User talk:Liz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions:

1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users.

2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom.

3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

Christmas Wreath - - 639554.jpg

It's Winter!

Note: When emailing me, please also post a {{You've got mail}} template to this page.
I check my Wikipedia email account infrequently.

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.

Basalisk inspect damageberate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.

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

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

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

Deletion review for Gajesh Naik[edit]

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

New message from Alexmegelas[edit]

Hello Liz, you deleted the Shane Watt page I had created a few years ago. I've since seen that Wikipedia allows for the flagging of personal interests related to a subject matter. I ran an independent record label from 97-2007 and Shane Watt's album was our last release. I am no longer in this industry (I'm a researcher) but like to document the independent music of the scene that I was a part of. I have fond memories of Shane and believe that his output as a producer, musician, and visual artist meets Wikipedia criterias for notories. I'd like to request that the article be reinstated (or that I be allowed to recreate it) and if necessary, I'd like to be allowed to flag the relationship, before it's evaluated on its own merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmegelas (talkcontribs) 00:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New message from Aoidh[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Aoidh's talk page.
Message added 01:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not trying to pester but since my edits were described as disruptive editing, I would greatly appreciate a response on my talk page. The intent was not to delete the category but to remove it from pages on which it did not belong. I tagged the resulting empty category not with the intent to delete it but because I thought that was the correct process. Is this still considered disruptive editing? If so, how can I fix it? This has my full attention and I would very much like to address it, but without a response I am unsure of how to do that. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of "LiveLine with Mason"[edit]

Hello Liz!

I had no idea that an article I wrote (and helped get approved by a Wikipedia admin/veteran editor) had been deleted about a month ago, until today. I wish I could've fought to keep it or add sources... whatever was needed to meet the standards, I would've done or gotten assistance. I'm asking you dearly to reconsider the deletion, re-write parts of the article or guide me in a direction towards getting it back up in a timely manner as it really means a lot to me and the person/business is about to have it. There are MANY articles who have just as few sources and info that DON'T get deemed "promotable" or "not credible" which are still up. The article was called LiveLine with Mason.

I will pay you for your time, work around your schedule or do whatever it takes to get a response and reinstate this article... please help!!! THANK YOU!!! Voicetracksarelame (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Voicetracksarelame,
LiveLine with Mason was deleted as a Proposed Deletion, what we call PRODs. They can be restored upon request. Be aware that a PROD'd article that is restored can be tagged for an AFD deletion discussion but at least there you can make an argument on why you think the article should be Kept. Would you like it restored?
And please, I'm begging you, NEVER offer to pay someone for editing an article or pay someone to write an article for you. At Wikipedia, we are all volunteers, and look down on paid contributors. They have a lot of rules that restrict them from directly editing articles where they have a conflict-of-interest and most editors would prefer to have the freedom to edit whatever articles they want. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Liz,
Thank you for the quick and helpful response. I would appreciate you restoring the article, where I hope to clean it up a bit and possibly get some assistance from a pro like yourself to make it look good. If it's still deemed "promotable" or flagged again for deletion, at least I can make an argument to keep it online.
Sorry for offering to pay. I had no idea it was such a big deal or against any rules. Wikipedia is fill with so many hard working people who donate their time to better us, and I feel they should be compensated.
Let me know what you need or how I should go about this. Thank you so much... Voicetracksarelame (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Voicetracksarelame,
 Done You can find it at LiveLine with Mason. Liz Read! Talk! 09:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just FYI: @Voicetracksarelame: was a sock of the original creator of the PRODed article. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 22:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Liz

I couldn’t help but notice what you said about my Sahnioxylon article, could you give me some pointers on how to make it better?

Sincerely, Aaa232355 अथर्व कॉल (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ma’am? अथर्व कॉल (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of ProShare page[edit]

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


Good afternoon Liz

Would you please review the decision to delete this article (08:38, 27 October 2022). ProShare is a highly respected UK membership organisation, which lobbies the UK Government to foster Employee Share Ownership. Had I seen the proposal to delete this page in time I would have commented accordingly - it was only when I sought to refer to it today that I noticed the deletion. Sir Lunchalot (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Sir Lunchalot (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sir Lunchalot: It looks like Liz is offline at the moment. I took a look at the discussion and it looks like it was correctly deleted. If you wish to contest this deletion, you can do so at deletion review. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ 2601:5CE:301:280:406F:9B7:472F:96B0 (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do note the Purpose section of deletion review, though. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @UtherSRG- It just seemed a bit random, hence my asking the question. I'm quite familiar with the organisation as I work in a related industry in the UK, hence my trying to check something on the page. If you or Liz can make the original text available, I can have a look at addressing the issues. Sir Lunchalot (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will draftify it. Please read our notability policies WP:GNG and WP:NORG to understand what needs to be done. To wit: You must answer the question "How is this organization notable with respect to our notability policies?" and then provide citations that support your answer. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sir Lunchalot: Draft is Draft:ProShare. And now I'm hungry for lunch! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks @UtherSRG Sir Lunchalot (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this @UtherSRG - I see what Liz meant ! I'll try to have a look at it properly at the weekend. Can I just update that draft page, or do I need to copy and paste into a new article ? Sir Lunchalot (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can update the draft, as it has all of the history. I'm not sure the best way forward from that, whether it should go through a normal AfC review, or if my eyeballs are good enough, but we can share that bridge when we lower it. Or some such malapropism... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much, UtherSRG, for helping out Sir Lunchalot. Yes, I was asleep when you posted, which I think was about 6 am my time, then I had some Zoom appointments so I'm just getting to some of my daily work. Thanks for restoring that page, UtherSRG.
Yes, I think the AFD discussion was unanimous to delete that article. Sir Lunchalot, I'd review the comments that were made in the AFD, try to address the problems the commenters found with the article and when it is ready, submit it to Articles for Creation for review and, hopefully, approval. I'd warn you to not to try to move the draft directly into the main space of the project or it can be tagged as CSD G4 which is recreation of an article deleted at an AFD discussion. The new version has to be much improved not to be considered "substantially identical" to the version that was deleted. But if UtherSRG is willing to help you out, that is great! It always helps to have a second pair of eyes looking over a draft that is being shaped into a main space article. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just dropping by to say thanks for:

  1. Closing so many AfDs and keeping the backlog to a minimum, and
  2. Urging MERGE !voters in those AfDs to be a little more thoughtful and specific about where and what they're suggesting.

I've been haunting the AfD merge listings to chip away at that backlog, and it helps so much when people are more clear in their thoughts.

Cheers! Joyous! | Talk 19:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Joyous!,
If you actually help out handling those Merges that come out of AFD discussions, well God bless you! One never knows when one closes an AFD discussion as Merge, what editor will take on that job of handling a merger of two articles. I think that's a special talent that involves more than cutting and pasting large chunks of text. But what I find most taxing are editors in deletion discussions who list 3, 4 or in one case 5, different articles to do a merge with. While that might make theoretical sense in terms of the subject matter, I don't know who to approach who would know a subject well enough to be able handle that complicated task. That seems more like at BOLD edit that involves article talk page discussions than an AFD closure decision.
But thanks for your thanks! I don't think we have encountered each other before and then I started to see you working at AFD. I use to focus more on categories in my early days here but at the beginning of the year, I noticed that there didn't seem to be enough admins or editors closing article deletion discussions so that's where I started putting some of my time. I think TFDs and CFDs are more technically challenging to close and redirects are a world unto themselves but I might start trying to branch out if I see there is a need I can address. We only have a limited amount of time we can spend here though!
So, nice to meet you and I hope we can cross paths in a positive way in the future! Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. And I apologize in advance, because I'm about to turn into the annoying gadfly on a number of AfDs asking "merge what? which part? the whole thing? Or just a mention? When you say "merge," do you really mean "redirect'?" And any number of other irritants. Joyous! | Talk 18:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:List of Roman villas in the Netherlands[edit]

I left a question after my contribution was rejected. "Can you explain what is required? Similar pages exist for other countries. A reference to a scientific publication and to a secondary source is present. Can you be more specific? The present remark is very general, Penninx (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]" I have been waiting for an answer for 6 months, and now my contribution will be deleted without a response to my question. The criteria of accepting a contribution are not clear. Please answer my question. Penninx (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Penninx,
First, your draft was deleted because there had been no recent editing activity. After 6 months of no new edits, we consider the draft to be abandoned. If you would like to continue to work on it, let me know or you can request its restoration at WP:REFUND.
At first glance, it looks like the reviewers gave you lots of messages about additional sources your draft needed. But a reviewer wouldn't know that you left a comment for them unless you "pinged" their name, like this (Penninx). Tagging their name let's them know that there is a message for them on a page. There is a backlog of about 3,000 drafts to be reviewed and after reviewing one draft, the reviewer doesn't go back to it to see if the page creator left a message, they move on to the hundreds of other drafts that still need reviewing. Please do not take this personally as if you were ignored, our AFC reviewers are just volunteers, like the rest of us, and there are thousands of drafts that need reviewing.
There are places you can go with your questions. First, you can go to the talk page of the reviewer and ask some general questions about the comments they left. It's best to do this soon after they left the review because a few days later, a few weeks later, well, your draft is not fresh in their minds. Then, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk after your page has been reviewed, that's best to go to if a comment in the review isn't clear to you. If you have questions about Wikipedia policies and practices (like what is a "reliable source"?), then bringing those questions to the Teahouse is your best bet.
If you are looking for someone actually to help you writing the article, that is much more difficult. As I said, editors on Wikipedia are volunteers and so they focus their limited time on writing articles on subjects that interest them. But you could try looking at some WikiProjects. There is WikiProject Netherlands but I noticed that the talk page isn't active so you could contact an editor on their active editors list, an editor who has joined recently, like in 2021 or 2022, to see if they would know of good resources you could use. There also might be some information on pages associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands that might be of some help. With your subject matter, you could also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology or Wikipedia:WikiProject European history (although it also doesn't look very active). As a last resort, you could even try writing a short note asking for help on related article talk pages like Talk:Netherlands, Talk:History of the Netherlands or Talk:Netherlands in the Roman era but these talk pages are devoted to improving those articles. But you could look at the page histories of those articles and see which editors have been active editing them and contact them on their talk page and ask if they have any ideas or resources you could use in your draft.
That's about all of the ideas I have. I don't spend my time writing articles or drafts myself but over the years, I have accumulated knowledge about resourcs on Wikipedia so I can point you to places where you might find another editor with the knowledge, skills and interest to help you with your draft. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll just go ahead and restore Draft:List of Roman villas in the Netherlands for you, you don't need to post an additional message to request this. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Liz, thanks very much for your complete reply and restoring the draft. I still don't understand. I gave several references (or "additonal sources") which is what they asked. Still they rejected the contribution. I want to spent time to improve the page, but i first need to understand the reason why my contribution was rejected. At the moment i am still uncertain what is needed. I understand that they are volunteers, but i am uncertain whether they have really checked my contribution, or just had a quick glance. Penninx (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that the volunteers have not checked the references. They contain a list of Roman villas. In one of the references they wrote a scientific article where they used the information to draw conclusions on the the history of the Roman presence in the Netherlands. So it is "in-depth", not just mentioning, it is "reliable" ( a peer-reviewed scientific publication), "secondary" (the references to the original excavations are in the scientific article), "independent" (the scientific article is independent, has no commercial, political of any other goal). Penninx (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masoud Minaei[edit] "park jii" (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thank you for sharing this video. Instagram is not considered a reliable source nor any other social media. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 House of Representatives election[edit]

That was a mistake on my part. I should have known to see whether the redirect had history. Thank you. I have now retargeted the draft redirect to point to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon,
No problem. I figured it had something to do with the unique way you move around articles. Personally, I find redirects useful so I just changed that deletion into a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It didn't have to do with moving articles. It had to do with my paying about 75% attention to accepting the draft. And you weren't creating a new redirect from draft space anyway, because the Accept script creates a redirect from draft space to article space. You deleted it to move the article history in its place, and then converted that back into a redirect, so you didn't create any new redirects. The AFC Accept script always creates a redirect from draft space to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you look at the history of this article before deleting it? I was just about to revert it a few versions back - it had been replaced with an extremely promotional version by an IP immediately before being tagged. (On the other hand, I was going to leave the g11 tag on it, since the version it'd been replaced with was so offensively promotional I didn't think I could review the old one properly.) —Cryptic 10:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Cryptic,
I THOUGHT that I checked it out properly. I remove a lot of CSD tags that I think have been misapplied. I've restore this article and you can take it from here. It's 3 am here and I've clearly stayed up too late editing. Time for bed and to clear the cobwebs from my head. Thanks for catching my mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 11:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 53[edit]


The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

  • New collections:
    • Edward Elgar
    • E-Yearbook
    • Corriere della Serra
    • Wikilala
  • Collections moved to Library Bundle:
    • Ancestry
  • New feature: Outage notification
  • Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Liz, User:Magadhkingdom renamed to User:Magadh State, but you changed the previous user redirect to Draft:Magadh State with the comment Correcting redirect and a bot further changed the redirect to mainspace article Magadha. What was the reason for you to correct the user renaming redirect? Jay 💬 11:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was noob in wikipedia field , it just happened unfortuniatly , please revert the redirect link from Magadhkingdom to Magadha Magadh State (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please restore the Ricky Knight Jr page which was PROD'd[edit]

Hi, could you please restore the Ricky Knight Jr page as he is an independent professional wrestler who was PROD'd for not being signed to a company which is not applicable as he is a freelance independant wrestler who wrestles for many companies? Devletbek (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Devletbek: You might get a swifter response by filing a formal undelete request at WP:REFUND. UtherSRG (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Devletbek,
 Done You can find it at Ricky Knight Jr.. You might spend some time improving the article as it can still be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD.
But UtherSRG is right, your message came in at 4:45 am my time and I overslept so WP:REFUND would have been quicker. But as long as the deed is done, I guess it doesn't matter whether it happened 12 hours ago or now. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like it could be the same as an article that has recently been deleted via discussion. Looking at the editor's talk page, I think draftification is not appropriate and if it is the same, or worse, then the consensus deleted one, should have been speedily deleted? Bungle (talkcontribs) 13:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Need Help Finding a Deleted Page[edit]

Liz, An important article was deleted by you on October 28, 2022 at 05:39 hours, titled, "The Lives of Winston Churchill and Alfred Milner". I would liked it returned to my Sandbox, where the empty file exists. Thank you. John Milner. Lord Milner (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our discussion and archive error[edit]

Hi Liz. First, your archive bot is malfunctioning, it should be populating Archive 45 but it's throwing stuff into Archive 8 (User talk:Liz/Archive 8). Second, I don't want to forget User_talk:Liz/Archive_8#Why_was_this_page_deleted?. Any chance you can bring this matter to VP? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus,
My older archives are all messed up because of the bot archiving and I disabled it a few years ago. Now I handle that myself, manually.
I'll look into your request. Just from the talk page requests I've received today, it looks like a busy weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about this weekend? I mean, it's not an urgent matter, but it would be good to get it done. I'd do it myself, but, well, you are an admin and you are involved with some admin procedures here, so it would look more serious if you started the VP dicussion, assuming I managed to convince you we have a problem :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talking Politics[edit]

Hi Liz, what’s the reasoning for having deleted the Talking Politics page please? 2A00:23C4:7318:E701:B534:CD2A:596:5C27 (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And please could you reinstate the page? I can’t see why it would violate any of your policies. Thank you. 2A00:23C4:7318:E701:B534:CD2A:596:5C27 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 2A00:23C4:7318:E701:B534:CD2A:596:5C27,
The reason for deletion was listed in the deletion tag at the talk of Talking Politics. If you go into the page history, you can see what the PROD statement says.
As a contested PROD, I have restored the article for you. Please know that it can still be tagged for deletion and taken to WP:AFD so you might want to address the deletion rationale stated in the PROD tag. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kindly asking you to undelete Category:All WikiProject Cyprus pages. {{WikiProject Cyprus}} is no longer marked as inactive and emits this category again. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Finnusertop.
Just to confirm, do you mean the assessment categories? I can take care of that today or tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant just Category:All WikiProject Cyprus pages. Assessment categories seem to be set up correctly already. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting links to Bund für Menschenrecht and Blätter für Menschenrecht[edit]

These links should not have been deleted per WP:REDLINK as the topics are notable, even if the pages were sock creations. Many of the links were my doing and not the socks. (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Buidhe,
It's not possible with the unlinking tool to see who created the links. I generally assume that articles that are being deleted through our deletion processes (CSD, PROD, AFD) will not be recreated. But I will seek out the links for these article and undo my edits where I can. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undeletion request[edit]

Hi Liz. Recently you deleted an article on the book Sexual Heretics under criterion G5. Could you please restore it (either to mainspace or to draftspace)? Cheers, gnu57 16:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, gnu,
I have restored this article for you. I think a way for it to avoid a future CSD G5 deletion is for there to be substantive edits to it (like contributing content, not adding a category) from other editors. In this article's case it was two sockpuppets, User:QueenofBithynia and User:AFreshStart, who had contributed the bulk of the content to that page.
Our project's viewpoint on restoring pages deleted because of sockpuppetry is a little murky. I have had some editors state to me that they would be "responsible for" an article created by a sockpuppet if the article could be restored. It's not clear what it means to be responsible for an article but I checked with another admin who thought that could be grounds for restoring the article. I think I'll start a discussion about this at WT:CSD. Editors have very strong feelings about sockpuppets and deleting or reverting their work but I have deleted articles that were otherwise okay and it seemed unfortunate that they were to be deleted. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undeletion request[edit]

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

Hi, I'm PHI WIKI 2022 (Pierre-Olivier), and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13. 20:45, 13 September 2021 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Miles Greenberg (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) Tag: Twinkle (thank) Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Thank you. PHI WIKI 2022 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz ! On September 13th, I created with another account the page for Miles Greenberg. I thought creating the page only in English was ok. I may created my account in French (since I'm in Montréal, Québec, Canada) by default. Miles is an artist and colleague of mine who wants a Wikipedia page.

Is it possible to retrieve his page ? I'm new to Wikipedia and the work to complete a page with all the notices is pretty long for me. If not, do I need to recreate a new page with this new account in English ? How I can make sure that the page I'm creating is only in English not to have this problem a second time ?

Thank you for your help,


Hello, Pierre-Olivier,
It looks like this article has been restored for you at WP:REFUND. Good luck with it...he looks like an interesting artist. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Liz,
I do not see Miles Greenberg's page... PHI WIKI 2022 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gospel For Asia and such[edit]


While I have retired from article editing, I still keep my hand in talk page stuff at times. And when I retired, the GfA page was one of my major concerns; I'm glad it has good hands looking at it.

If I recall correctly, the SPA editor you are dealing with came into play very shortly after a known-paid editor, User:Mckaylagrace, left editing, and has been doing similarly promotional edits. There is a frequent talking up of GFA projects, often using either direct GFA sources or places that ran their press releases. I see that one of the bits that you excised from KPY's page was sourced to GFA's lawyers, so not a "third party" source we seek. If you have time, check all the sources and see what they're using; I know that there have been at least some problematic insertions since I left editing, but haven't always kept a tight eye to see what might have been undone.

There is a bit of that problem with some of what you have been reinserting. I haven't gone over everything in detail, but there were entire paragraphs sourced to the lawsuit websites. While those sites are reliable for their own statements, being non-third-party sites, they don't give you WP:DUE -- that the statement they're quoting is really of significance. That is actually reasonable to question.

When you're doing likely re-reverts, start a talk page discussion. This will have several advantages; if there's ever accusations of edit warring, you can point out that you tried to discuss matters. It leaves a clearer record of what was going on in some ways than the mere edit summaries do.

Thanks for asking for my input, and good editing to you! --New Jersey-born Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Nat Gertler,
Another New Jerseyite! Well, I greatly appreciate you taking a look at the article. I'll go over it more carefully on the weekend when I have more free time to check out individual sources. I would hate to have restored improperly sourced content but the edits removed looked like such a hatchet job, I was concerned that any content critical of the organization had been taken out. I just did some reading on their recent lawsuits and how they had to pay back donors which does tarnish their image. But I'll remove anything that is inappropriate.
It looks like you have gone 10 rounds in the ring with representatives from some of these religious groups and received your share of threats. I'm sorry that happened. But a Wikipedia article is the public face for many organizations, even more than their own websites, so I can see why they would want to control or at least influence the article content.
I appreciate you taking some time to look this article over. I can take it from here. Enjoy your retirement! Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Singlechart uses for Maltadance[edit]

Like all of the other subcategories in Category:Singlechart usages, it's autogenerated by the use of a template, and I created it because the use of that template had caused it to show up on Special:WantedCategories -- but because it's autogenerated, there was no way to simply remove it from the article, and just leaving it as a permanent speedbump on WantedCategories was a non-starter, so creating it was the only possible option. Since there's absolutely no way to tell when it might come back again, I'm of the opinion that it should be in the "maintenance categories that are kept for maintenance purposes even if it's empty" file, though none of its siblings are tagged with the {{Possibly empty category}} template. All in all, I don't really care one way or the other; I created it because it was showing up as a redlink on the WantedCategories list and had to be cleared somehow, but I don't know nearly enough about Maltese record charts to have the foggiest guess as to whether there's any prospect of it returning in the future. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bearcat,
Thank you for taking the time to explain. What, you don't track Maltese popular music? Yes, it sounds like a case for what I call "the empty cat tag". I was told years ago that "Tracking categories" should never be deleted but I've come across ones that really aren't being used and I don't expect them to be used. I'll tag the page. Thanks again for the explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pageswap request for the redirect pages of ITV +1 and ITV1 +1[edit]

Hey Liz, since ITV the channel in the United Kingdom has changed its name back to ITV1, I thought that you would do a pageswap between the redirect pages of ITV +1 and ITV1 +1 because the timeshift service of ITV1 also changed it’s name back to ITV1 +1. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bassie f,
I'm not familiar with the subject so I don't understand what you are asking me to do with a "pageswap". What page should be moved to what page title? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both redirect pages currently target ITV1#ITV +1, so ITV +1 should be moved to ITV1 +1 and vice versa. Bassie f (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You want a WP:Round-robin page swap. But they are both redirects, so I don't see any benefit in bothering to do that. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (TPS)Reply[reply]
The ITV +1 redirect page used to be called ITV1 +1 until Unreal7 moved it to ITV +1 in 2013. That’s why I’m requesting this WP:Round-robin page swap since ITV +1 has changed back to ITV1 +1 Bassie f (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tristan Sterk (November 19)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Liz! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Man it feels weird seeing this on an admin's page. — Python Drink (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Python Drink,
Oh, I have a lot of declined AFC notices for articles I didn't write. I spend much of the day reviewing expiring drafts and if one looks particular promising or perhaps notable, I submit it for AFC review, especially if the draft creator is long gone and won't be around to do it themselves. So, I'm a draft submitter rather than a draft creator. I have had a few drafts that have been accepted and despite my mediocre success rate, I think it's better to get a few good ones into main space rather than have them slip into the gigantic trash incinerator that is Wikipedia's Deletion log. I leave the declined notifications up for transparency's sake and to remind me in case I get a sudden urge to want to improve a draft. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Deletion clarification[edit]

Hi! I placed a speedy deletion tag on Burale as it (in my opinion) makes no credible claim of significance, and I just noticed that you removed it. Could you help me understand your reasoning; what is the credible claim of significance in that article? I outlined my reasoning for requesting Speedy Deletion here, and I'm unsure where I went wrong. I largely based my argument (and understanding of the matter) on WP:CCOS.

Thanks for your time :) Actualcpscm (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Actualcpscm,
Sorry for the delay in responding. There were a couple of factors that caused me to remove the CSD tag. This was the third time this article had been tagged for speedy deletion recently and the fact that it was untagged meant that other admins or editors didn't think speedy deletion was appropriate for this article. Retagging an article on the same grounds after it has been untagged is often not successful.
Second, I independently thought there was a credible claim of significance for this individual which is a lower bar than notability.
Finally, speedy deletion is a deletion process that is made for uncontroversial, obvious quick deletion decisions that, basically, any admin would agree on. Typically articles that are deleted through speedy deletion just disappear without anyone knowing that they ever existed except for the page creator. They are commonly recently created articles. This article has existed since 2006 and I don't think CSD is a process that should be used for long-standing articles that have stood the test of time. I recommend using WP:PROD or WP:AFD as this gives other editors the chance to look the article over and perhaps restore it to the best version of itself. Or, there might be a consensus that the subject is not notable, has never been notable and should be deleted. If this was the case and I was looking over an expired PROD or an AFD discussion, I would delete the article.
So, bottom line is, it was the fact that the article had been untagged multiple times and the fact that you chose CSD as a deletion process over other forms of deletion that would allow a review. I hope this explains things better. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't remove links to speedily deleted articles[edit]

WP:RED heavily emphasizes this point: Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.

After a deletion discussion with consensus such as those at WP:AFD, the general assumption is that the community has decided there should not be a Wikipedia article on that subject (with rare exceptions such as WP:TNT).

However, with speedy deletion it's usually the exact opposite: the issue is not the subject, but the article itself. Furthermore, it is decided by a single administrator and not the community, so there is certainly no consensus that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. Modernponderer (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah that's a guideline and not a policy. Having seen the massive amounts of shit that is created and then CSD get rid of the red links, not sitting around for the day that the garage band is notable or could be notable. You may not like it but plenty of editors here feel different. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know which removals have annoyed Modernponderer, but let me suggest some examples for what should or shouldn't be removed. If, say, Beechnut Records was created about a small record label, and then speedily deleted as promotional & giving no grounds of notability, them it would be right to completely remove entries about it from list pages such as Beechnut (disambiguation) and List of record labels, because there is no indication that these entries deserve to be there. However, links to the page from articles on bands who used that label should be left alone, because Special:WhatLinksHere/Beechnut_Records might be useful in finding sufficient material to build a worthwhile article, and meanwhile it also provides one way to navigate between slightly-related articles. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (WP:TPS)Reply[reply]
User:Unbroken Chain, you are completely wrong about guidelines. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines both have community consensus, which means if you do not follow a policy or guideline you risk being blocked. You on the other hand have expressed the opinion of a minority of editors, which does NOT have community consensus (and any editor who tries to "force" such an opinion onto Wikipedia may be blocked for that). Modernponderer (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far no one is rushing to agree with you...In fact another great example is cited by Fayenatic. The only one trying to force anything here is you...Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether someone agrees with me here is utterly irrelevant. If you refuse to follow a guideline, you will be blocked. Period. Modernponderer (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Modernponderer, I missed the most important part of your post, my apologies. My interpretation only deals with subjects that are clearly not notable (massive amounts of shit). I have myself created redlinks in articles I was writing and noted I would be expanding shortly. I read that an thought you meant ALL redlinks. The blocking stuff was an over the top reaction IMO. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Liz, I clarified the indecent exposure charge and some other claims to align with what sources state. When you have a moment, I would like to get your thoughts and have no issue with further changes. I also posted a note on the talk page. S0091 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you look at an AfD?[edit]

Hi Liz - could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratik Gauri (2nd nomination)? I reverted its improper closure, but I'm not sure I did it correctly (reverting AfD closures isn't something I do very often...).

To put you in the picture, I have established that all of the following accounts are socks of the same master: the article's author, its original AfD nominator, all of the accounts that !voted in the first time around, and all of the accounts that !voted 'keep' the second time, and the account that improperly closed the second discussion. Two other CUs have looked at the case we agree about the socking; it would be probably be eligible for G5, but since there are three delete votes from established accounts, I'd rather it were closed properly as a bulwark against its inevitable recreation. Girth Summit (blether) 17:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind - Vanamonde closed it, no further action required. Girth Summit (blether) 18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NAC help[edit]

Hello Liz, I made a few NACs of delete AfDs and they require article deletions. Can you help me with the deletion? I am thinking I should not have closed items which require deletion. The two articles are NoirCon and List of prehistoric insects. Thanks much Bruxton (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bruxton,
No, you're right, you shouldn't have closed them. NAC closes with Keep, Speedy Keep, Redirect, Merge and No Consensus are fine but not Deletes. I'll check them out.
Also, for some reason, I see editors doing NAC closures before the 7 day discussion period is over. Please wait those 7 days unless it is an obvious Speedy Keep. Doing an NAC closure and an early closure can result in a call to Deletion review which, believe me, is no fun at all. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that help and information. Bruxton (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreview of Film World[edit]

Hello, Liz. I've marked this as unreviewed and added a CSD that might not work. Previously deleted by Whpq under G12; this seems poorly sourced, promotional, and might have copyvios, though you've marked this as reviewed. Was that automatic or did you find more sources demonstrating notability? If so, if you could point these out that would be great. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: See User talk:Seffi ditch#November 2022. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, VickKiang,
I was just looking this article over after seeing your original message. In my edit, I was responding to a different editor's CSD tag and removed it because I didn't think it fit the CSD criteria> Then you tagged it with a CSD with different criteria and User:Justlettersandnumbers was looking into whether or not there was copyrighted content on the article and then they turned the page into a redirect.
When I originally untagged this article, I was just comparing it to the version it was supposed to be a copy of, I wasn't assessing the details of the sourcing. I patrol the CSD categories and my focus is on whether or not the CSD criteria is valid. I didn't intend to mark the article as "reviewed" because I didn't examine it the way NPP are taught to do. I guess it is automatically marked as "reviewed" if an experienced editor (maybe extended confirmed?) edits the page. I'm not sure how to bypass that technological aspect because I never went through NPP training and I'm sure you guys probably have a list of aspects of the article you are checking over. VickKiang, I know you are an extremely thorough editor and it's amazing how completely you have absorbed so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your time editing on the project.
I will look over the discussion at Seffi ditch's talk page later, as I've had questions about some of their edits. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response. Might be because you are autopatrolled? Sometimes autopatrolled editors accept AfC drafts and these are automatically marked as reviewed. VickKiang (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Liz. Just explaining my rationale for the move of the above article to Martin Smith (Delirious?). A brief look at Martin Smith shows two people that are English musicians with that name – therefore an article titled "Martin Smith (English musician)" is still ambiguous. One of these two people is Martin Smith (drummer), which we disambiguate with their main instrument. The Martin Smith currently at Martin Smith (English musician) doesn't appear to have a primary instrument, so we can use their primary band to disambiguate – there is precedent at this; see Alan White. Smith's primary band is Delirious?, so it is a valid page title and should include the question mark. Would be great to hear your thoughts. Thanks! MIDI (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, MIDI,
I'll admit that I moved this article back before I thoroughly read the page and so I thought the (Delirious?) was a mistake on your part. I was in a bit of a rush and I can see now why you moved it to this title. However, I still think there should be a better title as if it confused me, it might confuse readers who probably wouldn't search for Martin Smith (Delirious?) for one of our Martin Smiths. I don't recall seeing many disambiguations that include a band's name in the page title, it is usually their occupation or birth year.
How about Martin Smith (guitarist) or Martin Smith (vocalist)? What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going on the blurbs on the Martin Smith disambiguation page, I think "(vocalist)" could possibly apply to either Martin Smith (entertainer) or Martin Smith (English musician), so perhaps "(guitarist)" would be best? Or perhaps "(songwriter)"? MIDI (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Liz. I am requesting a Userification of Technological change in Maryland so I can edit it as a draft as you offered. Thank you. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Invasive Spices,
 Done Looks like you got another admin to restore it so I just untagged the page and moved it to User:Invasive Spices/Technological change in Maryland. Good luck with the article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem familiar[edit]

Hi Liz, Are you familiar with Chatvod by any chance? -IP person (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I have no idea what or who this is but I look at hundreds of pages a day and so I need a reminder or two. Is it another editor? Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was sonic fast. lol. Anyway, chatvod is a website, which ive mainly seen it used to be inserted into unblocked games websites as a chat room. the point is, There was an administrator on one of these customized chat rooms that had your name, and acted eerily similar to you. freaky. (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And thanks for responding. I kinda stopped asking questions for a while because the person would just remove it from their talk page. even if my question is relevant (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's me, I either respond immediately or it takes me a few days. In Western countries, Liz or Elizabeth is a fairly common name so I'm not surprised if someone else had it as a username. But it's not me! I hope the similarity is that they were a decent person...I don't remove messages from my talk page unless it is a personal attack. You can look over my talk page and archives and find plenty of complaints about me (but also barnstars!). It's about transparency. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks again. goodnight. (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Qwerfjkl's talk page.
Message added 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

DRV / Patrick Wilson[edit]

Hi Liz,

I wanted to respond to your comment on the DRV without derailing that discussion by doing it there!

First, I think the work you do in deletion is very valuable, and generally beyond reproach. I hope that the DRV experience doesn't entirely put you off closing potentially-controversial deletion discussions. I suppose more than anything (except maybe RFA) DRV feels like personal criticism but as a DRV contributor I certainly don't intend it that way; it's about the process, not the people. I do think we could do a better job of remembering that closing admins are actually real people too and need to be treated with respect and and assumption of good faith (... and maybe even ... kindness?)

Thparkth (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Thparkth,
That is very kind of you to say. To be honest, I've had worse experiences at other Deletion reviews I've been a part of where the discussion wasn't about the deletion decision it became about me. Some of the time, it becomes open season on an admin. There's just an editor here that comes to every review on a deletion decision I've made to imply I'm incompetent and it gets tiresome. Like a bad penny, they always show up. And to that particular editor who is reading this now, please move on, okay? Life is too short to have grudges on a collaborative editing project. And please tear up that list you are keeping with every mistake I've ever made on it. We're on the same side here.
The interesting thing, Thparkth, is that I've made other close calls at AFD where I thought either the nominator or an editor advocating Keep would bring the decision to be reviewed and it didn't turn out that way. But decisions that I think are pretty uncontroversial get referred to DRV. So, you never know. It's just strange, I've been an admin for 7 years and I never had a case come to deletion review in all of that time until 2022. But this year, I think I've been brought there 5 or 6 times. I don't think I've changed since 2015, if anything I'm a better admin than I was. But you live and learn and try not to make the same mistake a second time, that's my takeaway. Thanks again for your kindness. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secondarily related to the Gospel for Asia situation[edit]

The paid editor who used to be handling Gospel for Asia continues editing on either client accounts... such as today's addition of an Amazon sales link to an article (as well as claims of Amazon #1 category best-seller status -- if you don't know Amazon has many thousands of microcategories and updates sales charts hourly, so even if it were documented, categorical #1 is not notable, and can often be rigged with the purchase of a handful of books in the same hour.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Nat,
I reverted that edit and left them a warning. Thanks for keeping an eye out for this kind of covert advertising. At least they do have a COI statement on their User page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! (Sorry if it seems odd to just shuttle something like that off to you, but I'm trying to maintain this retirement. I suspect you know how much of life Wikipedia editing can take up.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, Nat. I've taken two WikiBreaks, first 6 months off in my first year and then two years off while I battled cancer, moved cross-country and did some coursework. My attitude to editors who retire is that we miss your expertise and please participate if you choose to, in what way you choose to. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didint know how to word it so my point was clear. Pretty much I wanted the islands in the vintage article to be deleted for the reasons i stated in the AFD. I didnt mean the sections I meant the articles that linked to those sections like La Vingtaine des Marais under Grouville in the Vingtaine page. Thats what I meant. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 00:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Madsol3772[edit]

31 hours for trolling in support of abuse of addictive and dangerous and illegal drugs? That seems exceptionally lenient to me. Cullen328 (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Cullen328,
Well, I guess there remains in me the hope that editors who do vandalism in their first hour of being an editor can be turned around when they see we mean business. I doubt they will even return in 31 hours. But if it continues, the second block will be indefinite. They've been warned.
You have full right to mock me if my leniency is unrewarded. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not mock my colleagues, Liz. I just felt that sterner measures were justified, but you beat me to the block button by a few seconds. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am kind of a reluctant blocker of editors unless they are obvious vandals or sockpuppets. We have a constant need for new editors and I KNOW that some of our current editors were originally disruptive editors so I hope the shock of a short block will make them realize this isn't a place to screw around. But I'm wrong more often than right. There are plenty of admins who are quick on the block button so I just try to balance them out. And I stay away from unblock requests because I'm likely to grant them and then realize later that some folks don't take advantage of a second or third chances. I do less harm in letting those admins who are better judges of character and protestations of reform than I am handle them. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please restore the deleted material under the redirect. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jclemens,
This might take a few minutes. There are almost 800 edits to this page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your awesomely fast response. Alternatively, please just restore the PRODded article. I was trying to figure out why I couldn't find an AfD... and so just reviewed the logs. I'm not impressed that the article was PRODded in the first place; thank you for the courtesy of creating a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you are lucky! I either respond immediately to talk page requests or not...there are still some people waiting for help from the weekend that I haven't gotten to yet. It is easiest to just restore all of the edits than selectively go through and pick out just the edits you want restored so I did them all. Good luck with it. That reminds me, I need to relist some links that were unlinked after the PROD deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally, someone sees those and de-prods them before they get to the expiration phase. Unfortunately, the fictional character wasn't entitled "Sally Carrera (Cars)" so it was not obvious that this was a fictional element that had appeared in multiple media over 15 years or so. Again, thank you for your superlative responsiveness. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent Afd outcome[edit]

Hi - I just noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ (2nd nomination) as delete. Apparently no one could find any sources for the topic. I just did a quick search for the website on ProQuest though, and found several examples of major news outlets discussing the website. I'm not sure if those examples would necessarily meet the criteria of providing significant coverage, as most of them seem to simply be news articles quoting or citing something from But there is this article from the Chicago Sun-Times, which describes that the website was featured on a travel show at one point.

I don't actually know a lot about this topic and wouldn't have any intention of working on the article if it were restored. But I did feel it was worth noting that at least some news coverage of the topic does exist and seems to have been overlooked during the AfD process. Jpcase (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you give me my source code back?[edit]

Hello liz, you recently deleted one of my drafts for being a hoax. I was writting a page about the micronation of pantonia. If its okay, I would like a few things. Fistly, would it be okay if you could give me a detailed description of the reason my draft was deleted? Secondly, I dont see how my micronation was a hoax, as it is very much the real deal, or maybe you dont know what a micronation is? But you seem like a very experienced wikipedia editor so you probably do know what it is. I clearly states on multiple parts of the website that Pantonia was a Micronation, also, a draft is a draft and if there was anything there that made you think it was a hoax like the references or some of the descriptions of Pantonian regions. I actually just copied my old page from Microwiki and gave it a masive revamp, so there might still be some weird stuff on there. I published the draft because I wanted to save my work, and it was also 3 AM for me and i needed some sleep. And thirdly, I did forget to save my work locally, and I personally think I put in quite a lot of work and especially into the info box. If you decided that you wont recover my draft, it would be very nice if you could send me the sorce code so i can have everything I wrote. Im sorry for bothering you, and I hope i havent sounded too mean in my message, and I hope you have a good day and that I could also get my source code back and maybe even get my draft brought back, Thanks alot! Alejandrochezboi (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Alejandrochezboi (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rev del needed?[edit]

I'm not sure if this needs a rev/del? [1] Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Knitsey,
 Done Thanks for catching that so fast. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Knitsey (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rev/del again?[edit]

[2] And [3] I wasn't sure but I'm assuming this might need rev/del? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of John Atoms[edit]

What did you make of the rationale I posted at Talk:John Atoms? pbp 23:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Purplebackpack89,
I didn't know you created this redirect. I didn't recognize the username and thought it was someone playing a prank or trying to make a bad pun. I'll restore the page but I think it might be taken to RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of Michael Sugrue page[edit]

Why did you delete the Michael Sugrue Page? (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have learnt a lot about the way you wikipedia editors operate after looking into this. One professor arguing for the deletion of another professor's page. The underbelly of this site is very strange indeed. (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I can't request Wiktionary redirects on WP:AFC/R without an automatic declining. Can you recreate the page "Septopus" for me. 2601:584:101:80B0:9823:18EE:B9B6:DFAF (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Endingsesame. They've been using the /64 range to evade their block for ages.-- Ponyobons mots 23:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close AFD[edit]

Just wondering if you could close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Danny (2021) because the consensus is clearly keep. Thanks!

Hurricane Chandler (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again - I need a favor[edit]

So my main IP range that I use Wikipedia on is, which is blocked due to a long history of vandalism. Can you revoke talk page access for the whole range? One of those IP's is going to make an extremely disruptive and sexual unblock request at some point tomorrow. Im pretty sure they will use multiple IPs on that range too. I dont want you and other admins to waste your time dealing with that. In case its suspicious that I know this, the person planning this literally just told me on discord an hour ago. I've tried convincing them to stop but they think its "funny". Im tired of the nonsense. Anyway... yeah. Get back to me if you can, cya. (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind. Looks like they changed their mind, since its 15 minutes to midnight. (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for moving User:Wakelamp:WP communication issues. I stuffed up again when moving this page from mainspace to userspace, thank you for fixing it. VickKiang (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, VickKiang,
No problem. I actually deleted it before I understood what the page was. I had deleted a few other "nonexistent user pages" tonight and that's where my mind went when I saw it. Now, it's 1:30 am so I should head to bed. G'night. Liz Read! Talk! 09:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting revdel[edit]

[4] per WP:RD2. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dr.Pinsky,
 Done Thanks for catching that. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Liz. Hope you are doing well. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close AFD[edit]

Can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Colin (2022)? The consensus is keep (I counted 8 keeps, 5 merges, and one neutral) Lilac Trench (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Lilac Trench,
AFDs are not a matter of counting votes. A closer has to weigh all of the arguments each editor makes and when I looked at that AFD today, I didn't have the time to consider all of the opinions put forth. I was leaving the closure to someone who might have more time or knowledge about weather-related subjects. But I'll look at it again tonight. Opinion was so divided in this discussion that it might be relisted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png For fixing my mistakes this morning. Again, sorry for adding to you workload. Wasn’t my intention and thanks for your patience. FuzzyMagma (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for Belgians in France[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Belgians in France. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – The Grid (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz, thank you for deleting this page, which was as a result of User:Larona Ignisious Seditse's move of WaddlesJP13's user page. I was going to notify the user when I get back to editing, but you've already done it, so thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Liz - thank you for your help. Please check your mail[edit]

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

Hpm h (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Liz, I've answered your email.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hpm h (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Liz. I wonder if you had the time to check my email? Hpm h (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Liz

I wonder if you had the time to check your email?

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

All the best Hpm h (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nedim Ardoga[edit]

Is it required to post a notice of a speedy deletion on a user's talk page even if the editor in question is deceased? Just curious. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kansas Bear,
The quick answer is "No". But how would you know that the editor is deceased? Using Twinkle, I just always post a user talk page notice every time I tag or delete a page, I don't check the status of an editor and whether or not they are alive or blocked. It's simpler than evaluating each page on a case-by-case basis.
But if you didn't post a user talk page notice given the fact that an editor is no longer living or is indefinitely blocked, well, I think you're okay. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. OK. I was just curious. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for Savings Account (2022 film)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Savings Account (2022 film). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. VickKiang (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. After you closed this, DareshMohan started a deletion review. As per DRV step 3, Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page is required so I'm leaving this notice just in case. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022[edit]

I noticed you weighed in on a user talk page about some of their edits and wanted your input on this newly-created article. I *think* they should have put in attribution on the new page as the content was from the Alexander Hamilton article (though they did - sort of - mention the attribution here -> Wanted to get some input on the situation because of massive reverts on all their List of memorials... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Shearonink,
The editor did mention the Alexander Hamilton article when they created the new article but I did an edit to it where I made the attribution clearer. As for their many edits to the Hamilton article, it looks as if they are being reviewed by another editor and some of them have been reverted. I'll review their contribution history a bit later. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you - I saw their attribution but it seemed to me that perhaps it could have been a mite clearer plus was concerned that the edit summary would disappear into the mists of time/the parent article's edit history. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, with these issues, it's better to be explicit. Thank you for noticing this and alerting me. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Can you please undelete Category:1969 disestablishments in the Philippines? First term of the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos has been recently categorized under it. Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sanglahi86,
 Done That's an easy fix to do. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bare URLs at Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)?[edit]

Hi Liz. I recently removed a {{Cleanup bare URLs}} tag from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) as I did not see any bare URLs and I had recently been working on filling out some of the existing refs more fully (although I don't think any of them were originally bare to begin with when I started working on them). I noticed that you restored the tag here: Special:Diff/1124524759. I reviewed the article again, but still don't see any bare URLs remaining. Can you help by pointing out where any bare URLs are in that article so that I can try to fill them out? Thanks. – Archer1234 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Archer1234,
Well, that was my mistake then. I found an editor, Crompton editz, who created some hoax articles and I was reverting some of their edits. I thought this was one of their edits. So, please, just revert me. Sorry about that. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the prompt reply. – Archer1234 (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I M Palapos[edit]

Well, I guess it is very simple to just remove something... but, for someone that tries to copy someone else and get it in the same format it is not that simple. Specially when you work with a page, you edit it and before you are even done it gets refused. Well, maybe because Ira Myy Palapos dont have a fancy exam.. maybe because she now only have her second research published... and maybe only because she is a girl... I hope that it was because we didnt know how to use the Wikipedia editor - maybe in the future there will be an easier tool/GUI to work with... who knows.. IMC CMC (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Thanks for killing my typo :)

Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for deleting my redundant modules too 😊 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corrections above the Relist line[edit]

Reading back, I am surprised by the strength of my assertations that, from aerials, there was evidence of a railroad between Ash Fork and Cucamonga Junction. The historical society corrected me several days ago, even as they confirmed the existence of the settlement, and I wish to strike through my origial interpretations.

I would also appreciate instruction on the policies for citing interviews of witnesses to the community. I will try to get them to direct me to print sources. IveGoneAway (talk) IveGoneAway (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 'Category:Andrés Bello National University scholars'[edit]

Please, delete it soon.

Greetings, Carigval.97 (talk), 29 November 2022.

I got it done. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, UtherSRG. Once again, I was asleep. Thanks for being a talk page stalker. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invision Community[edit]

Liz.. thanks for your patience and for moving the Invision Community discussion forward. I answered your question in a "wishy washy" way - What does it cost Wikipedia to have an article someone else thinks is important? I would suggest doing what you think is correct. PS you got a goat; all I have is cookies! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1. This discussion is no doubt going to be a close one to call. My own views are constantly evolving as arguments are brought forth. However you decide to close this, I know it’ll be the right thing. :) ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 03:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's flattering, Flibbertigibbets and HelenDegenerate. But I've been called to Wikipedia:Deletion review several times this year and it almost always about having a personal opinion about a close. Considering that I delete a lot of articles I think could be kept, I don't see myself as Supervoting but that's how some editors have seen it. What I've learned is that it's all about how I word a closure rationale which I think is why so many closers just rely on simple "Keep" and "Delete" statements.
But I appreciate your vote of confidence. Thank you both for your contributions to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liz, I might change to keep.. just to make your job harder.. (per the "rules" the votes up or down are just to provide you with context and argument, to give the articles an opportunity to improve, they are looking for a thinking person to organize information and make a decision)
As a new editor I came to the conclusion (for me personally) that it was just too easy to vote up or down on something.
The right thing for me to do personally is to seek to improve the article no matter the vote of keep or delete. In my talk page I bucked the rules with a (soap-boxy) observation that "playing emperor" comes with a responsibility to actually do something tangible.
AS to changing opinion based on the presentation facts (or other opinions); it's usually a sign of critical thinking or thinkers..
I ran into Isaac Asimov as a young adult in 1983; when I asked him for advice for dealing with the future he suggested (paraphrase) "don't let technology make you into a Robot." So yeah.. thinking people should have personal opinions and revise them as needed. A personal hero Buckminster Fuller, who I never met, suggested in his writings that "truth or fact" could only be ascertained in a narrow band of science (provable fact being a rare thing). Another Asimov quote, it might be heretical, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I really liked this User:Beyond My Ken/Thoughts because it demonstrated to me that someone was really thinking; there has to be more thinking and fewer robots!
Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alley of Angels[edit]

Please return the English page about the Alley of Angels in Donetsk, because it is an important memorial for the Russian and the Ukrainian people. We deeply regret the innocent children who suffered 8 years from the Ukrainian Government and we believe the page should be returned. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olesya12345 (talkcontribs) 12:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete this wikipedia page? Can you please restore it? Sfree014 (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sfree014: This was deleted as a result of this discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, UtherSRG,
I'm giving you 20% of my admin salary for answering questions on my talk page that get posted in the middle of the night while I'm sleeping! Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(and if it's not obvious, that's a joke. i need all my pay ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Dammit.... UtherSRG (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wheee! I'm rich! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What can be discussed? Is there such a monument in Donetsk? Yes. This is a monument to the children who died as a result of the civil war. Why was this page removed? What's the difference, Russian sources or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekurin (talkcontribs) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Campaigns Product Team Office Hour - December 2022[edit]

Hello Campaigns Product Newsletter subscribers!

The Wikimedia Foundation Campaigns Team invites you to join our upcoming office hours. In each session, we will introduce V1 of Event Registration Tool, so you can begin using it for real events on Meta-wiki.

In V1, the following new features will be includedː

  • Support for the organizer to specify an event timezone
  • Automatic confirmation emails after participants have registered
  • Private registration: the option for participants to register and only display their registered username to organizers of the event and we will teach you how you can use it yourself.

Office Hour Sessions:

  • 1st Session: December 5, 2022 @ 18:00 UTC via Zoom
  • 2nd Session: December 10, 2022 @ 12:00 UTC via Zoom
Join us and share your thoughts on these developments!

These office hours will be multilingual, with live interpretations in Arabic, English, French, and Swahili. Email us @ or sign-up here if you want to receive a reminder for this meeting.

Thank you.

The Campaigns Product Team

Requesting restoration of article to draft for moving to AfC[edit]

Hello Liz,

I noticed that you were one of the two admins who deleted the page Chanale. I would like to continue editing the article in order to improve it for eventual re-review through AfC. I have the last article code copied from before the deletion, but do not wish for its history, including its original creator and editors to be lost. As such, I was wondering if there is a way to return the article to draft space, so it can receive further updates, and maintain its history. Is this possible?

Thank you kindly, GreenEli (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, GreenEli,
I have restored this article and moved it to Draft space. You can find it at Draft:Chanale. I know it can be tiresome to go through AFC but if you move it directly back into main space without an AFC review, the page will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4, and it is unlikely to be restored a second time. So, please take some time, review comments made during the AFD discusion and try to address the editors' concerns. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Liz,
I'll work my way through the process as best I can. I'm not looking to get around things. When I moved it into the main space, I thought that it was ready to go once I'd made the edits I had after picking it up. It just turns out that was not the case in the eyes of the editors/admins who nominated it for deletion, and they did not agree with my points of defense. I'll do my best to improve the article before moving it to AfC.
Thanks again, and Happy Holidays, GreenEli (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the clean up. Thought I'd found all the redirects. Have a great day Star Mississippi 21:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,
No problem, the pages just showed up on the Broken Redirects list maintained by AnomieBot III. "
But a lottery website? It's hard to see how there can be an article about that subject that isn't advertising. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, it has virtually no chance at mainspace based on sourcing I didn't find. For the moment it's protected to stop the repeated moves and allow for proper AfC assessment. Star Mississippi 23:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, Star Mississippi, if you are feeling particularly wise and judicious, there is a complicated and fraught WWII-related AFD to close on today's list. And one about Shakira that is less fraught but I commented on the discussion so I am abstaining for the closure.
As for myself, I'm getting tired of going to Deletion review on a monthly basis so I'm tackling the low-hanging fruit. I guess I need more time helping out at AFD for my closures to carry more gravitas and weight. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got a lot of the low hanging fruit in terms of redirects this morning, so it was time to pay the piper with the Canadian Nazi monument discussion. I must be tired - I found that easier to assess than Shakira. Star Mississippi 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, good for you! Thank you and may your talk page be free from blowback. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm almost positive that one will go to DRV, hence my closing disclaimer. NOt because of how I closed it, but I think any close was headed there. Star Mississippi 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree! I know it will go to DRV and I've already been there once this month, I'm trying to limit my appearances there as some folks use it as an opportunity to unload on you. Hence, my reluctance at diving into controversial AFD discussions. I also stayed away from AFDs regarding football players for a few months before that world quieted down and became less of a battlefield. I'm ever grateful for the few admins who don't close a lot of discussions but who take the few ones that are most heated and divided. And when I read their decisions, they make things seem so clear. I've been doing this for 7 years but I still have much to learn. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a sports fan, but I HATE the sports AfDs for several reasons: consensus is clear as mud on athlete notability, way too much "Keep/Delete per X" without any reasoning and everyone is burned out so there's too often not enough input to establish consensus. I think I'm at DRV twice right now, just took myself (err, the discussion) to AN to get it closed since it was open since mid October. ANI, DRV simultaneously is definitely something I don't want to revisit. But we survive the crazy and are somehow still here. I'll take care of Shakira tomorrow if no one gets there first. Star Mississippi 04:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022[edit]

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


CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there[edit]

To start off with, no chance I'm closing that DRV.

I read your comments, and I so understand the feeling.

Looking around and seeing so many "closers" who only close the obvious, or just count "votes", can be disenheartening, to be sure.

And kudos to you for stepping up and closing the challenging ones.

I've also been caught in the sometimes catch-22 of "try to add more to the close to explain your close". There are days that I wonder even if a certified (certifiable?) lawyer could come up with the right text to say - "This close is a result of the discussion and per policy/guideline/common practice assessment, per Wikipedia:Consensus, and here's what everyone said..." Or sumptin'

So with all that said, please don't stop doing the good work you do.

And not that it means overly that much (merely being from a single Wikipedian - me) but here, a token of esteem:

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all the hard work and seemingly thankless tasks you have done and continue to do - Thank you : ) - jc37 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.

I hope that you're having an awesome day : ) - jc37 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So apparently they added this barnstar option last year. I think it's fair to say that you've more than earned this over the years : )

The Closer's Barnstar.png The Closer's Barnstar
For the hard work you do in closing discussions, including and especially the tough ones - Thank you : ) - jc37 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again : ) - jc37 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, thank you, jc37. I appreciate it. But I actually just moved into closing AFD discussions in January 2022 when it seemed like the area could use a few more admins helping out there. But it's now part of my daily routine. My goal in 2023 is to have fewer appearances at DRV but, in some cases, even when the opinions are unanimous, someone can object to a discussion close. So, I can work on doing a better job and leave more articulate closing statements but there are some divided closures that you know will be contested, regardless of how it is closed. It's important not to take criticism personally, even when it gets personal. We are all a work-in-progress. As is Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userspace pages of non-existent users[edit]

Hi there, I've seen you using my query. Thanks! I'd just like to let you know I have a slightly updated version at quarry:query/68613 that excludes those weird IPs with the xxx at the end, if you'd be interested in forking and using this one instead.

I'd also like to plug the bigger version at quarry:query/68085 that includes subpages and talk pages. I've noticed often times users will also mistakenly create or move pages to subpages or talk pages of non-existent users and these pages won't be caught by the above query. If you ever have the urge or find yourself with nothing better to do, it would be awesome if we could eventually churn through the current ~1400 results so we can better keep track of this issue. If not, no big deal!

Thanks! Uhai (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Uhai,
I guess it would have been nice to alert you to me using it. I've forked queries from other folks and used them but this one was new to me. I don't mean to step on your toes or take your work for granted. I typically run it twice a day and most days, it just comes back with those two weird User accounts that are a false positive.
I'd love to help you out with your project when time allows. User space can be a little tricky to handle with deletions but as long as they are nonexistent user accounts, they are not User pages that exist as a result of renames and we look at them each individually, I think we'll be okay. Thanks again for creating this query. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem at all, just happy it's being used. It's probably a good thing you're using it and keeping on top of the pages and it keeps me from having to move the pages and nominate the redirects for deletion for some other admin to have to take care of. Uhai (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Uhai,
What I'm finding is that it is frequently student editors who are taking a Wikipedia-related course, who want to move their drafts to main space, but they don't realize that they need to change the namespace when they move a page, from User to None/Article. So, I move them to Draft space and delete the page as a nonexistent editor. But sometimes, some admins will just delete the pages instead of moving the drafts so I try to get to them first. Even if these drafts are eventually deleted in 6 months, I think it would be a shock to a student to just find their work gone...better to house it in Draft space if it is not main space-ready. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deletion of clozee[edit]

Hi curious why you deleted Clozee page Stub was creating in english after seeing clozee in french using independent sources. Artedm (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Artedm,
I deleted Clozee because it was a redirect to Draft:Clozee. We delete redirects from main space to Draft space (CSD R2). If you look at the page, you can see this reason noted in the deletion rationale.
But I can see that you created the draft article so you are already familiar with the page and are working on it. I encourage you to submit it to WP:AFC for review. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback but the same user who denied WP:AFC was the one who created the redirect Artedm (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, hopefully, you'll get a different reviewer the second time. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of US Political Party Colors[edit]


I see a while back you deleted United States political party color templates. I am curious as to why, because this was very useful in making parliamentry diagrams, and the Simple Wikipedia one isn't nearly as good.

Thank you! Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bbraxtonlee,
If you click on the link you provided, you can see that all I did was delete the category that contained the templates because it was an empty category, CSD C1. You'll probably have to go look at WP:TFD to find out why these templates were nominated for deletion, why they were deleted and who deleted them. But in my experience, templates are not deleted due to speedy deletion, unless it is a template creator requesting deletion, they are always deleted after being nominated at TFD. There is a small group of editors who frequent TFD so if you can't find the specific deletion discussion, I'd approach one of the regulars and see if they can locate the discussion for you. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Liz! I found out why!
Have a good day/night!
Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revision deletions[edit]

Hi Liz, did you receive my message of last Wednesday in which I asked you to delete two revisions? If you think I should ask someone else, please let me know. Markussep Talk 09:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to add the

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

template. Markussep Talk 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please undelete User:Apocalyptic Revelation/sandbox[edit]

This was my first ever article, so i am still learning as i go. May you please undelete my article so i may continue to work on fixing it and continue to learn and use the same topic. The topic for the article is very important to me. Thank you. Apocalyptic Revelation (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Apocalyptic Revelation: Your sandbox was deleted under WP:CSD#U5 and WP:CSD#G11. I don't believe any admin will restore this. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UtherSRG Thank you for telling me, though i do not understand how it may come across as a type of advertisement, when i am simply giving information about it. In that regard, any article discussing any type of religion would be considered advertisement. Also i do understand the need for better citing and reliable resources, but to completely delete my article without even giving me a chance to fix or even redo it (as this was my first time) is a bit excessive. Apocalyptic Revelation (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User notice: Barnstar[edit]

The Closer's Barnstar.png The Closer's Barnstar
You are hereby awarded The Closer's Barnstar for excellent work closing AFDs. You may within fourteen (14) days of issuance choose to exchange this for a Barnstar of Reliable Deletionism instead, if that suits you better. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
You are an amazing admin! Elijah Wilder (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you restore this category?[edit]

Category:Wikipedia featured topics Square Enix Montreal good content was being used as the |ftname= on Square Enix Montreal and other articles. The article was temporarily moved and the ftname incorrectly changed to redlink, resulting in the category being emptied and subsequently deleted. The article has since been moved back to its former name. Could you restore the category so it can regain its intended use? Thanks! IceWelder [] 22:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, IceWelder,
 Done That is an easy, uncontroversial page restoration to make. I also restored it's parent category, Category:Wikipedia featured topics Square Enix Montreal. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! Thank you! IceWelder [] 22:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikiproject australian transport[edit]

Just a FYI for the train wreck at the stalled project. The idea of the project has been suggested for some time. However, low level energy and general pessimism about raising enough supporters had been a point of contention in the past, so when the Victorian Transport project idea was put up, it was done with no consultation in the community and simply side step/avoid the project council process, another editor came in and changed it to the australian variety. However it seems there are some short fuses involved in the being shown the process, and it remains strictly speaking, in suspension. It is highly likely that given a space of time (ie there is no deadline) and the appropriate hoops required by a few editors to put it through the required steps, it could fill a very specific need in the australian transport subject area. If what remains in suspension gets zapped, so be it, but a bit of understanding and patience, there is every chance that the project could be up and running. Noting that subsidiary projects in the larger australian project that have been created in the last 5 years or so have no sign of having been processed in the project council procedures. It would be good if there was some patience with this one if it is put through the procedure without too many limited understanding judgement claims about the scope and capacity of the project to garner support and cooperation. JarrahTree 06:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JarrahTree,
I understand what you are saying but I'd appreciate it if you could help me understand why you are directing this message to me. My only involvement as been tagging empty categories for CSD C1 deletion. I do that with all empty categories that don't meet one of the very limited group of exceptions (categories being discussed at CFD, disambiguation categories, redirect categories, etc.).
I did post a talk page message to one of the two organizers asking him what was up with the project but that was a few days ago, when the entire project looked like it was imploding. I don't think I was too blunt, I was just seeking information. So, please tell me what I can be more patient about since I haven't thought about this WikiProject for several days now. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another WikiProject started very quickly with the best of intention that soon quiets down once organizers realize how much work is involved. I don't expect to make any more comments about it in the future. I keep very busy on Wikipedia and I moved on for thinking about this WikiProject days ago. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and apologies. Please ignore, and if it goes anywhere from where it is I am sure the machinations and resolutions of the 'in suspension' aspect of the potential project will not bother you again.
I had felt the need to explain just in case there was further 'delete everything' message to you, from anyone who might try to hijack the rebuilding. (My perception entirely)
Hopefully there will be a due process rebuild of the immanent project and it wont require any speedy deletes of any sort. Keep up the good work! JarrahTree 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specialty channel[edit]

I would like to say that Specialty Channel is an Essay I totally agree with @Oaktree b Also if there are two articles with original research that cross reference; redirection to one article would perhaps be an intermediary step forward--- (I cannot participate in that particular AFD) as there is a potential behavioral problem in play. Nate, an editor since 2005, sees the same concern. addressed the concern in total Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Flibbertigibbets,
As long as a message hasn't been responded to, you can just remove it, you don't need to strike it. I hadn't seen it until now and it looks like you had second thoughts about posting it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was great to find that a misunderstanding could be addressed with another editor (and a credit to the other editor as well). I looked at ANI and came to the conclusion that it just was not productive and could cause headaches and ulcers. On another note; I am giving quite a bit of thought to AFD guidelines as written vs what is applied. I am beginning to think that 1) the "bias" in approaching any AFD discussion should be "to keep" (since the opening move on AFD requires the person nominating to provide a rationale for deleting). 2) a keep requires that the rational for deletion be addressed 3) many folks throw stuff around from links to WP:acronyms with little consideration for things like "future attribution," overview, improving the article et all 4) I wish there was a "home" for stuff that gets deleted (put a big red warning and disclaimer on it) 5) Me personally, I would want you (and other admins) to be able to weigh the arguments made on the merits (with far less emphasis or concern on keep/delete). Regards (just musing, thinking is underrated) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block question and other questions?[edit]


I think, of anybody, you know the most about of my activities this last few weeks.

  • I opened my computer this morning to see a notice from WP that went something like "your IP address has been blocked" until July 2023. I probably I was not logged on to WP at the time. In the process of trying to figure out what happened, I lost the original block message page, and I don't seem to be able to re-trigger that block message. I could hope that the first link with such a message would be directly to the reasons for the specific block, but I could not find any. Now, I don't know where to look. Is there anything I should do about this now? What should my concerns be?
  • I was wanting to start continuing work on the Cucamonga Junction Draft. Some of the hatnotes of the draft's talk page point to other pages or topics, and it seems some of them should be changed (like references to Chair Crossing, Arizona). I am afraid to touch them. Should I wait for members of the projects to notice and fix?
  • I want certain notes, observations, and conclusions of the research to be public to other editors, but as I started to add such notes to Draft talk:Cucamonga Junction, Arizona I now have misgivings. My thought now is that that the draft's talk page is presently a continuation of Talk:Cucamonga Junction, Arizona, and would similarly be a continuation of discussions of the draft should the draft be returned to the main space. I think I should treat is as any other talk page, right?

Thank you very much for your time.

IveGoneAway (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC) IveGoneAway (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, IveGoneAway,
There are a lot of different questions here. I'll just try to address the block notice right now. I don't do a lot of blocking except for vandalism and am not familiar with that notice but it could be that there is a range block right now that affects the IP you edit from. This would mean that you can't edit when you are logged out but it wouldn't affect your editing as long as you are logged in. Although I can try to help with this concern, it is usually better to go to the Teahouse with a question like this because many more admins will see it and they might have more understanding of the situation than an individual admin like myself has.
Regarding your editing articles, are you uncertain about working on the articles because of this block notice?
I'm not sure what your "notes, observations and conclusions" are but all references should be from publicly available sources. They are used to verify claims in an article or draft. For example, you can't post the contents of a letter or email you received to an article page or talk page. This is private correspondence and is considered a private, primary source. Articles need independent, secondary sources like journals, books, magazines, mainstream media/news websites, not your private research you might have done. Please see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for more information on this. Doing your own research is great as a way for you to learn more information about a subject but unless it is digging up more acceptable sources that can be used in an article, it is usually not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you have questions about whether or not a particular source is okay, then the Reliable Source Noticeboard is the place to go with this question.
I'm sure I haven't answered all of your questions yet but here are just some initial comments to your post. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.
As I have mentioned, the volumes I previously posted on the topic were not my normal practice on the wiki (I usually work 2-4 years in wiki silence on a new page). Rather, due to the re-listing, I was trying to show that I was actively seeking citations. Within the time constraints of draftication, I think there is less pressure for that. Generally, there would have been no other reason to list the contacts I was making or listing the technically non-WP:RS but nevertheless good faith profiles of the community.
That is what I meant by "notes, observations and conclusions" and I hoped that you had read some of them (User:IveGoneAway/sandbox/Cucamonga Junction, Arizona).
Probably, there are only a couple of topics I am thinking of posting, and both are actually in response to posts of the other editors.
  1. From the delete discussion, two (well-informed) books bear the name of the community, and I have completed reading both. Never would I suggest citing them, but their clear existance should be addressed at least in Talk, stating with accurate observation rather than speculation why they are not RS. Eventually, I will be looking to see how minor historical novels inspired by a topic have been mentioned on WP, it at all, maybe under Legacy or Further reading. That can probably wait.
  2. The other point is that I am addressing specific criticisms of the topic in the Delete discussion. This also can wait, I suppose.
I think now, I will continue developing the citations somewhere in my sandbox, and only add confirmed RS into the Draft, editing the latter as I would main space. Really, draftification has made things more workable.
Thank you and Legoktm.
IveGoneAway (talk) IveGoneAway (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I responded to your deletion notice by requesting undeletion of my page for WIlf Perreault, and am now trying to insert a 'you've got mail' message as per the instruction. yes, I confuse easily. Thanks for understanding.

Sharon E Eisbergsk (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eisbergsk,
I'm heading out in a bit and I'll try to check my email before then or you could state your case here. As for formatting, just don't put templates in a header and I think you'll be okay. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prod deletion tag[edit]

Well, you are always so quick to undo any edit like you did in Mujhe Pyar Hua Tha. In this case you clearly see that the article contains unreliable sources based on Instagram posts but you still remove the tag. Prod tag can be removed by any editor but are encouraged to explain why, and improve the article. For now, I'm moving this page to the AfD discussion (and you could do this too) and you can defend the page on there. Thanks M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, M.Ashraf333,
Yes, I know that those who de-PROD an article are encouraged to address concerns in an edit summary, I've been here for quite a few years now. But it is not a requirement and there is no reason that can justify you replacing a PROD tag that has been removed. You don't get to do that for any reason with a PROD (a BLPPROD is a different story). It's fine that you now nominated the article at AFD, that happens all of the time with articles that have been de-PROD'd. I have absolutely no opinion on what should happen with this article, I was enforcing a policy, not "defending" the article. I typically do not nominate articles at AFD, I close a lot of discussions there instead and sometimes participate as a regular editor in discussions where I do have a point of view on what should happen with an article.
By the way, I don't know if you noticed but in both an article you PROD'd, that was de-PROD'd, and an AFD you nominated, you used the deletion rationale that "there are no online sources". That is not a valid reason for an article to be deleted which is why the article was de-PROD'd and why the AFD looks like it will be closed as Keep. You are likely to be more successful if you present a deletion rationale that is based in Wikipedia policy. See you around AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieve content of deleted page: Draft:Yes_No_Oracles[edit]

Hello Liz,

My page "Draft:Yes_No_Oracles" was deleted due to a quote that triggered a copy right violation. I apologize for the error, I was under the impression, based on Wikipedia's copy right policies: Wikipedia:Quotations allowed quotations if properly sighted, which i thought I did, but must not be understanding something.

So I would like to retrieve the content of article and hopefully re-post it without the quote altogether.

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

Alexr451 (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Alexr451,
First, please do not send me an email. I'll answer a talk page message much faster than an email message.
Second, I rarely restore an article with a copyright violation but, in this case, it was simple to remove the large section of content that was a copyright violation. This was not "a quote", this was a substantial amount of content. You can't copy paragraphs from another source and put quotes around it and that makes it okay. All content has to be in your own words except for, maybe, a phrase or a sentence. You can't copy blocks of text.
So, I have restored this article and used revision deletion to cover the copyright violation. You might think this is an overreaction but copyright violations are a legal problem and so Wikipedia takes them very seriously. Good luck with your article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Liz,
Following your recommendations and advice, I realize the errors I made when writing my article. These include a lack of paraphrasing, and using quotations from other sources that were too long (and could have been condensed and paraphrased). I'm sure that you can understand the sentiment of getting lost in your writing, and making mistakes when it comes to decorum and standard procedure. I understand the immediate severity of copyright violations, the importance of properly citing the intellectual property of others, and why a violation of this would be unacceptable in the context of a platform as large as Wikipedia--or elsewhere.
I very much appreciate your quick response to this issue, and your feedback.
Should there be any further issues, please contact me while allowing my writing to remain available to me for editing purposes. Per the policies listed on Wikipedia (see here: Wikipedia:Quotations), I was under the impression that using quotations was acceptable, in the case that you ensure credit was given to the original author. Nevertheless, I understand the original removal of my article being that the conceptualization of what comprises a paragraph is highly ambiguous, particularly in the context of an article that, aside from that section of quotations, was written entirely by me.
Thanks again. Alexr451 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Alexr451,
Wikipedia has an awful lot of policies and guidelines and new editors are not expected to know them all. But copyright violations and Biography of Living Persons issues are treated like emergencies so there are frequently no warnings given before page deletion. It sounds like you understand this aspect of Wikipedia editing better and I wish you good luck.
If you ever have questions about policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:BFDIFan707, User:CPORfan[edit]

I blocked that sock you suspected. If you like you can add it to the SPI and ask a(nother) CU for a rangeblock--I'm not sure that there's much of a point to it, but I'm not the best person to judge that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Drmies,
Oh, thanks for letting me know. I'm generally not so good at spotting socks but now that I spend so much time perusing AFD-land, I've kept my eye out for brand new editors who show up there with strong opinions. I don't think I even knew about AFD during my first year editing so it seems like a peculiar place to head on your first day as a new editor. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure thing Liz--I saw your note and after looking at it I thought you had a point--so maybe you're not bad at it! Drmies (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may wish to revisit the target on this one. (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are absolutely correct, the appropriate target was Ottawa Catholic School Board. Thanks for alerting me so I could correct this mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of user-space speedies[edit]

I stumbled across Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space, which has a ton of pages that need speedy deletion. Please bear with me if I put the wrong tag on any of the pages. I trust you to delete (or not) the pages using a rationale that makes sense to you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jonesey95,
So far, I've found your deletion tagging to be most appropriate. Thank you so much for diving into the dustbins of old User pages as well as Template pages and clearing out the mistakes made by long-ago new editors. It's not the most glamorous or visible task on the project but it serves a great purpose of clearing out some completely unnecessary pages. It is appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need a favor[edit]

I'm so sorry to bother you, but I need somebody respected and non-controversial at AfD to lay down the law on someone who continues to act poorly, even when recent discussion has not apparently impressed them with the seriousness of their misbehavior. In this process, user Dronebogus has twice attempted to close a process which they commenced. I had a discussion with them on their talk and I thought it ended well. Yet today, they closed it a second time. My contacting you and asking for help is an alternative to starting an ANI discussion. Could you look over these links and see if I'm missing something? BusterD (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They have also closed this process (as no consensus) in which they have commented. They're not getting it. BusterD (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, BusterD,
Well, I'm flattered if you think I'm a respected and non-controversial closer. I've had my share of visits to Deletion review this year though. It's sometimes an unpleasant experience.
I thought your talk page messages were great! You were instructive, calm and gracious. I can't see how anyone could take offense at what you suggested. You might be surprised how few admins try to talk these things out on talk pages and instead just take abrupt action to make their point. I did revert their MFD close and hopefully they will see my edit summary. I can see how this might end up at ANI if this behavior persists. After a certain amount of longevity on the project, some editors feel comfortable bending the rules because they believe they understand policy well enough and they don't expect to be challenged. I've found usually one talk page message is sufficient, I would hope that would be the case here but we'll see.
Nominators closing their own AFDs is questionable, but I see it at AFD as well. Usually they are no Delete votes but I would prefer that a nominator just post a withdrawal of their nomination and let another editor close the deletion discussion. But some nominators prefer to close their own discussions if there are numerous Keep opinions.
Any way, I hope my comment have helped. It was nice to see you participating in some AFD discussions, we really could use a lot more editors and admins weighing in on these deletion discussions. I really don't like deleting some articles based on the opinions of just 2 or 3 editors but I think I'm getting a bad reputation for an over-reliance on relisting. But I can see where people can burn out on the XFD area of the project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote this message before seeing your update. I'll give it a look. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages, I reverted their closure but then realized that I saw it also as No-consensus but I would have mentioned that I'd mark the WikiProject as "inactive". But then I went to the WikiProject and saw that it was already marked as "defunct" which didn't come up in the discussion. So, I restored their closure. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The third one was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PrisonedMuffin, where they close a process prematurely that they have asserted keep in. Note in history that they've previously attempted to close this as speedy keep, a clear super!vote. This is all kinds of bad. I have asked them to stop making such closures, to prevent them getting sanctioned. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion pending[edit]

These categories are still not deleted - [5][6].-- (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right. the CFD is incomplete, but it's best to bring this problem to the talk page of the admin or editor who closed the deletion discussion. I don't do work at CFD and so I don't know how to best resolve this. But the editor who closed the CFD discussion will. I recommend you copy & paste this comment to their talk page and see what they have to say. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bund für Menschenrecht[edit]

Liz, you deleted Bund für Menschenrecht, which left a bold red link] in several archives. I added it to Germany's DYK when it appeared but don't remember the content. Can it perhaps be put in draft space, to check if it can be "adopted" by other users? Or what else could we do? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Gerda,
We generally don't restore articles created by a sockpuppet that have been deleted but I have seen instances in the past of another editor "taking responsibility" for an article and it being restored. I don't think you will find this action mentioned anywhere on policy pages, I've just seen other admins do this on occasion. So, I have restored the page at Draft:Bund für Menschenrecht. Restoring the page doesn't mean that another editor won't tag it for deletion on the same CSD G5 grounds so it would help if you made a contributions of substance to the draft article. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BoAt Review[edit]

I was checking twitter then I come to know about this old source. after qz source this is a strong case study. but what to do now? Thanks Lordofhunter (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Please check this also Lordofhunter (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Lordofhunter,
According to the AFD, there is a duplicate of the deleted article at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle so there is no point in restoring a deleted article and moving it to User or Draft space if there is alread an existing draft. I'd work on improving the draft and getting it approved by AFC. I'm afraid if you move the draft directly into main space, it might be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4.
If you have questions about the AFC review that has already been done, it can be useful to approach the reviewer on their talk page or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for further clarification. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Currently, I am not in a stage to create this, so avoiding it for some days. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to "Warrant officer schools of the Russian Armed Forces"[edit]


You can restore links to Warrant officer schools of the Russian Armed Forces in the articles devoted to Russian military academies, schools, institutes, etc., because the article Warrant officer schools of the Russian Armed Forces was moved from draft space into main space.

Thank you! K8M8S8 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, K8M8S8,
I don't know of a quick way to restore a link that has been unlinked months ago and I'm not sure that I am the editor responsible for doing any unlinking. I have over 400,000 edits and there's not an easy way to search thousands of Contribution pages to find specific article edits, especially if they are not from today. I have a very busy schedule so it might be quicker for you to do a search on Wikipedia for "Warrant officer schools of the Russian Armed Forces" and take care of the links yourself. It's not a task that requires the abilities of an administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here.

Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.

Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.

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

*All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selma to Montgomery marches redirects[edit]

Hello. I already recreated one, March from Selma to Montgomery, and would like to create the second which was deleted Marches from Selma to Montgomery but saw the note to contact the deleting admin. These two redirects work well, and I was surprised that they haven't been created before. Could you (or I) go ahead and recreate the second one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Randy Kryn,
 Done. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screw you[edit]

There was absolutely NOTHING inappropriate about my article. It was literally public knowledge backed up by articles to corroborate all the claims. I haven't bothered with further edits because you idiots refuse to put it up. Get a life and f off! Snakeplissken10 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Snakeplissken10,
I hope you are having an otherwise good day. If you are referring to Draft:Pamela Panzenbeck, we delete drafts and some User space pages that have not been edited in 6 months. I never said anything about "inappropriateness", this is just Wikipedia policy about expiring drafts (see WP:CSD). If you would like this page restored to continue to work on the article, just ask or you can go to WP:REFUND and make a request and talk to the "idiots" there. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)RReply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error[edit]

The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks. I did install it, but I wasn't sure exactly if the CSD button not listing something meant that it doesn't apply. That makes sense, and I've taken note of that now. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Among Us for POTUS,
Well, editing tools take a while to get used to using. Twinkle has so many features (from helping you file AFDs to posting unreferenced tags on to articles, from posting vandals at noticeboards to maintaining deletion logs for editors, etc.) that I use it throughout the day. The only thing I don't like about it is its name! It makes me think of "tinkle" which makes me think of urinating. I wish it had a more editorial, neutral name for the tool. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha I see, makes sense, and got it. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from third parties[edit]

Hi. I see that you deleted this article yesterday.

The fact that it was deleted, while disappointing, doesn't hugely surprise me because after all it was on the list of articles for deletion and IIRC only one or two editors in the AfD discussion had supported retaining it (although I may be confusing that fact with the AfD discussion other article I did, about games from Tandy).

No, what surprised me was the grounds I saw for your deletion. Namely this:

‎(G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Awolf58) in violation of ban or block) Tag: Twinkle

But the article was created by me. And I am not that other user and have no clue who that user is.

I see that your immediately preceding deletions also were on these grounds. Are you sure you didn't make a mistake here, carrying out a repetitive task, and carrying forward a reason for your deletion that was valid for other articles but did not apply to the one I started? Carney333 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carney333,
I deleted List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Third Parties and List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from third parties, 2 redirects that only had edits by User:WeWorkGuest, the sockpuppet. I think you are thinking of List of Color Computer 1 and 2 games from third parties which you created and which is being discussed at AFD right now. If you look at the article you created, you can also see edits by WeWorkGuest, some of which were page moves that created redirects. It was those redirects that I deleted. If you would like to have these redirects back, feel free to recreate them. But we typically delete or revert edits by sockpuppets when we can as a way of discouraging block evasion.
Does this explanation make sense to you? I hope so. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand now. Thanks! Carney333 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oldest living baseball players[edit]

Hi, I think you deleted this article by mistake. It’s the easiest source on the web for this information and is regularly utilized to track living players for defunct teams, among many other milestones and points of trivia. While you may personally not find it interesting, this platform exists to catalogue information - whether millions find it interesting, or merely thousands. I believe I can speak for the Society of American Baseball Research when I say, please restore this article and stop tampering with these articles. Thank you 2A02:C7C:5EAA:7100:CC5D:E018:3FCD:B243 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 2A02:C7C:5EAA:7100:CC5D:E018:3FCD:B243,
I'm sorry but the consensus at the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (4th nomination)) was that this article should be deleted so I carried out the deletion. If you believe that this was a wrong assessment of the AFD discussion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review but please know that Deletion review is for contesting how the AFD discussion was closed, it's not a forum to discuss the merits of the article.
I'm sorry that you are disappointed that this article is no longer included in Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linda Nguyen Lopez