the page creator on your behalf and it works with all forms of deletion, CSD, PROD or AFD/TFD/CFD/RFD/etc. It's very handy. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you like a new userbox?

NSThis administrator is no longer closing sports-related AFDs because of the ongoing drama associated with them.

(My sympathies on the Rachelle Bukuru debate) Stifle (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stifle,
I've been an admin since 2015 and had no reason to ever go to Deletion Review before. Now, in 2022, I've had deletion decisions brought there 3 times! Either I need an admin sabbatical or I've moved on to taking on more controversial decisions. The odd thing is though that the cases that have been opened at WP:DRV were decisions that I thought were uncontroversial while other AFD close call closures have not been.
I have no problem with the consensus being that I made the wrong decision, as long as I learn from it and don't repeat it, but it seems like some of the comments aren't about the deletion decision but about the admin and they can get personal. It makes me understand why some admins don't bother to engage with discussions at DRV when they are notified that one of their decisions is under review.
I don't know if I will stay away from all AFDs involving sports but I have not taken action from some CSD G4s which I see lingering for days before some admin reviews them. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

3 relists

Doing 3 is not recommended (see WP:RELIST) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AssumeGoodWraith,
Message received. I will just let another admin handle those cases that seem unclear to me. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, AssumeGoodWraith,
Looking at AFD pages today, I see other editors and an admin relist 3 times so I assume that recommendation is more of a guidelines than a policy. But I will cease doing it unless I think it is necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz

Sorry to be come and go, since our last exchange on 14 January. It has been a challenging and busy time. Today, I would just like you to look in on one reversion and exchange that I have had with another editor, who seems to be objecting to my editing as an IP editor. (He seems to be demainding, that from this status, any change I make be discussed before making it, that is, that the "edit boldly" direction does not apply to those that do not log.)

The editing in question was to address the fact that on comparing sources to article content, in the Influence section here, WP:VERIFY was releatedly violated. So, in the edit, citations were completed and checked, citations were moved to be only where they were accurately placed, a table was used to replace mis-stated box numbers (theretofore not appearing in any appended source as stated), and the list of data from RT itself were corrected and sourced (before only appearing as WP:OR). The reversion is here. Bottom line, I found that the numbers stated were not in the sources cited, that sentences to which sources were appended were not really drawn from them, etc., and corrected these WP:VER violations. (On a deeper level, the earlier content and tone differed from the principle cited source, Forbes, and that was corrected using a blockquote, so that the writer's actual words could be seen.)

Beyond the IP issue with me (which I infer, based on the knee-jerk revert and overly negative, unwelcoming response), the single complaint that actually surfaces, is that I am condescending in my edit summary (which in defense I would say simply states the issues I found), and that I use in-text notes to further clarify the issues I see. You know that I have been here decades—I can share again, privately, my former login if that is necessary—and that I do not usually have this trouble. I am hoping a word in this fellow's ear, to take a second look, and not to "throw baby out wth bath water" (to review the edit, line by line, keeping the vaild, and only reverting if I have made a mistake). But as you will see, I have been my usual-scholarly-careful, and the text that is the result of my edit homes precisely to the articles cited, and as well, cites sources for earlier appearing information that was pure WP:OR.

The in-text note redaction is not an issue—those are intended for other editors, to use/do with as they please. It is to the overall reversion, and removal of the WP:VER-corrective edits, to which I strenuously object. Cheers, will look for responses here. 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S., I like your leading your page with the COVID box. Every little bit helps. Thanks. 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73,
You have the right to edit logged out, as an IP editor, but there is baggage that comes with that. For one thing, I'm not sure who you are or what we have talked about in the past because you don't have a consistent username that I can easily remember. Also, some editors have a bias against IP editors because, from what I've heard, not all IP editors are vandals but most vandals are IP editors. I don't know if that is accurate but there is a perception problem and suspicion that exists on the part of editors who do a lot of vandal-fighting and patrolling. That's not about you and your contributions but just comes with being an IP editor. I edited for years as an IP editor before but I finally created an account because being anonymous seemed to hamper my communication with other editors, there was a lack of trust there. But it's your choice, of course. I'll try to look into this and see if I see any problems. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73,
It looks like you weren't doing simple copyediting or fixing typos but leaving messages for other editors telling them how they should approach editing this article. This is a discussion that is better done on article talk page than in "hidden messages" that editors may or may not see. Your requests might be correct ones but I agree that you should initiate a discussion on the talk page if you want other editors to avoid problems that you point out. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Gary Popkin

You deleted this article back in February. Can you email me an export of the edit history and a .txt file of the current version?

Thanks! — AMK152 (t • c) 22:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AMK152,
As a contested Proposed deletion, I can restore the page for you, either in main space or in Draft or User space. The article can still be nominated for deletion but proposed deletions can be restored. I'm going to remove your email address here for privacy's sake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
That's fine, I had worked on improving the article and would rather take that information and maintain it elsewhere, but I didn't get a chance to save it because I was unaware that it was proposed to be deleted. — AMK152 (t • c) 13:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Just following up on this. — AMK152 (t • c) 22:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please Unblock My Sandbox

Hello Liz I am Currently working on a class midterm by submitting a Wiki page on the deaf holocaust and you have deleted my sandbox. Can you please clarify this. --Deafhistoryspring2022 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Philip Cordero

Hello, Deafhistoryspring2022,
You are not blocked and your sandbox is not "blocked" (and it can't be blocked). The only content on that page was a broken redirect which we delete. I can't see that you have made any other edits unless you edited with another account. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Dynasty Sport

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

Hi Liz, I've seen that in September 2021 you deleted a page about [Dynasty Sport] and I was hoping to have it restored! I was tasked with re-writing it myself, but I'm also a paid employee of the company. I know wikipedia's policy around neutrality and thought perhaps if it were restored that would help negate that conflict? Thanks in advance for your help! Jayvonlondres (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jayvonlondres,
I assume you are talking about Draft:Dynasty Sport? This article was deleted at the request of an editor I surmised was the page creator based on their IP address. Would you be this IP editor? If you work for this company, you have a clear conflict-of-interest and should not be editing this draft article. You would be limited to making editorial suggestions on the talk page. I left a message about managing a conflict-of-interest on your User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Thanks for the prompt reply!
That request certainly didn't come from me! I won't be editing anything to do with this page/draft at your recommendation.
What I would ask, is that the information on the page from September was restored, or if it were only draft, then published?
As I understand we once had a wikipedia page, which was then deleted. So was investigating what happened to it! Thanks for your help @Liz Jayvonlondres (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Jayvonlondres,
I have restored the draft because I can't be 100% certain that the deletion request came from the original page creator. I reverted to the last version that was reviewed by Articles for Creation, which is the group of editors who review drafts and make suggestions on whether or not they are suitable to be moved to the main space of the project. Since the main space article was deleted through an Articles for Deletion discussion, there will have to be AFC approval to get an article on the company back into main space.
If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or conflict-of-interest guidance, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. I can try to help but at the Teahouse, there are more editors and administrators reviewing questions so there is a larger pool of experienced editors whose knowledge you can draw on. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thanks for all your help! Jayvonlondres (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hamid Noury and Trial of Hamid Nouri

Liz, I'm not sure whether we spoke about Draft:Hamid Noury. The article was created by Arad8086 in May 2020, speedy deleted in January 2021, and draftified by you in response to a REFUND request, which may or may not have been by me. I've been improving it in the expectation that he would become clearly notable after the expected verdict in his trial (April?). Checking for new sources today, I discovered Fad Ariff created Trial of Hamid Nouri in November 2021. (Hamid Nouri redirects there; Hamid Noury has not been recreated as a parallel redirect. Both versions of the name are used.) I haven't looked at the sources for that article, so have no opinion on which is better, but I think they should be hist-merged in mainspace under whichever title, or if you and the deleting admin, Fastily, still consider Nouri/Noury not notable, the trial article should be deleted on those grounds as a later creation on a non-notable subject. My opinion is that he's notable, but then that would naturally be my opinion, given my inclusionism, and is why I've spent a lot of effort on the draftified article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Hmm, it may have been created as a draft and be purely an example of G13 deletion without examination on the merits? I can't see any other edits by the creator. So since I no longer add "submit" myself, since that would cause me to receive the credit for the article creation, maybe the decent thing is to regard my work as wasted and have you histmerge to Fad Ariff's article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Yngvadottir,
There was a bit of an edit conflict so I might be responding to your first message rather than your addendum.
You know, I'm not a content creator, I mostly work in maintenance activities, dealing with expired drafts and empty categories, along with taking care of a few PRODs and deletion discussions. When I look at Draft:Hamid Noury, the only deletion I see is a CSD G13 stale draft deletion so it wasn't deleted on notability grounds, Trial of Hamid Nouri has never been deleted, Hamid Nouri, as you say, is a redirect and Hamid Noury has never been created so unless I'm missing something that Fastily knows about, I don't see any deletions based on notability that might cause problems.
As far as History Merges, I've only done that twice and I believe that the edit histories of the two articles can't overlap which is the case here. We have a few admins who do most of the history mergers that are requested and maybe they could finesse this. I guess my question for you is, is there the possibility of two, separate articles, is merger the only option here? Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It looks like some of the admins who handle a lot of our history merges are Primefac, Tavix and wbm1058, so maybe we can get their expert opinions here on what is and isn't possible with these two articles, one in main space and one in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The issue here is WP:BLP1E. The biography in draft space only has a brief sentence about his career, the rest is all about the trial. If he is independently notable for more than just the trial then I'd advise keeping them separate, but as there is only one overlapping edit I can history-merge the draft into the article, then if Yngvadottir wants to resurrect some of that into the current version then the Pagestats should give attribution to the original authors. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate you offering your opinion, wbm1058. Let's see what Yngvadottir thinks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking, both. I did too much before coffee this morning and shouldn't be relied upon for higher-prder thinking. If it weren't for my own conscience issues, I might have mainspaced the article long ago; the trial has received a lot of coverage. For the same reason, I haven't even cast an eye over the "Trial of ..." article to evaluate whether the one I worked on is better referenced or otherwise preferable, or even whether the "Trial of ..." article is on the wrong side of BLP; he's still on trial. But I would expect things to look quite different after the trial ends: if he's convicted, a lot more information about him is likely to be made public, enabling an informed decision about what the title should be, and there won't be the BLP issue there is at present with having an article about someone, or even someone's trial, who is accused of serious crimes; if he isn't convicted, for whatever reason, we will likely be contravening BLP by having anything except passing coverage in one or more other articles, and that was the other reason I wanted to wait till after the verdict came down. But we're here now, and we have an article. My issue with my conscience that prevents me from creating articles in mainspace is entirely my issue, and so unless the "Trial of ..." article contravenes BLP, which I have no reason to assume it does, I sadly think it's best to junk my work, which probably differs in its referencing mainly in the use of Swedish-language sources that nobody else can read to evaluate: mainspace the draft then redirect it to the "Trial of ... " article. Neither article creator did anything wrong, and that's how the drafts space was intended to work: divert the poorer attempts by new editors and then get rid of them if nobody on the AfC reviewer list notices and cares within 6 months. Somebody eventually wrote up the topic, sorry to bother you all. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC) ... Done, with a note on the talk page, and two mentions of Arad8086, who had an all too typical experience when they dipped their toe in. I followed "What links here" and found it was indeed me who requested undeletion of the draft, presumably after seeing a BBC article and wondering why we didn't have coverage. I should learn to keep my nose out. Sorry again for all the trouble. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Toxic Avenger (2022 film) § Switch title to (upcoming film) instead of (2022 film)? Possible merge?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why you deletion page simply ?

It's very difficult to create Page again. Also it's important page about on that particular production house KVN Productions Dinerock (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dinerock,
I recommend you work in Draft space and submit your draft to Articles for Creation. Articles put directly into the main space of the project are subject to review and evaluation for speedy deletion.
If you have questions about article creation and Wikipedia policies on deletion, I recommend you take them to the Teahouse. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

link=User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Deletion of Draft:List of sex symbols
link=User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Deletion of Draft:List of sex symbols
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at [[User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Deletion of Draft:List of sex symbols|User talk::meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous]].
Message added 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus,
Okay, thanks for letting me know, I don't check in to Meta very often. Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Wrestling

I removed a couple of speedys on wrestling articles you tagged. They may or may not survive an WP:AFD but if you think they should go, that is probably the better path. I think they have to much for an A7 speedy. Jeepday (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jeepday,
That's your call. Maybe CSD G11 was a better fit as the articles, if I remember correctly, were unreferenced and promotional. But thanks for looking them over, that's why I tagged them, to get a second opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Montreal Metro stations

When you deleted {{Montreal Metro stations}} you left redlinks behind. Please fix. Useddenim (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Useddenim,
Yes, I see the problem. I'll see about fixing that. I'm not sure why the redlinks were removed during the closure. Thanks for alerting me to this problem. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:PCM Rfd

Hi Liz, I was suggesting a retarget for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_11#Wikipedia:PCM, and the only participant just said they agree with me. Nobody mentioned deletion. Can you take another look at this? I assume you were just cruising along closing discussions. Thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdewman6,
I'm willing to revert myself and relist this but I am confused. What did you think you were proposing in your nomination? Redirects are typically brought to RFD to propose them for deletion. Were you asking for it to be retargeted? Because sometimes it if the new target is unrelated to the previous one, it's better to create a new redirect than retarget. But maybe you could tell me if I misunderstood your intention. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was suggesting retargeting. Many redirects are brought to RfD with the proposal it be retargeted rather than be deleted, as it says at the top of the Rfd page: "If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target" (hence "Redirects for discussion", not "Redirects for deletion"). I also don't think it needs to be deleted first with a new redirect created in its place. It would be simpler and better to just preserve the history of the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I misunderstood your intent. I'll make the change. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mdewman6,
 Done Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Britain has been nominated for deletion

Category:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Britain has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Iocane RfD

Hey again Liz, not sure what happened, but it looks like Iocane and Iocane powder are still tagged for RfD after your close at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_13#Iocane and haven't been retargeted yet. I could fix them, but wanted to make sure there wasn't something systematic or weird happening, so figured it best for you to take a look. Thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdewman6,
Yes, I noticed there was a problem with most of the closures on that page so I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser to see what the problem might be. The closer tool we rely on is closing the discussions but not deleting or retargeting the pages. It's working at AFD so it just seems to be an issue with this RFD page. I'm going to wait to fix this so that the tech folks can see the problem but will handle things manually after someone replies to my post there. Thanks for note. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Amber Briggle AfD close

Hi Liz, I'm writing to follow up on your no-consensus close of the Amber Briggle AfD. I am hoping to better understand the reasoning for the close, because the neither the nominator or any of the initial delete !voters responded after I added sources to the discussion and then expanded the article. The keep !votes that followed my !vote cite WP:HEY and the sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Beccaynr,
I really don't want to be brought back to Deletion Review again on a Non-consensus closure so I have reverted my closure and will let an admin with more experience review the arguments. I made a judgment call but if you want it reviewed, I'm fine with letting someone else who has been doing this longer than I (2 months) evaluate the arguments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz, I appreciate the undoing of the close and I respect your judgment call. I had been hoping to discuss the close with you because I have sometimes seen closes point to a lack of response to sources added to a discussion, essentially according the earlier !votes less weight (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14]). Anyway, thank you again, and I look forward to seeing you more at AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Beccaynr,
In my brief time helping out a little at AFD, I've been impressed by the legwork you do during a deletion discussion, tracking down sources that might sway opinion. It seems like most people just quote a policy and say that an article does or does not meet it. Your effort at working to keep decent articles that need a little extra help is evident and appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! My main reason for participating in AfD is to find articles to work on - it's my favorite field of squirrels. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that is cute, I've never seen that page before. I used to work with baby squirrels when I was younger, at a wildlife clinic, so I'm partial to them even though as adults they are pretty, well, squirelly when they are confined. They need to be free, running here and there, to and fro! Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed! and very cool about working in a wildlife clinic - I researched squirrels a bit last year when I was curious about the rather loud commotion outside - they can be quite expressive! Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Psychological operations (Russia)

Red Orchestra won. I don't need this draft. Delete. Best regards --Pavlo1 (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pavlo1,
That's unfortunate. All folks were asking for was better referencing. I was hoping that it could be improved and moved back into main space at some point. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about a user

Hey Liz, I have concerns about the way that this user has been addressing others in their edit summaries. They're undoing revisions by other users and making nasty personal attacks against them. I'd go to ANI with this, but have never reported there before and would like to be a bit more discreet. One of the users who was attacked says this is the work of WP:BKFIP. Can you help? Helen(💬📖) 17:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Do japan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has repeatedly tried to change the wording at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to effectively state that face masks are not effective. I and other editors have reverted them. I left standard warnings on the user's talk page, and was greeted with this unpleasant response. Instead of making an entire AN/I out of a long term (but largely inactive; their edit history still neatly fits on one page of <50 contribs) editor, I figured I'd take my chances at suggesting a WP:NOTHERE indef block directly with no objection to an unblock if the editor agrees to behave and not make more personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bhavika Sharma

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bhavika Sharma. 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. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stifle,
Back at Deletion review, oh joy! Well, thanks for letting me know. I'll see if a comment is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I see now that 5 or 6 different admins have been involved with deleting this article over the years. No objection to draftification, in fact I deleted a stale draft of this title that could be easily restored without much review but it had very little content. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Edgar Lungu Cabinet 2021

Good afternoon, I hope that you're doing well. Thank you for responding to my nomination for the speedy deletion of Edgar Lungu Cabinet 2021 under CSD A3. If you don't mind, may I ask for the reason that you disagreed with my nomination as you didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary?

My grounds for which I felt satisfied to nominate the article for speedy deletion under that criterion were that the article only consisted of templates with no other content and that the content felt more appropriate to be included in an already established article addressing a more generalised subject area.

I note that I've informed the author of the article on their talk page to disregard my nomination notice. I hope for your understanding and thank you for your response. Have a good day. Brandon.b2005 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Brandon.b2005,
I want to apologize for not leaving an edit summary, I usually don't simply revert an editor without an explanation. I received a note that this article had been reviewed and approved by an experienced new page reviewer so I didn't think speedy deletion, especially A3, was appropriate in this case. I'd use WP:PROD or WP:AFD for this article if you believe this article should be deleted. Again, I'm sorry for not being more informative when I undid your CSD untagging. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
No problem. I understand. Thank you. Brandon.b2005 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Refund request

Hi Liz, could you refund Draft:Shooting Star (spacecraft)? I hadn't seen it before, so I'd like to see if I can do anything with it. If I decide it's not worth improving, should I tag it immediately, or would it be better to leave it for awhile? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BilCat,
I restored Draft:Shooting Star (spacecraft). Because the page creator had been blocked for copyright issues I ran the page through our copyright analysis tool and nothing popped out as a copyright violation. If you don't need the page, just let me know and I can delete it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Per the most recent review, it's definitely written like an advertisement. As far as I can tell, it's still an active project, but most of the news reports online about it are at least 12 months old. While it's more work than I want to do, I might be worth keeping the draft active for 6 months. But the final decision on that is yours. BilCat (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of relic redirects after a move from Draft to mainspace

Hi Liz,

Back on the 8 March you kindly posted to my talk page here about my failure to tidy up after accepting a Draft into mainspace by not tagging the relic redirect as a CSD.

However, following your kind advice, I did exactly that at Draft:Hallel College only to find it reverted here with the summary Removing CSD tag, we leave redirects from Draft space to main space. I am confused. I am happy to tag relic redirects from Draft space as CSD. Equally I am happy to leave them alone. I guess I just need to know which is right and which is not. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   23:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion note

I replied to a comment you made at User_talk:Styyx#Tagging_pages_for_deletion, but I know you don't get pings so I thought I'd leave a non-templated {{talkback}} note. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,
Thank you, I appreciate you letting me know about this. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Kitten

I was wandering around my watchlist and happened upon this page as I was just click-click-clicking through pages.

And I usually disregard cutesy kitten image works as ignore worthy lol.

But. that. one. is. awesome.  : ) - jc37 03:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, jc37,
Oh, in my edit notice? I forgot where I got that one from. It's not original with me! Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.


This one, that I saw near the top of this page : )
And well, nice find then. Definitely was my laugh-of-the-day : ) - jc37 03:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, my God, I have two kitten pictures! The internet has won. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
roflmao.
Assimilation by kitten. Oh does!  : ) - jc37 04:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

  • New library collections
  • Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Jhilna

Hello Liz, Could you please take a look at Jhilna? The village probably exists (there are 64K village in Bangladesh) but i don't see any WP:SIGCOV about this village. I added a notability tag but article creator keeps removing it. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, আফতাবুজ্জামান,
I think we have a very low bar for notability for places like villages and towns, I'm not an expert on geographic articles but I believe there just needs to be evidence that this is a location that has been occupied by people for a significant period of time. We even have articles about ghost towns which are completely unoccupied by people! You can find more information on this at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places, take this as your guide.
You approached the editor on their talk page, that was a good step. I can't translate their response to you but I hope it is not rude. I think you need to not get into an edit war over this little article, maybe come back to it another day. You can't let wanting to be "right" lead you to into bad conduct like edit-warring over a tag. You were a responsible editor, you tried to engage the other editor in a discussion, I think you can let this go right now. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with LTA

Don't really love reaching out to admins directly, but 2A02:587:C23D:F500:4DC:1A21:EEA:118C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an LTA, WP:LTA/WKHF. They seem to be traveling Greece, as this IP and their last one geolocates to there. Urgent block needed as they are section blanking. wizzito | say hello! 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the /32 is pblocked. Perhaps a temporary /32 block is needed? wizzito | say hello! 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Still vandalizing. Can someone please, actually help? This is urgent and other editors can only take so much having to revert them. wizzito | say hello! 06:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The /32 has been blocked. Thank you and I'm sorry for my panicking - this was pretty urgent as they were section blanking though. wizzito | say hello! 06:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Wizzito.
 Done I hope that helps. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You block a huge percentage (maybe a 30% or 50%) of IPs in Greece from editing all pages for 2.5 months! Do you think that this is a logical, and harmonized with Wikipedia's policies, decision? --2A02:1388:2081:FE44:74A5:3800:AEED:B779 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to correct this. There was a lot of vandalism going on but I wasn't aware of the collateral damage. I'm looking for a solution. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, see also:
--2A02:1388:2081:FE44:C4F6:DFC2:9C97:60B4 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
+ Request for unblock --2A02:1388:2081:FE44:F188:1108:44D3:AB1C (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged uncontroversial deletion

Unless you object (or want to do it yourself) I intend to revert your deletion of Talk:Fractal antenna/Archive 2. This is not uncontroversial, at least with me, as the user who put it up for CSD knows full well, see User talk:Sawol#Cluebot III archiving rate changes. The user created the duplicate themself by manually archiving this, thus overriding Cluebot III and the archiving settings on the page. SpinningSpark 19:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Spinningspark,
Of course, restore it, thanks for letting me know. I have just been working since this summer with Sawol as he has cleaned up after mistakes made by Cluebot, where single messages were placed on different archive pages rather than consolidating them in an organized way. I didn't know that their work was considered "controversial", it seemed like a remedy to a bot problem. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Cleaning up Cluebot III's mistakes isn't controversial, but this wasn't a Cluebot mistake. My issue is Sawol's attempt to enforce their preferred archiving rate on pages they have nothing to do with as an editor. The double archive was mot caused by Cluebot, it was caused by Sawol changing Cluebot's settings and then manually editing the archives themself to comply with the new settings. SpinningSpark 08:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, speaking generally, not about this incident, I've found with many experienced editors, including myself, that sometimes you can spend so much time working in a very specific area, that you trust your own judgment over others, whether they are bots or other editors. Most of the time, your judgment is sound but it can occasionally lead one to take shortcuts that, in hindsight, aren't wise. It's how some of our most prolific editors can find themselves eventually blocked. It can be a challenge when you are experienced but you have to always be open to being challenged and be willing to explain and justify your editing decisions, no matter how many years one has been at work here on the project. Everyone needs to be willing to look at the choices one has made and say, "I see I made a mistake" when that is an appropriate conclusion. Liz Read! Talk! 15:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion oversight

Hello. It seems you forgot to delete the redirect here after closing its RfD. Veverve (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Veverve,
Oh, I didn't forget, the XFDCloser tool we use for closing deletion discussions was not working on RFD pages last week. I posted a lot of notices at the XFDCloser talk page about it. I was leaving the undeleted and untagged redirects for the developers to see. I have to go back to the talk page and see if the issue has been fixed. Only on RFD pages, it wasn't affecting AFD and TFD. I haven't closed any RFD discussions since then. But thanks for bringing this to my attention so I could take care of it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Special Purpose Regiment

I see this was just closed as redirect. I believe this was done in error, as the request mischaracterized the article, but I am sure you are probably not the person to talk to about that.

I would like, if you please, a copy of the text of the article, which contains a lot of cited work that is not currently at the English wikipedia.

The article you have redirected it to is ferociously guarded by editors who are determined that this military unit will not be discussed as a military unit, but as its ancestor organization. Meanwhile however, parts of it can surely be used to improve related articles such as the Siege of Mariupol, no?

Also, this article is currently the subject of a case against me at ANI, where it has also been misportrayed. I am contemplating seeking discretionary sanctions against the AFD requestor for the mischaracterization. If I do, it would be useful if the evidence that it is not in fact an editorial had not been disappeared.

So. If you aren't the person who can get me a copy of the text, can you please tell me how to do so? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elinruby,
I'm sorry you are not happy with the AFD closure. But Azov Special Purpose Regiment has just been turned into a redirect, the page history has not been deleted. You can go into the page history, select a version, and hit Edit and all of the content will be there for you to copy, you don't need any copy sent to you, you can go back to the beginning of the article creation or the latest version. Let me know if you need more of an explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, don't think so. I will send up a flare if I do. Thanks for the speedy reply. Elinruby (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to do a quick reality check: I assume that this happened because of the number of votes? ie does not second-guess the honesty of the request? Not trying to give you a hard time; just want to make sure I understand what happened before I go explaining it to anyone else. Thanks again Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Category talk:Nigerian science fiction films

Hi Liz. I'm perplexed as to why you've restored this page. It has never contained any content, and I count zero significant inbound links. -FASTILY 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fastily,
And I was going to post on your talk page, actually I wrote out a long message and then deleted it before posting because I thought I was going to start something up which I try to avoid. Why are you deleting blank talk pages? They aren't orphaned talk pages, they are just empty. I see no reason for your deletion and especially don't know why you would delete User talk pages. There need to be exceptional reasons to delete User talk pages. None of these pages are causing any problems. You ask why I restored them and I want to know what possible deletion rationale would cover a blank talk page. There are times when talk pages are tagged for deletion and instead of deleting the page, I just "blank" it and remove the content because I thought there were no issues with a blank talk page. Any way, I just restored the category talk pages because I work a lot with categories and their deletion seemed particularly pointless.
I want to say that I have a lot of respect for you, Fastily, and all of the work you do. I just don't understand this particular mass deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I too have a lot of respect for all the work you do. To be clear, I'm not advocating for the deletion of talk pages in general, but rather blank, single-author pages. There are a variety of reasons to delete such pages. These are usually created by error/accident (e.g. MediaWiki server error, faulty bot/script, bad huggle warning), in which case G6 is immediately applicable. Furthermore, there are technical reasons to delete, as they can cause database reports to take longer to generate and needlessly increase the size of database dumps. Also, non-existent category/project/template titles are an invitation for bots/editors to add WikiProject assessment tags, which are easier to find when they don't exist. Regards, FASTILY 04:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Metaphors of Memory

Hi Liz. Hope you are keeping well. I observe sometime back you deleted Metaphors of Memory. I understood that it meets Wikipedia policies on articles relating to book WP:BK. However if you want to give suggestions to improve it and make it ready for main space, kindly suggest. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gardenkur,
This article was deleted in an AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaphors of Memory, and will not be restored. I can't simply revert a consensus decision to delete an article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 29

Hi Liz, one of your deletion discussion closes has been questioned (not by me). All the best—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, S Marshall,
Oh, well, thanks for letting me know. This AFD was plagued with socks so a new AFD isn't an unreasonable option. I predict the same result but I won't be closing a follow-up AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 15:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

State legislators

Is there any way to avoid these being deleted as drafts? I am working my way through the ones I started from Mississippi but it's going to take some time. Thanks for your consideration. I apologize if it's time consuming or disruptive. I would like to avoid having to restore them individually. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, if you get a message that says a draft is about to be deleted due to inactivity, then you can simply make a single minor edit to the draft, and it will stay around for another six months. If you want to develop such articles more slowly, use your personal sandbox space instead, and you can move that content to the draft space when you are ready to submit it to AFC. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
And if I don't receive a message that a draft is abiut to be deleted? State legislators are notable so why are we deleteing drafts of them? I work in draftspace because I'm prevented from working on these entries in mainspace, but at least it's an area where anyone can contribute. I don't want to work alone on subjects in my userspace. That approach runs counter to all the principles of a Wiki and Wikipedia. These entries should be in mainspace where anyone can work on them but the powers that be on Wikipedoa have made it VERY difficult to include notable African American.subjects. It's a shame. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, FloridaArmy,
I'm of two minds about this. I know you create a lot of draft articles and I think the whole delete-refund cycle reminds you that they are there, out in DraftLand. I think you start so many articles that you lose track of them all until they are deleted and you get notifications. I'm sure going to WP:REFUND is a hassle but otherwise I think you would lose track of many articles you started but forgot about when other articles kept you busy.
That said, I can see that you started all of these articles on this particular day, probably when you discovered the images on-line, and there is no way you can complete dozens of articles in a week. So, I'll treat these the way we treat articles that are tagged as "Promising", I'll delay the dreaded CSD G13 status for one six month period. But a couple of things. I posted that notice about the SDZeroBot list of G13 soon drafts so that you would be reminded that, yes, these pages are out there. So, please don't forget about them now that they have a reprieve. Secondly, you'll need to tell Explicit about this as well. Between the two of us, we handle about 90% of the stale drafts so if we both are treating them the same, you're likely covered. But I have noticed lately that he has been making minor edits to some of your drafts to avoid their deletion so maybe this is a discussion you two have already had with him.
Any way, does that sound okay? Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I had a bit of an edit conflict. Yes, Cullen328 is correct, you can make a minor edit to the page to keep it from being deleted. In fact, that's all that I was going to do.
But on the subject of notifications, you have to be careful. We use FireflyBot for 5 month notifications but, for some reason, FireflyBot will only post a warning once. If a draft gets to the 5 month period, FireflyBot posts a notice, then you make a minor edit, you will not get another notice from FireflyBot in another 5 months. I wish it would give multiple notices but it doesn't. Also, I post notifications when I delete a draft (or any page) but this is not true for all admins and for all editors who tag pages for deletion. This is an issue I can get worked up about but apparently, giving notifications about deleting pages to page creators is not mandatory (although it should be).
As for your personal restriction, I think it might be time you appealed it. It's been a couple of years now and there's always a chance that it could be lifted or at least adjusted to not be so restrictive. It couldn't hurt to ask. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

revdel

Can you revdel 1080057319 as it has a sexy word. Thanks Rusty4321 talk contributions log 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rusty4321,
That diff takes me to a revision of the entire page and not to the particular edit you want deleted. If you can't figure out how to do this, just give me the time of the edit. I looked and didn't see anything obscene that should be deleted, just vandalism. "Sexy" words don't usually get revision deleted. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Montreal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Montreal. 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. Want to let you know that a deletion review has been asked. Many contributors, including myself, have fed this list with enthusiasm and rigor for years.

Hello,
Thanks for letting me know. Please post new messages at the bottom of talk pages, per our custom on Wikipedia. I have moved it for you. Also, sign all talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) so that your signature and the time and the date of your message appears. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In need of ANI intervention

Hello. I have opened an ANI here. Could you have a look at it and, if possible, impose sanctions where needed?
Last time I opened an ANI for this user, no action was taken until three days later after I asked some admins to have a look at it, so this time I decided to start asking sooner. The admin Ymblanter does not want to intervene for - from what I understand - ethical reasons. Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Veverve,
I'm sorry for the delay in seeing and responding to your message but it looks like the problem was resolved at ANI, I hope, to your satisfaction. I sometimes get busy and neglect to check my talk page and I apologize for that. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Indigo Muldoon hoax archival

Hi, I'm reaching out since you were the one to carry out the AfD for Indigo Muldoon.

It seemed to me that the consensus was deletion (in the sense that the article is no longer in the main namespace) and moving to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for archival. CompliensCreator (who originally discovered the hoax) has created Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Indigo Muldoon based on a snapshot of the page, but from what I understand the accepted hoax archival procedure is to restore the original (so that the revision history is available) and move it to the subpage.

Thanks. aismallard (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, aismallard,
I've dealt with a hoax article before and those weren't the steps that I took (I think I created a separate page on an archive site) but I need to look into this a bit more. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We wish you a merry Christmas

We wish you a merry Christmas×3 And a happy new year the tithings we bring to you and your king we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year................ .......😍😍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.227.134 (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 41.114.227.134,
I think you need to buy a new calendar. But thanks any way. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Boy Advance family

FWIW, I've implemented the redirect to Game Boy Advance#Revisions that was proposed in the discussion. It'd be reasonable to restore the history under that redirect, per WP:ATD-R: while everyone agreed that a standalone article shouldn't exist, the nom first listed the redirect target, and no one opposed it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jclemens,
I read the consensus as one to delete the page but I have no objections to turning it into a redirect instead. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
There's absolutely no question most people just opined for straight deletion. However, per WP:NHC "... discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy...", WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", and WP:DGFA "When in doubt, don't delete." Redirect, though numerically quite inferior in the discussion, is actually the policy-based outcome. Redirection certainly isn't opposed to deletion in most cases, but when we leave the realm of things covered by CSD's G10-11-12, where the title in question often should be salted to deal with the underlying issue, it becomes obvious that a redirect is often the best, most encyclopedia-friendly way to remove the content, while leaving it accessible to non-administrators should there be a desire for later reuse.
I've been suggesting this in DRV for some time, but it seems to be lost in the shuffle, so I'm approaching admins individually, on articles where I have zero involvement or emotional stake in the outcome, to try and get us (as an encyclopedia-building community) to better implement our deletion process as written, even when simple deletion is clearly fastest. Thanks for listening. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A big lump

Liz, perhaps my next sculpture-related draft after Statuette of the lady Tiye has been the one I talk (possibly too much) about in Draft talk:Jade Mountain Illustrating the Gathering of Scholars at the Lanting Pavilion. When I first encountered the draft it was very promising and very problematic. Now it's much improved, yet in a few, newly added places acutely problematic. Perhaps I've gone about this in the wrong way. I've a hunch that you could sort it out. And I have a second hunch that you'd enjoy the draft: certainly I do, or anyway the great majority of it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary,
I'm not clear on what editor or adminning thing you are asking me to do. Or, if you are just sharing your sculpture-related draft, I'll give it a look. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:SHAREDACCOUNT possibility meets a possible WP:C (in expression) IR issue meets the possibility of WP:HOUNDING (by me, and if so, then only in that talk page) meets a draft about a carved lump; and come on, admit it, carved lumps beat Gameboy stuff and the like. I don't think that any administratifying is called for; it's just that you are experienced, have your head screwed on right, view stalled drafts sympathetically, and may be able to make sense of snippets of prose (and luckily they're only snippets) that don't make sense to me. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Update: Vexations is (or possibly are) onto it, so you needn't be vexed by this remarkable rock. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to end my involvement in that article. I have the impression that the student who is working on it is struggling, and clearly frustrated by our efforts. There may be more than one person writing though that account, but I'd rather see them get some help. I'm not sure if this is still required: The student is a participant in https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Concordia_College,_Moorhead/ART_365_-_Renaissance_and_Baroque_Art_(Spring_2022), which has a Assignment End date of 2022-02-26. Vexations (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I suppose I might simply remove the bits that make no sense, promote the result, and wish it well. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I support that. Vexations (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Done! -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for popping up in my watchlist everyday and cleaning up the files! --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Minorax! You know, I can not figure out what time zone you live in because I see files PROD'd by you at all hours of the UTC day and night. Maybe you just don't sleep? Or, like many, when plagued with insomnia you edit? Thanks for the barnstar! Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I live in a +8 and I do have some trouble sleeping :> --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

H808Beats

The article was draftified mid-AfD without community consensus. What's the procedure here?-KH-1 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, KH-1,
That is bizarre, I've only seen this done by page creators, and very new ones, who want to bypass an AFD discussion but Akevsharma was not the page creator. I have posted on their talk page asking them to revert their move. If it's not done by tomorrow, I'll move the article back but I'd like to give them a chance to repair the damage. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnny Plescio

Hello Liz I really do apologize, as you saw I didn't agree with the decision made by the other editor, I would have just moved it out of the draft space but I don't know how to do that to be honest. I also do not know how to combine page histories ,I apologize tho truly as you saw though it was justified other people reviewed the article and it was accepted it was just that one editor being silly.CanadianHistorian(MMA & History) (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

re Jonathan Pershing

Hello Liz. Have you read WP:POLITICIANS? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism in Rohitha Rajapaksa

Hello,

I'd like to inform you (as you're one of the recently active admins and I do not yet know where to report this), that the page Rohitha Rajapaksa appears to be under massive vandalization by multiple IPs: Besides some reverts and one (seemingly unsourced) contribution, all edits to that page after this one appear to have been done to insert (supposedly) Sri Lankan insults and to add unsourced information about that person's family being corrupt.

I do not have any knowledge of Sri Lankan politics nor of their insults (the most I could do was confirm they were insults with urban dictionary/google), but the vandalism there seems pretty significant.

(actually as I was writing this another user reverted the page to the revision I linked, although the page appears to still be being vandalized so I will still make this section)

Thank you for your time. 2804:F14:C060:8A01:2C92:228A:7828:ED9C (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)}}

Update: Seems another admin solved it after the user who reverted the 40+ vandalism changes asked for the page to be protected. I won't delete this as I don't know if that's how things are done, you're welcome to though. 2804:F14:C060:8A01:6084:9868:98AC:FCDF (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Víctor Jara songs

Thanks for performing the move. I didn't want to make a request out of laziness. The original category name had a typo. --Bedivere (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick vandal block needed

Jackthekim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Liz, I noticed you on the recently active admin list (and AIV is a bit underwatched at this hour). If you or one of your friendly talk page stalkers with the special buttons are around, would you mind blocking the above-noted user? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aoi (青い),
It looks like this editor is already blocked. I don't visit that noticeboard much but I will check it out. By the way, what is this "recently active admin list" you speak of? Just curious. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Liz, I appreciate your quick reply! (And sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else need to keep a close eye on the AIV board, definitely no one is under any such obligation!). Regarding the "recently active admin list," This is the tool I was referring to. I find it useful when it's an odd hour of the day and there is something urgent that needs attention, especially since I am not super familiar with IRC. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that's not how I took it. That's an interesting tool, I've been here years and I never knew about it. I think it tracks edits, not admin actions as it is missing an admin I just noticed had deleted a page. It would be easier to track editing behavior than logged admin acts. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:people of Malay descent

Hello Liz

I noticed that you added a quick deletion template to Category:Moroccan people of Malay descent and you were reverted by the ip [15] of MohdFajar243 [16]. I found ou that his IPs were adding the Category templates to different pages without any reasons. Another one of their IPs is [17].197.153.6.83 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 197.153.6.83,
I will look into this, thanks for the head's up. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
They did it again [18].197.153.23.190 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

antineutronium

You deleted the page "antineutronium" with a reference to a defunct (non-)discussion from April 2020, but haven't participated in the current discussion for April 2022. Was this in error? If you haven't already, please review the discussion at "Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 4#antineutronium" and add any relevant input you may have on whether the redirect page should be restored or kept deleted. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Barrie (band)

Hello! Few hours ago I speedily tagged Barrie (band) with A7, but the user contacted me saying that he disagreed with the speedy deletion. I have rechecked the source he provided on the Talk page when he contested the deletion, and in my opinion, the only sources that establish their notability is this Pitchfork article. It is also my opinion that this article is not in-depth enough to establish the notability of the band itself. Other sources provided by the editor creating the page is just their discographies which in my opinion does not add to their notability. What do you think? Do I did right with the A7? Thank you! SunDawntalk 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

All the links are from websites that have wikipedia pages. They are music publications like NME which are well established. I've even included an article from the New York Times. Metrotitan

Userfy request

Liz, could I get a userfied copy of the deleted 2020 draft: Sinsemilla Tips for potential content rescue/integration with the new article of the same name? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bri,
Sorry for the delay, I'll take care of this tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness poster.jpeg

Hi Liz. I declined the speedy on this title. Why did you still delete it? -FASTILY 05:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fastily,
Oh, my, that was my error and I restored it. I must have had the page open on a tab and then returned to it after you untagged the page and acted on the tag. I didn't refresh the screen and see your action. I just thought it was an unneeded redirect. This should teach me to not extend my work to the File area where I have less experience. I appreciate you catching my mistake and letting me know so I could restore it, thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hello, I saw your comment on my talk page — thanks for informing me of that action, I will log onto my regular account when talking to someone on their talk page or any talk page in general.

Anyway, I was wondering if I could have this old user page of mine (now redirected) deleted? The whole reason why I changed my username was because I no longer felt comfortable using my real name, and I was concerned/and convinced that I was being stocked on external social media pages. I don’t feel comfortable with it being a redirect — I’d rather it just be entirely deleted.

If you could point me in the right direction to have it deleted, that would be helpful. Thanks --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about why Charissa (Musician) page was deleted

Hi Liz,

I just wanted to kindly ask why my Charissa (Musician) page had been deleted, and what can we do to improve it and make it better?

Thank you.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

G5 decline

You decline here is frankly pointless. Only the sockpuppet happened to create and expand the article so far thus it should be deleted per G5. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Are you going to respond or I should raise this issue on WP:AN already? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Why would this need to go to AN? The next step would be to just send it to AfD if you would like to see it deleted. This page had edits Special:Diff/1066228023 and Special:Diff/1075865055 by two different editors after the sock creation, thus making it G5 ineligible. -2pou (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Those edits are minor, not major enough to take responsibility of entire article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Abhishek0831996,
Sorry for my delay in responding to your message. I either seem to see my talk page messages right away or it takes me a while for me to get to them.
CSD G5 is frequently misunderstood. Please read over WP:G5, it is not page deletion merely because the page was created by a sockpuppet but because the sockmaster had been blocked and the sockpuppet was being used for ban evasion. Yes, the article had been created by a sockpuppet but if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammad Chaudhry and the page history, you'll see that the page was created before the sockmaster was blocked. So it's not a situation of ban evasion. Muslim Kids TV was created by User:RaheelAnsar on December 27, 2021 and the sockmaster wasn't blocked until January 25, 2022 so they were not evading a ban when the article was created.
For CSD G5, you need to look at the SPI case, the block log for both the sockmaster and sockpuppet, the date of account creation of the sockpuppet and the date that the article was created (and also whether other editors had contributed to the article). CSD G5 usually fits for long-time sockmasters who have recently created new sockpuppets and when they are the only contributors to the article but it often doesn't apply to new SPI cases when the sockpuppetry is first found because the sockmaster isn't blocked until recently and so their sockpuppets weren't being used for ban evasion but just as illegitimate sockpuppet accounts. Also, if you go through my talk page and talk page archives, you'll find I've had this discussion often with editors so it's a frequent mistake page taggers make. You can take this to WP:AN if you want but I think it would just be energy on your part that you could spend on more productive activities.
I apologize again for you having to wait a day for my reply. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: The SPI says "This appears to be a fairly prolific UPE or group of UPEs." Just because the master account wasn't caught because of 90-days limit of CU record, it doesn't mean that this person wasn't evading block on an already banned account. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical redirect

Hi Liz, the page Traditional Sunni–Salafi relations was only created in the last 24 hours when a relatively new editor made a controversial page move that has now been reverted. Now normally I wouldn't even be worried about whatever lingering redirects were out there, but in this instance, the editor who tried to move the page seems to have gotten the thoroughly wrong end of the stick, and the destination of the move (and now redirect) is actually nonsensical relative to the original name of the page and its contents. This is why it and its talk page were tagged as CSD R3 - because it is a complete misnomer. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A7 on Andrea Martínez

Hi Liz -- I don't feel particularly strongly either way, but I declined the A7 a minute before you deleted the article. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Espresso Addict,
I must have been acting on the page seconds after you. You took first action so I reverted myself and restored the page. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! It's unlikely to survive long but I think it's important to maintain the A7 threshold as distinct from notability, and I tend to think that recreation after a prod deletion implies that the prod was contested and escalation to AfD is indicated. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk)

Re removing erroneous redundant redirect at Hittite Empir

About my attempt to remove the erroneous redundant redirect at Hittite Empir [19]: I will read the instructions at How to list a redirect for discussion and go through the procedure to get Hittite Empir discussed. I realise it is not a recent creation, but it seems an obvious typo, and there already exists a proper target ("Hittite Empire") for redirection (everybody was very lucky to get "Hittite" spelled correctly). I really think there's a bit of a case for Ignore all rules here. I'll look at improving things tomorrow, then, if you haven't in the meantime seen clear to reversing your reversal. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Spider eater

Hi! I've noticed that the page Spider eater got deleted per G7 a month ago. Sorry, that may come across as a weird question, but did I really ask for it to be deleted? I have no recollection of the context any more. – Uanfala (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Uanfala,
You were not the page creator, User:Zxcvbnm was and they asked for the page to be deleted. The rationale was "Nothing left to disambiguate now that the D&D monster article was soft deleted". It looks like Spider eater (Dungeons & Dragons) was the only article on this disambiguation page and it has been turned into a redirect. The other listing was simply "an organism that feeds on spiders" and was linked to Arachnophagy so I don't think the page really fulfilled the purpose of a disambiguation page once the D&D page was gone as an actual article. I hope this answers your question. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Liz pretty much summed up my line of thinking. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Liz, I may have things awfully mixed up, so I'm sorry if this is incorrect, but I do seem to distinctly recall creating such a disambiguation page myself. Would you mind restoring it please? From your description it seems like a standard dab that disambiguates an informal term for an arachnophage and a fictional monster (it's completely irrelevant if this is not a separate article but a redirect to a page with relevant content). – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, so you don't seem like you're interested in responding any further. Here we go again: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 8#Spider eater. Liz, why do I always have to go through all this rigmarole for such simple cases? – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I just got back home. I'm sorry it wasn't swift enough for you, Uanfala. You seem very impatient and I gave you a very thorough answer. Good luck with your deletion review of a disambiguation page that probably could have been tagged CSD G14. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I only noticed that you were hard at work closing discussions and deleting pages in the meantime, and it didn't occur to me that you may be in a situation where you're at ease to do these things but can't answer my request.
You brought up WP:G14: the previous issues I've had have involved exactly this criterion. To quote from the policy, it applies to disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages. From your description, I infer that the page you deleted disambiguated not zero, but two extant pages, so this criterion shouldn't apply. – Uanfala (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
You are correct. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Relativity

So if by chance everything in the world relates Then what?.... Your definitions are absolute.. What was my definition on theory in life as we speak encyclopedia so my book comes out and it will here next couple weeks then can I say what I had to say. Because it be apart of history right? I'm just wondering Crsvncnt (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Crsvncnt,
Can you tell me what you are talking about? Does this concern an article or draft? If so, please give me a link to the page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Worker Bee

Hi Liz, great work on deleting all those old drafts. I see them showing in on my watchlist. Keep up the good work lass :) scope_creepTalk 08:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, scope_creep,
I didn't expect compliments from you, I sense some of my AFD closures don't sit well with you. But I appreciate the kind words. Stale drafts and empty categories are kind of what I do these days. Not exciting work but pretty predictable and steady....every day, there is somewhere between 150-250 drafts that expire and need to be put away until someone wants to revive them. I like to work at WP:REFUND when I have time because it's where editors go to get back drafts that want to work on...kind of balances out all of the deletions I seem to do these days. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wunder (Gamer)

Hello, while it was not my page, I was wondering if you have to ability to give me access to the article Wunder (gamer) (deleted yesterday). It was already on my list of articles to improve, and I'm confident I can take the page to a minimum of start-class. I take my first break in a couple months and my timing couldn't be better. Thanks for your time Chaddude (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Chaddude,
I don't ordinarily restore articles deleted through AFD but this discussion leaned toward weak delete. Can I ask that you submit it to WP:AFC when you think it is ready? Because if I restore it and you move it directly into main space, it'll get tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. There is no point in restoring a page if it just will be immediately deleted again. If you get a positive review from AFC, it'll help it keep from being deleted again. And, I'd like to restore it to your User space if that's okay. Let me know if these are conditions you can accept. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to think I have a decent amount of experience creating esports biographies from scratch Hans Sama Ssumday Vulcan (gamer) Licorice (gamer) as well as seriously improving standing articles that are close to deletion status Bwipo Impact (gamer). I hope you could take my word that I can bring it up to main space quality within a couple hours of it being in my user space. If not, and you really want an AFC positive first then I would reluctantly accept those terms as well. Thanks either way Chaddude (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Chaddude,
 Done You can find it at User:Chaddude14/Wunder (gamer). Please read over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunder (gamer) so you can see the arguments for why some editors thought it should be deleted, it would be great if you could address their concerns. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again! Chaddude (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for:

This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Template:User LGBT3

Hi Liz. I see that you have deleted the user box that prompted me to start an account on Wikipedia. Thank you. From my watchlist it says "(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND)". Can I ask who it was that requested deletion or blanked the page? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, again, Polycarpa aurata,
Editor User:Sundostund created a number of userboxes and asked for several to be deleted. I removed template listings from some of the master userbox lists but I didn't remove the red links from User pages, I assume editors can do that themselves. I hope you are well! Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Liz. I hope you are well also. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank-you for the invite to Teahouse! ZackAshley (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ZackAshley,
Thank you for the pie! I hope you find the Teahouse useful, it's generally a very helpful place. Some editors who help out there can be a little jaded from editing here for years but I found that it is the best place to send editors who run up against Wikipedia rules that may seem confusing or laced with Wiki-jargon. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Liz. It's been helpful reading other peoples questions! I looked at your user profile, wow very impressive! Why do you do what you do here on Wikipedia! ZackAshley (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Wong chi keung

Thanks for your work keeping the vandals down, but would it not be better to leave that minor draft page unprotected so that editors with it watchlisted can ban the account whenever the page is recreated? With it protected the vandal is surely going to just choose another slight variation on that title, which risks getting overlooked because nobody has their eye on it. They've already moved on from Draft:Wong Chi-Keung which you protected last month, as well as other capitalised variants of that.

The harm isn't in the creation of the draft (which will never, ever make it to mainspace), it's in the related vandalism where they also add their photo and a silly claim to an existing article at the same time, which might otherwise go unnoticed. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Belbury,
Well, there are two ways to think about it. If you remove a possible target, they'll stop trying to recreate it and maybe lose interest. Or, you can think of the page as a "honeypot", a place to attract sockpuppets so you can catch them when they appear. My reasoning was that I wanted to stop recreation of the page since it just gets created and deleted over and over again. But I'm not really invested in this sockpuppet hunt so I've followed your advice and unprotected the page. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
True, they might give up once we'd blocked every variant of their name. Or they might just cycle through other variations which they don't mind if it means they get to "have a Wikipedia article". I'd guess we were more likely to exhaust them if their account was always quickly blocked and their page deleted, than if they had the gambler's thrill of sometimes getting an unnoticed draft that stayed up for a few weeks. But who knows the mind of vandals. Thanks for the revert, anyhow. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

delete a redirect

Hello, You delete Category:WikiProject Punjab, Pakistan templates few month ago. the page Category:WikiProject Punjab (Pakistan) templates redirect to this deleted page. do you thing this redirect need to be delete too? Yona B. (discussion) 17:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Yona B.,
Good catch! Those broken category redirects don't show up on any lists or in a speedy deletion category. We usually only find them if there is a broken link on the talk page, that page will show up on User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects but not the category redirect page itself. Thanks for finding that and alerting me. Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
someone request to delete in wikidata the item of this redirect, this is the way i found it. anyway, thanks for the delete. Yona B. (discussion) 20:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Gryphon (band) album redirects

Hi, Liz. I did not get around to commenting on the relevant AfD, but I should have. Anyways, I believe it was sound logic to redirect them, because the articles did not have enough citations to stand by themselves. Emotionally, I would have rather kept them, but I know that Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are not conducive or friendly toward keeping such articles. Thank you for your help around there. Also, ping to @Loew Galitz: for starting the AfD. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mungo Kitsch,
Well, you know, when the articles are converted to redirects, the articles are not deleted, they are just changed to a redirect. The content is still all in the page history. I don't think at this point, the sourcing will dramatically change but it's all still there. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Right, I'm aware of how the redirects work, and I think it is a good thing that the history is still there and publicly accessible. If I or anyone get access to some reliable sources contemporary to the albums' release, as was touched on in the discussion, then maybe they can be reanimated as articles later. That is something to think about later, though. Take care. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mungo Kitsch,
You've been editing here much longer than I, I'm sorry if I sounded like I was talking to a new editor. I spend a lot of time explaining things to new folks here that I have adopted a "teaching voice" by default. Of course, you know how this place works! I hope one day all of those magazine or newspaper articles that are concert or album reviews get digitized and they become more accessible to our editors. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't going to say anything outright, but I am glad you caught that. I have been editing Wikipedia for... a while. But don't worry, all's good on my end. You're doing great work here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that actually means a lot. All the best, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Those Peacocks/Peahens categories

Thought I'd reach out to you regarding those reverts for further clarification. That move request I referenced changed up a lot of categories per WP:C2D, primarily because unless there is a specific "men's" vs. "women's" designation, anything "Peahens" or "Peacocks and Peahens" is now just "Peacocks". I have a bit of a list of related category moves listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current requests that will hopefully be processed in about 12 or so hours. In the process of doing all of this, the new naming scheme resulted in at least 2 now-redundant categories, and those were the two edits I reverted in order to match the subcategories with their new, more appropriate respective parent category. (In all honesty though, a lot of these categories fail WP:SMALLCAT, but that's a fish for another day.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Steel1943.
I wasn't aware of this larger discussion. Feel free to revert my edits or I'll take care of them. Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries, and already done. Cheers. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to Speedy Deletion of Aviram7

Dear Liz , I'm Here to Request to Speedy deletion of Aviram7 due to Pure Vandalism and A Ip is Abuses My Mother, this talk is very Bad For Me , If You Protect My Usertalk for Creation temproary , I'm aware about this Ip operated by blocked and globally locked User Adam Chacko.Aviram7 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aviram7,
 Done I've deleted the vandalism and blocked the editor temporarily. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Liz Thanks a lot for this Fastly Action, I am sure that he will again criticize my talks because he was abusing my User talks on Hindi Wikipedia many times, which was Protected by the reason Administrator for 1 month.Aviram7 (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind explaining your close of WP:Articles for deletion/Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture as redirect? My count is 1 keep to 6 delete with 2 non-bolded mentions of redirect as a less-favored choice.

WP:Articles for deletion/Mont Saint-Michel in popular culture appears similar, and you closed it as delete around the same time.

Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Flatscan,
Since two participants, Piotrus and NiklausGerard, suggested a possible redirect along with their Delete vote, I took that suggestion as an alterative to deletion, per WP:ATD-R, A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. I read through the comments and didn't notice whether the remarks were bolded or not bolded. A redirect was not suggested by participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Saint-Michel in popular culture. I assume from your message that you think the redirect is inappropriate? Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the consensus was delete. Both of the participants in question bolded "Delete" but not "redirect", which is why I described it as "a less-favored choice". Furthermore, no one presented an argument specifically for redirect. It seems that you gave redirect a considerable amount of extra weight. WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect established a consensus that the weight of "merge" and "redirect" arguments is equal to the weight of "keep" and "delete" arguments. That was in 2011, and WP:Consensus can change, but I am not aware of any discussion that overturned it.
I see that ATD-R is mentioned above in #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Boy Advance family. Did that discussion influence your reasoning? Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Checking back – did you lose track of this? While I understand that DRV may not be your favorite place (per #Moral support below), I am planning to file there. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Mine was the most recent DRV case against a deletion by Liz, but I really can't find faults with this closure. The outcome is the same either way: consensus against the existence of the article. Some editors mentioned redirecting, no-one raised an objection, and it was within admin discretion to make a call here (esp. given that AfD discussions tend to almost never broach the question whether a title is suitable as a redirect). "Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture" is a perfectly plausible term for what the target article Egyptian influence in popular culture is mostly about. Do you believe this is not a plausible redirect? I'm sure that if it were nominated at RfD, the result would be an easy "keep". – Uanfala (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I explained why I disagree with the weights apparently used. Delete and redirect are distinct recommendations/outcomes, see the table at WP:Guide to deletion#Outcome summary. AfD and RfD have independent standards and outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for my delay in responding, Flatscan. I can easily lose track of messages that are in the middle of the page. I have amended my closure to provide an explanation, as I stated here, and I'm surprised that you feel so strongly about having this page deleted that you would take this case to Deletion Review. I'd recommend nominating this page at WP:RFD instead but it's up to you. While another admin might have closed this case differently, I don't think my judgment was so out-of-the-box enough to warrant reverting my closure. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your replies and the AfD note. One detail: you wrote that "several participants" mentioned redirect, but wikt:several#Determiner defines "several" as more than two but not very many. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Seeing your other message, the discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Boy Advance family didn't affect my decision in this case. But I will say that if I compare myself to other administrators who close AFDs, I'm probably more open to alternatives to deletion than some admins who go for a simple Delete/Keep dichotomy and see things in a more black/white fashion. If the content should be removed from the project because of copyright, BLP or promotional concerns or there is a unanimous call for deletion, then, yes, delete. But if other editors are open to a merge or redirect, I probably pay their comments more attention than some other administrators. That comment will undoubtedly not help me in a Deletion review but I'm trying to respond honestly to your query.
Can I ask why you want this page deleted so much that a redirect is unacceptable to you? Is it for policy consistency's sake or do you think retaining the page history in this redirect is a detriment to the project? Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:Deletion review/Purpose 1: the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I explained why I disagree with the extra weight. Skimming recent non-delete/keep AfDs at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture/archive (Special:PermanentLink/1083642170, as new AfDs will be added), WP:Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture (merge), WP:Articles for deletion/List of references to the Matterhorn (merge), WP:Articles for deletion/Chinese mythology in popular culture (redirect), and WP:Articles for deletion/Werewolves in popular culture (merge) all have plurality support for the outcome. WP:Articles for deletion/Kitsune in popular culture (2nd nomination) (redirect) is less clear, but Daranios wrote a detailed recommendation that convinced Dronebogus, and two others supported redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Liz, if you want to insist on the unbolded redirect suggestions instead of the explicit delete votes, then, in cases like this, I suggest following the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist), which ended in delete and redirect. Otherwise I agree with Flatscan here: the consensus was to delete the content, and you didn't do so. Whether to find an ATD is up to consensus. The unbolded mentions of redirect simply indicate that the authors would be ok if consensus changed towards that, but deletion was still their favored course of action. Avilich (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Liz, Thank you for reviewing policies and closing things this way. We need more admins who are willing to use common sense approaches to ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture. 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. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Execution

Greetings, Liz. Could you please delete "Wunder (gamer)", following the relevant AfD decision? Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, The Gnome,
I actually restored that page to User space and it has been greatly improved, with references, it has grown 7X the length since its condition at the AFD (compare previous AFD version to its condition now. It had 4 references, it now has 85 citations. If you are seeking deletion, it will need a new AFD since it is a substantially different version of the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright. The tag "Article focuses on team results, rather than the subject", though, is still up. Is the restoration of the article compatible with the tag? -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, The Gnome,
I see you took it back to AFD. I appreciate you coming to talk to me first and I've made a comment on the AfD. I'll be interested in seeing whether the participants think those 85 citations are enough to establish notability. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021.

Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators.

January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. (details)

February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. (details)

March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. (details)

April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now!

Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months.

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

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

Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Afd/Pirtek

Hi! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirtek was closed, then vacated two days later by FormalDude; It's from March 30 and the list of old AfDs at the main AfD page only go back to April 3 so do you think you could relist it? I was only made aware of the closure becoming vacant because I was pinged today. Thanks for your time! -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GhostOfDanGurney,
I'm not sure why the closure would be reverted but I've relisted the AFD. Thanks for bringing it to someone's attention. I don't look at old AFDs very frequently so I wouldn't have otherwise seen it. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like it was challenged by the nominator at FormalDude's talk page. [20] -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Moral support

Sorry you're getting a kicking in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 8. Some of those comments are overly harsh. We don't normally do that at deletion review: it's meant to be a drama-free zone.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, S Marshall,
I've been an admin for 6 1/2 years but had never had an deletion decision reviewed at Deletion Review until this January. I have to say that even when my decision has not been overturned, these reviews have been unpleasant experiences and make ANI look like a slumber party. If a deletion decision I made is overturned, well, I was wrong, I can take that feedback and learn from it. But some of the comments aren't about an admin decision that was made but a review of me, as a person and an admin, as if one isolated action under review reflects every one of the many thousands of deletion decisions I've made here.
It's heartening to hear from a regular participant that Deletion Review is intended to be drama-free. I guess it just depends on who decides to show up and weigh in and sometimes it is folks who make things personal.
My question for you is that when I got my first notice about a deletion review, I thought that what happened is that an admin would explain their decision, the other editor would state why they disagreed and participants would review both sides along with the AFD discussion or the CSD decision and state whether they Endorsed the decision or thought it should be Overturned. But looking at other review discussions, it seems like many admins skip participating in them. Is it helpful for participants to hear from the admin or should I just let the action speak for itself and spare myself from the vitriol? Thanks for any feedback you can offer...I appreciate hearing your perspective on the review environment. Liz Read! Talk! 16:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Whether it's helpful for you to participate really depends on what's happened. With most deletion reviews, the nominator is relatively inexperienced and our role is not to overturn but to explain a decision. We can do that and it's not necessary for you to participate -- in fact it might be easier if you don't, because inexperienced noms sometimes perceive the closing sysop as a hostile authority figure. But more complex deletion reviews really do benefit from the closer explaining their thinking. This is particularly true when there are now-deleted revisions that you took into account, where you've closed against the numerical consensus, or where there were reasons to suspect socking or other bad-faith editing.
I hope you're able to bear Cryptic's words in mind without taking them to heart.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
+1 moral support. I don't approve of the manner some of those concerns (regarding other instances of your deletions) have been expressed, although the underlying comments if viewed as constructive criticism may be fair (esp. if they were written more kindly). You have given me some advice a few times on csd matters, though we all make mistakes and I guess you just need to learn from them. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Bungle, I don't mind acknowledging when I make a mistake and I think I did in my comments at Deletion Review. That's how we all avoid future mistakes. And I'm nearing 300,000 edits and almost as many logged admin actions which means if you look through my contributions and admin logs, you will likely find a few mistakes. I take to heart constructive feedback and try to learn from it, it's the unnecessary slurs that can bring a person down and seem counterproductive to an evaluation process and collaboration. I appreciate the moral support from you both, thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Righeira compilation albums

Hi Liz - as I pointed out in my edit summary when I asked for speedy deletion of this category, in fact it IS empty... because the only "entry" has actually been redirected, so in reality there are no articles in this category at all. No matter, I will put it up for CfD instead. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Richard3120,
Well, Category:Righeira compilation albums isn't empty, even if it just contains a redirect, so CSD C1 doesn't apply. For a more final deletion decision, CFD is the route to take. It isn't "speedy" but it will determine if the category should continue to exist, whether or not it is empty. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that - well, thanks for letting me know. No problem, it's not a big deal, I was just hoping I could speed up the deletion process. Thanks anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Archduke Sigismund of Tuscany

I'm requesting that this recently -deleted page (Archduke Sigismund of Tuscany) be restored, as it is of historical interest ( it links past history of the Hapsburg Empire with the present). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windemere2 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Windemere2,
The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966) was very clear that this page should be deleted and I can't unilaterally overturn it. If you feel like the AFD wasn't closed properly, you can make an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review for a review of my closure of the discussion.
You are welcome to write a new draft and submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Approval by an AFC reviewer would be one way to reintroduce this article to the project. However, if you move a draft directly into main space or were I to restore this article to main space, it would quickly be deleted again under Speedy Deletion CSD G4, the recreation of an article that was deleted through an AFD. Your best bet is to work in Draft space and submit it to AFC.
If you have questions about the deletion processes on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse where you can receive advice and support from more experienced editors. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there anywhere on Wikipedia where I could look at the comments on the article that led to its deletion ? Thanks for your help. Windemere2 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966) and see the arguments for why the article should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that reference. But ubfortunately, the deletion of the 'Archduke Sigismund' article has also messed up the 'House of Habsburg-Lorraine' article, as he was #43 on that list, and that space now is empty. Windemere2 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Windemere2,
You're absolutely right. I've repaired that gap. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed the addition. Thank you for doing that. Windemere2 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Hatto. I noticed that you deleted Draft:HeeJin (singer). She is the member of K-pop group Loona. Other Loona member's draft articles were created. (Draft:GoWon (singer) and Draft:JinSoul (singer)) Draft:Running Girls, which Loona member Chuu appeared in, was also created. Do you think that you should delete these draft articles as well as HeeJin? --Hatto (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hatto,
Draft:HeeJin (singer) was deleted, not because of the quality of the draft, but because it had been 6 months or longer since the page had been edited. This is what we call a "stale draft" and, at that point, drafts are considered abandoned and are deleted through speedy deletion, CSD G13. But they can be restored upon request if there are no other problems with the article.
The other draft pages that you mention have all be edited in the past month or two so they would not be eligible for CSD G13 until August or September of this year if they go on unedited until then. If you believe a draft should be deleted, you can always nominate it for deletion through MFD but you need to have a good reason for why the article should be deleted. I hope this answers your question. Liz Read! Talk! 16:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Foam (organization)

Hi @Liz I would like to help fix the page of Foam that was deleted. Do you mind recovering a copy to my user space? Thank you! --Zblace (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics)

Hello, and thank you for your message. I considered opening a Deletion Review but ultimately decided to follow what you had written in the deletion message of the article. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

AfD for Cole Preston

Hello, yesterday you closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Preston. I voted in favor of the ultimate outcome, redirecting to Wallows, but I also emphasized that this has already been done several times and contentious editors keep recreating Preston's article. I would not be surprised if this happens again. I and another voter suggested protection so the redirect is not undone yet again. Have such steps been taken? Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, doomsdayer520,
I saw your suggestion of page protection but I was unsure about the necessity of doing it. I'll look at it again today, thank you for the follow-up on this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking over that page, things were really stable until the page was nominated for an AFD and then IPs began to vandalize it, just over the past week. There hadn't been much disruption on the page until April 9, 2022 so I'm reluctant to lay down some kind of indefinite page protection. So, I've semi-protected the page for 3 months. It was originally converted from a redirect to an article by an experienced editor and I'm unwilling to put this redirect page under full protection. If an experienced editor ignores the recemt AFD as documented in the page history and attempts to recreate an article on this page, it can always be tagged for CSD G4s. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Easter

This user celebrates Easter and loves Easter Eggs!

Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


Stop deleting pages under the criterion G5

I don't like when you or anyone delete pages created by Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan's banned or blocked sockpuppets under the criterion G5 (page created by a banned or blocked user in violation). Can you stop? 191.125.99.197 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 191.125.99.197,
I don't remember deleting pages by Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan's banned or blocked sockpuppets in quite a few months. You don't have an argument with me but with Wikipedia policy. We have new page patrollers with keen eyes and very good memories and they will tag pages they think you've created. I could delete those tagged pages or it could be any one of our other many admins who might care of them. You should really stop socking and make an unblock request in six months if you'd like to return and do some productive work, according to our policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

G5 is applied to all or most pages that were created by a banned or blocked user in violation without substantial edits by others. Sasquash-Bigfood (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Liz, Please Assist

Hey Liz, thank you for tagging me in the /KyleMcmahon AfD. Unfortunately I just saw it as I was offline for a bit with a death in the family. I worked with numerous experienced editors and admins on perfecting that article, as it was my first full article (I tend to just do small edits on Delaware related pieces, entertainment, etc.) The subject is clearly notable per Wikipedia's own requirements including as a radio DJ / host in (as far as I can tell) most / all (?) major markets, in addition the podcast, which has numerous A level talent. There were links to those stations websites on the article, including KISS-FM, the largest radio station in the country by listeners (according to Wiki). I appreciate your efforts on keeping Wikipedia clean, but would kindly ask you to re-review this particular one. I also feel the sole "DELETE" seemed to be a personal attack against the subject, which I feel is inappropriate. Thanks for your work for the community, Liz. FrankNSteinJr (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FrankNSteinJr,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle McMahon (2nd nomination) was closed several weeks ago and can not be withdrawn. Also, it is not appropriate to add new content to a closed, archived discussion so I have removed your recent comments that, for some reason, were dated March 31st instead of April 20th. Please do not add content to archived pages or falsify the dates of your remarks.
I think the best you can do is either start a new article from scratch or ask the administrator who deleted the page, who is the same person as the admin who closed the discussion, to restore the article and move it on to a User page where you can work on improving it to overcome the deficiencies that caused it to be nominated for deletion.
If you have questions about deletion policies on Wikipedia, you can bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response @Liz, I did not falsify any dates whatsoever and wouldn't even begin to know how to do so, so that should not be directed towards me. I did add content to the archived page and now know in the future not to do so.
The Teahouse editors are the ones that helped me get the article written, so it seems strange after doing that with experienced editors, one would not look at the numerous editors who contributed to the page and then mark it for deletion. It's one thing to edit articles for clarity, or mark AfD to sock puppets or purely paid promotional or self promotional articles, particularly edited by one person. It's another entirely to mark AfD for articles existing for two plus years with multiple editors and admins that are quite clearly substantiated according to our own policies because we are not aware of someone ourselves. Clearly, the numerous contributors, editors and admins that contributed to the page did not find the issues you found.
Appreciate your response and time
FRANKY (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Walter White

Hi, Liz - just letting you know that I moved Walter White back to Walter White (Breaking Bad) and the disambiguation page back to the base title. Your edit summary when you moved the page was about WP:PRECISION, so I'm assuming you didn't notice that a newer editor had moved the disambiguation page away from the base title and that there were a couple old move discussions at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad). Apologies in advance if that assumption was incorrect. - Eureka Lott 12:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Eureka Lott,
When I reviewed the move request, it seemed like it was proper and in order. I saw the most recent move discussion on the article talk page that seemed to support the change. Thanks for fixing this and letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Your block of MADSHINE

Hi, Liz! I noticed that you recently blocked the user MADSHINE. You blocked the user for 72 hours, but left a message (diff) stating that the block was indefinite. Just letting you know! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tol,
The default is indefinite but I intended only 72 hours. Thanks for letting me know! I will correct that. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for your work! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello, you deleted my article Inikiri Umuezeoka, what should I do to restore the deleted article. Thanks for your response Topsy4men (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Topsy4men,
I didn't delete your article. It was moved to Draft:Inikiri Umuezeoka and I deleted the redirect. A redirect is a page that just contains a link from the previous location of an article to its current location, redirects are created when pages are moved. Please work on your article in Draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation when you think it is ready for review by an experienced editor. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your candid advice. I have moved it to article for creation as you suggested. I wish you can assist by reviewing the article Draft: Inikiri Umuezeoka so that it will be moved to article mainspace.
Thanks for your assistance. Topsy4men (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Christian Brückner

I think the edits I requested you delete last year can be undeleted. The main article now uses his name. Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Scorpions13256,
I'll have to look into this one since they were violating BLP guidelines. There have been other edits on that page that have been revision deleted as well. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I made my current request because Disappearance of Madeleine McCann also now contains his real name. It didn't do that when I made my initial request to you last year. Maybe the edits need to be deleted there too? Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Disappearance article because there is a The Times article referencing him and they are a reliable source. I'll ping JJMC89 who also did some revision deletion on the biography article and get a second opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
For some reason, I thought you did both of them. Thank you for the speedy response. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the CSD tag from Draft:Jon Moses

It was valid when I placed it (it was an article then), though I don't have admin goggles to compare it with the deleted article, but the creating editor whisked the article to Draft, where you found it. You will see from the article, now drafts talk page that there is a problem with the material, and will see from the creating editor's talk page that I am trying hard to convince them to work well. If you have advice to give them I am sure they will benefit from it, though whether they appreciate it is a different matter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fiddle Faddle,
You will find a range of opinions from admins about whether CSD G4 applies to Draft space. Some strongly believe it doesn't, others do not think the namespace matters. I've initiated a discussions on this at WT:CSD (one of many CSD G4 discussions) without clear consensus. It seems like another area on Wikipedia that is determined on a case-by-case basis.
No worries though about tagging a page in main space that then gets moved to Draft space. That was a miss on my part. I guess we have to look for this namespace juggling when articles get tagged for deletion...I've seen it with AFDs but not CSD G4s before. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
For me the namespace matters. I suspect those who think it does not have a different axe to grind, perhaps with Draft: space itself.
The creating editor juggled twice and has now listened, which took some effort. They have now started to rebuild the draft from the ground up, whcih is the only way I think it might just posisbly succeed. Regrettably they are a fan of a WP:ROTM cabaret singer. Heigh ho.
We all miss things. Why would we not? There's always someone else to catch the things we miss. I had some mistakes pointed out recently, and it proves I am still almost human 😂 though I have edited here for rather longer than many. I may be starting to become a crankily and pedantic bot! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

≥


The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice period

Hi Liz, thanks for removing clutter from this place =D I was wondering if there’s a way to delay the deletion of drafts I make. I just lost something I was planning to continue working on and I don’t have offline copies of everything :/ el.ziade (talkallam) 21:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, el.ziade,
If you had a draft that was deleted simply for being "stale" (CSD G13), it can easily be restored, either by asking the deleting admin or by going to WP:REFUND. You can delay deletion just by actively editing the page. Drafts are considered abandoned when they go 6 months without a human edit (which means that bot edits don't count) so just do a minor edit to the page every few months while you continue to polish up the draft. Ideally, these drafts will get submitted at some point to AFC but if they need more time, just pay them a little attention once in a while they'll be fine as long as there are no other problems (like advertising or copyright issues). Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, much appreciated. el.ziade (talkallam) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for being around! JBchrch talk 01:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, JBchrch. It's appreciated. Although, I'm probably around too much! Thank you for your contributions as well. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

A really trivial point, but I felt like mentioning it. You beat me by seconds to declining the speedy deletion but blanking the page at User talk:2A01:4C8:805:6487:AD8F:8E80:5876:1238. I was going to do exactly the same. JBW (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JBW,
Tagged by an intoxicated editor. I haven't run into that in a while...that I'm aware of. I think that was more common in the "old days". Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't specifically remember that particular thing happening, but it sort of has the feel of being the kind of thing that used to be more common long ago. I don't tend to think about it much, but when something happens that prompts me to do so, I find there's quite a lot of things that Wikipedia editors used to do frequently years ago, but whuch faded out. Thinking about how much things have changed on WP is one of (unfortunately) many things that remind me how old I'm getting. Like black and white photographs, and horse-drawn carts delivering milk to houses, and... oh, well. JBW (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon now, JBW, I'm talking about 15 years ago, not 115 years ago! In some ways, I think Wikipedia has gotten more professional and reliable than before and I definitely don't miss the days I spent hanging out at ANI back in 2014 when some days were a slugfest. It was a lot busier on ANI back then and disputes were personal and pile-ons were not uncommon.
I know that, along the way, there has also been a loss of enthusiasm and innocence that existed in the 2000s on the part of many. But, frankly, I'm more surprised that so many editors are still around after 10 or 15 years than that so many have departed. It's rare to have a hobby that can hold your interest for that long, especially on the internet and in these days where there are so many more options like streaming services.
I have a small hope that these new activity requirements might lure a few semi-active admins back to full participation even though I know, realistically, that is unlikely. People move on, lives get busy and full, free time disappears. But who knows? I came back after being away for 2 years after a cross-country move and a bout of cancer, maybe other folks will find they can still enjoy putting in some time here and will return to editing and adminning more regularly. One can hope! Even a few additional part-timers will help lighten the load around here. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Most of that I agree with. I'm sorry to read about your cancer. I hope that isn't something you and I have in common. As for 115 years ago, I find many people even just a decade or so younger than me refuse to believe that when I was a little child horse-drawn carts used to come round the streets delivering milk to the houses, but I assure you it's true. JBW (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for riding rough-shod into somebody else's conversation, but...... there are probably many of us who would be very willing to be "part-timers" if only there was some other way than the steam-roller ride that the RFA process currently is. Revisiting RFAs, and their questions and answers demonstrates very clearly that asking the simple question "Why do you want to be an admin" and then having a vote! would be an equally effective process. Sigh..... Oh and yes, our milk was also delivered by a horse drawn cart with a horse with an oat filled nose-bag!  Velella  Velella Talk   19:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
We had milkmen when I was a child but they had vans and trucks, not horse-drawn carts. It was the California suburbs in the 1960s but probably a decade before, where the houses now were, were empty fields so there might have been horses then!
As far RfAs, well, I don't try to persuade people to go through them since my own experience was rather scarring. You need to know that you have a lot of support going into one. In my case, the gloves were off! You definitely need a thick skin or maybe I just had my own at a particularly bitey time (2015) in the project's lifetime. I don't know whether adminship ever will be "no bid deal" again. I think it's more likely that at some point, the toolset will be further broken down into parts like they did with rollback.
Actually, I think the most useful tool of adminship isn't page deletion or blocking editors but being able to see Deleted Contributions and I wish every editor had the ability to see all of the edits they have made, even to pages that have been deleted. I wish that ability was available to all extended confirmed editors but, well, systemic change on Wikipedia is really, really hard to achieve and it usually takes a few tries before you can get any RFC to pass with substantial approval. And then there are the technical limitations, oy. You really need a groundswell of active editor support to initiate these kinds of changes. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

TV show prod cleanup

I took a more organized approach to my TV show prod spree. Thought you might want to see what I'm up to so I don't flood the queue like that again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TenPoundHammer,
That is hundreds and hundreds of articles. It kind of makes me wonder where this passion for deleting articles comes from. I know of editors who take on the project of cleaning up a specific subject area, like uninhabited towns or private air strips, but you tag pages for all kinds of deletion across over a wide variety of topics.
Do you see Wikipedia as cluttered with unacceptable, unworthy articles that need to be removed? Is it about elevating Wikipedia's reputation for quality? Many editors tag badly sourced or promotional articles for deletion should they come across them in their work but it looks like you actually seek them out.
You don't have to comment, I've just become curious lately as I've worked with PRODs and moved into helping out a little at AFD. I seem to see you everywhere! Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Some of it comes from me working on the "Articles needing cleanup" queue because I despise the {{cleanup}} tag and its rampant misuse. The current focus on TV articles was because I kept finding so many unsourced stubs from ages ago by navigating through TV series templates Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's good to know that you try to improve articles and not just seek deletion. I'm not passing judgment, we are underhanded in so many areas but I'd like to think that if an article can be fixed with a little bit of effort, that it is improved rather than thrown out. I'm not a content creator myself but I respect the work of those who came before me. But those limited series reality shows on country music channels? I think those were definitely not encyclopedic and I wasn't sorry to see them go...I don't think anything important was lost when those pages were deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Bad Homburg Open

Hello, Liz,

Thank you for creating Bad Homburg Open.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more references in order to provide significant coverage for this article. See WP:SIGCOV
References that have scores, lists, order of merit and video do not pass as reliable sources for WP:NSPORT. (There have been changes to the notability guide for sports - you may wish to read WP:NSPORT ) To meet notability requirements, one more reference with significant coverage will suffice. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Whiteguru,
Thank you for the notification but I didn't create the page, I just moved it to its current title. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The issues were a previous deletion, and although your move tag was in history, identifying the original author could not be resolved. Whiteguru (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Pat O'Malley (actor)

Hi, why did you delete(March 2020) the Wiki bio to actor Pat O'Malley, aka Patrick H. O'Malley Jr., without rewriting a new article? Koplimek (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Close

You didn't leave a closing summary here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Bodina so I have to ask. Why did you redirect to that page when there was no consensus on the actual target, and most of the votes were 'delete' anyway? The two redirect votes don't suggest a merger and they cancel each other out by suggesting different targets, so why did you favor one of them and ignore the entire remainder of the discussion? Avilich (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

More importantly why did you remove the deletion tag here Julia Urania ? That page is also under discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Urania. Avilich (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Uh, you there? I'm pretty sure you made a mistake by irregularly removing an AfD tag without reason, and I think may have confused two separate discussions and consequently closed one of them incorrectly. Avilich (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of doing some work. I use XFDCloser to close discussions so I'll look into this and see what the problem is. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, now please answer the original question: what was you rationale for picking that particular redirect target in the first AfD I mentioned, and how did you determine there was consensus for that? Avilich (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The consensus was to Delete but a Redirect was proposed as an alternative to deletion so I opted for it. Since you are contesting my closure, I'll change it to Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Note that there were two suggested targets, not just one, hence why I coudn't understand why you picked one of them in particular. Avilich (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Kabza and Kabza (2022 film)

Hi Liz. You deleted and salted Kabza but a new article has reappeared at Kabza (2022 film). Could you take a look? Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tassedethe,
Thanks for the notice. This article keeps reappearing at new titles. I've tagged it CSD G4 for another admin to review. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom clerk

Hello Liz! I'm a relatively new editor (3 years of service). I've looked into arbitration committee clerking and noticed you are one. This is not something I plan on doing soon, but what are the general requirements for being an arbitration clerk? Is it a competitive process? What do the clerks do? I might be interested in doing it in the coming years. Thank you! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Iamreallygoodatcheckers,
It's actually been a while since I was an active clerk but I can talk to you about it. When you send in your inquiry to the clerk's list, you'll be sent an email questionnaire to fill out with some general questions. They'll be a discussion among clerks and arbitrators and you'll either be asked to be a trainee, be told to apply again after a bit more time on the project or gently told that you are not a good fit with the position.
The main responsibility is managing case requests, open cases and arbitration talk pages and noticeboards. There are a lot of templates you need to become familiar with using but that's pretty easy to pick up. And you send out a lot of notifications about when a case opens, as it progresses and the results when it closes. It helps to be organized but, when I was a clerk, there was often two clerks assigned to a case which makes things much easier. I think the only difficult part is how to deal with editors when discussion veers into personal attacks or other unhelpful comments or unacceptable behavior. Clerks are generally the ones to post warnings about this and also remove or redact comments. So, there might be some resentment directed toward a clerk but if you have done any vandal-fighting, you should be familiar with this...the main difference is that the editors who get upset with you when you are a clerk, they are generally long-time editors rather than anonymous IP editors.
I think the important thing to remember is when challenging situations emerge, there is a clerk email list where you can post questions, like "What should I do about X? Does his response to question 3 need to be redacted?" and you'll get feedback, especially when you are a trainee clerk. The arbitrators also subscribe to the clerks list so they are generally aware when problems emerge. Arbitrators are very good at keeping their deliberations on their own arbs email list which is private.
The trainee stage can last long, it generally lasts until you have clerked a couple of cases and I don't think there are as many cases these days than there were a few years ago. But I encourage you to look through some old, archived cases and see if the process interests you. It doesn't hurt to express your interest! I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: thank you so much for the information! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Parental Guidance (film) talk page

Hi Liz, hope all is well. You recently helped clean up a bit of a mess another editor cause by moving the aforementioned article around. I just checked its talk page and it appears to be blank, with its history beginning with some of the page moves. From checking that user's logs, it seems that at some point they moved the actual article to its talk page and vice-versa. Could it be that the original history of the article's talk page was lost during the clean up? I dunno if it's even worth looking for it, but maybe you could check and restore it? Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Isabelle,
Yes, it is a mess. And I use Twinkle to delete pages which automatically deletes talk pages and redirects when you delete an article page. I'll look around and see if perhaps the editor moved the article but neglected to move the talk page and it was accidentally deleted. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I think I found it at Talk:Giahayayaya but I probably checked 7 or 8 deleted talk pages before I found one with some edits before today. I wonder if the editor will ever explain that strange behavior involving multiple page moves. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for giving you some extra chores! While it was all very weird, specially with an IP showing up to support the deletion of the history of the original article, I don't think we will have any explanation for why that happened. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
It can be hard to catch bad page moves with articles like this one that are probably on few Watchlists. Thanks for spotting this one and stepping in to warn the editor. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_42&oldid=1184368091"