This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
And thanks for the kind note explaining it. I made a mistake in forming the title; I set up another with the correct title, and I meant to go back and try to figure out what to do with the bad one. You saved me the trouble. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Back in January 2022, you promised that it's on my "To Do" list to try to take on some more simple closures next month, but don't appear to have followed up on that. Since the instructions for closing discussions have recently been rewritten again, and CfD is still badly backlogged, I figured I should remind you. * Pppery *it has begun... 20:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. I really dread dealing with CFD. But it's hard to argue with oneself when someone else points out to you what you once said six months ago (I don't know if I'd call it a "promise" though). I'll read over the confusing CFD instructions again and see if they sink in.
By the way, have you noticed we have some very competent non-admins closing CFD discussions now? I delete category pages they have tagged and it looks like they are doing a good job. But I need to go farther so I'll try to teach myself all about User:JJMC89 bot III and how it functions. LizRead!Talk! 20:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
...based on your evidence at arbitration. I'm not submitting it myself, since I don't think it really shows anything (other than, perhaps, the effect the introductions of A7, prod, and G11 have had on afd).
Total number of afds, average different users per afd, and total distinct users on June 20 of each year and in May of each year. (Not June of each year, so as to avoid the still-open afds from the past few week.) —Cryptic 21:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I find this fascinating! Thanks for drawing this up. Boy, 2005 was a crazy time on Wikipedia, they needed all of those extra editors they had 17 years ago. Imagine having 15-19 editors weighing in on most AFD nominations! I bet things were very contentious.
I started editing regularly in 2013 so I don't remember a time before A7, PROD and G11. But I wonder what can account for the boost in AFD participants last year? More people working at home? I remember back in 2020 people predicting we would have more active editors because of COVID-19 restrictions but I don't think the number of editors curve really bumped up that much.
I don't think I would call my commenta "evidence", I just can see both sides in this dispute and I think it's important to consider the context of the AFD area now and what the frequent nominators are trying to accomplish vs. those who see their behavior as rash. I'm not sure if your stats would influence the consideration of this case but I think they add a lot to understanding the current decrease that the AFD area is seeing in editor participation. I think a lot of people who use to participate there are just tired of making the same arguments over and over again and have moved on to other activities. Thanks again for your work on Quarry! LizRead!Talk! 21:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the increase on June 20 last year is probably a blip - the number of afds nominated varies from day to day, and the more afds you have the more total users you're likely to have. There's a much less-pronounced increase specifically in 2021 in the per-month data; and though there's an overall increase in number of users for the past three years of the pandemic, it too corresponds to an increase in the number of afds.VFD in 2005 was plain awful. We didn't have the GNG or anything else approximating objective criteria, other than CSD (then much shorter than now) on the one hand and various often-edited and bitterly-disputed SNGs (then much longer); so when people were talking about whether subjects were notable or not, we meant it in the plain English sense of the word. And that wasn't just accepted, but expected. —Cryptic 22:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Question about fora
Hello Liz,
I've been around for a while, and although I help admin over at EN Wikt, I've not engaged here on EN WP with regard to the inner workings quite so much. I have some growing concerns about poor-quality machine-translated articles, mostly those coming out of Japanese as I can read the source (and which MT systems commonly butcher), and which the currently active new-article reviewers appear to be passing right through, including marking as "B-Class" despite grave issues with the content (such as at Talk:Yamato_Kingship).
I would like to bring up this issue in one of the discussion fora here, but I'm a bit at a loss as to which would be the most appropriate for striking up a thread with regard to getting a better handle on what review criteria actually are (since apparently the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme isn't really being used), and how to improve the review process. From our limited interactions so far, I think you're more knowledgeable about reviewing and WP processes than I am. Could you offer any advice about where I could post such a thread?
Wow, I don't know much about this subject. I do know that machine translation recently became an issue on WP:ANI with some Arabic students writing a lot of articles about poets that some editors thought were machine translations. You could bring this case to ANI if you have clear-cut evidence that would seem obvious to others or you could nominate the articles for deletion at WP:AFD. I don't know of a policy page or a central place to discuss this subject, resolving problems on Wikipedia usually either focuses on problematic editors or problematic content/articles, not the underlying issue. Wherever you raise this issue, I think you will find some sympathetic editors as machine translations have been recently acknowledged to be an unaddressed problem on the project. I'm sorry I couldn't be more help to you. LizRead!Talk! 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Might get some luck asking at WT:PNT. —Cryptic 01:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Nicholas Alahverdian
When you say former Wikipedia editor what are you referring to? I hate that I'm so invested in the article's subject and everything that's ongoing, but that was a bit of information I did not know about, and I can't find any mention of it in the article or the talk page. Like I know he (likely) edited his own Wikipedia page, but was he like an established editor before that or something? - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Not Liz but Alahverdian has edited extensively (about himself) for years, and even as recently as the last few months. He was never quite an established editor. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
He had a number of sockpuppets and actively edited his articles which were under several different names as well as AFDs that involved them. It goes back to 2007, I believe. It was all very self-promotional, inflating his credentials, I can look into it but I don't think he edited articles that weren't about him. I'll try to track down some links if you are curious but most of the details will be buried in deleted contributions.
But that's how the fact he faked his death became obvious to some of us and that folks at Wikipediocracy who first publicized it months ago...one of his sockpuppets started editing again. Kind of a sign that he wasn't deceased! But I was reluctant to add information to his article because at the time it was all speculation until he was arrested. I wouldn't consider him an editor in good standing here but I don't know if there was ever a formal SPI case opened. It is a compelling case and it looks like the British papers are more on top of it than U.S. ones. They want him out of their country!
By the way, there is an even more notorious former Wikipedia editor who is in current legal trouble but this can be a dreary rabbithole to fall into. LizRead!Talk! 00:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that context, I don't know why Alahverdian's page was on my watchlist initially but I do the remember the "oh he's dead" then suddenly "is he?" back and forth. I'm all about rabbitholes lately, who is the other editor? - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh goodness I hope not I thought all that was said and done. - Aoidh (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, don't say I didn't warn you...Nathan Larson (politician). I see that the editors working on it decided to use the most unflattering image possible on his article. User:Nathan Larson~enwiki was his first account but his extensive SPI case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla/Archive. He mostly edited political articles, his extreme views on social issues like on race, gender and sexuality he mostly kept on his own blog/website. Truly predatory, creepy, abhorrent stuff. He makes faking your deah and fraud look like a standard conman stuff, not evil incarnate. LizRead!Talk! 01:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow. Well that's certainly something. I have no words. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Aoidh, I was wrong, we do have an SPI on Nicholas Alahverdian's socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr42/Archive and I see 5 related AFD discussions on articles about him that are listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas E. Alahverdian (honestly, there could be more than 5 articles but this is what I found in a five minute search). Two of the AFDs actually closed as "Keep". Interesting now to look at who voted to "Keep" these articles and see if they were sockpuppets. More rabbitholes for you to waste time on this weekend! LizRead!Talk! 01:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the SPI, it shows that articles on this guy were deleted, either through AFD or CSD THIRTEEN TIMES! At least 13 times over the years this guy tried to have an article on himself on Wikipedia. That is dogged persistence. Well, he won out eventually, he does have an article on himself on Wikipedia, just not a very flattering one. LizRead!Talk! 01:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
ARS went ahead and ruined the deletion streak for us when they overwhelmingly voted to keep in one of the last ones because "he's an author" and "went to Harvard" (both of which were demonstrably true then and now.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
From what I've read, he attended some Harvard Extension classes but claimed he graduated from Harvard University but he was dismissed after some legal problems emerged. LizRead!Talk! 01:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
He attended a community college course basically (I can't divulge some of this because of ~reasons~) but none of it was real, for lack of a better word. His books are pretty terrible if you're into self-aggrandizing jack-offs who barely have a grasp of their own native language (and they're free on google books.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm wondering now if I need to cite RS on some of this info and if they could be seen as BLP violations. Some of these details are in his own article though. LizRead!Talk! 01:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
hey, he still claims he's dead, so BLP doesn't apply! ;) PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah the irony is that he really wanted an article on himself. Now I'm sure he really wishes he didn't. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow, Praxidicae, that's a new rabbithole for me to go down. I know, for some reason, he (I mean, his estate), wanted his photo with Pence removed. There was a phony image of someone else on his article for a while, his estate seems to want to eliminate all images of himself from the public internet. LizRead!Talk! 02:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It gets even more bizarre. Arthur Knight, "the Irish-born man" who was arrested, and his wife both aren't keeping a low profile. They are pleading their case on social media, according to the British press. LizRead!Talk! 02:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It does bring up a unique BLP dilemma...can one violate the privacy of a person who is claimed to have died 2 1/2 years ago when there is no evidence that he actually died? LizRead!Talk! 02:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
They are simultaneously trying to keep a low profile while also being as loud about it as possible. I think just because he's a (bad) liar doesn't mean that the lie invalidates something like WP:BLP. - Aoidh (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Then whose privacy are we protecting, Nicholas Alahverdian, who has died, or Arthur Knight who is definitely alive? Until it's decided in court who is who, through DNA, it's a toss-up despite whatever we believe on our own. But the court cases keep getting delayed for one reason or another. LizRead!Talk! 03:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
After rereading his article, which I hadn't done lately, I realize that it goes much farther than the discussion here, in terms of its substantiated claims. As far as the courts go, it's come down to a final hearing, he either has to face up to the truth or flee again. This article was interesting. LizRead!Talk! 03:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I was going to comment on the article's talk page but this isn't really about the article. I didn't see any paywalls on the links that were posted on the talk page, but whenever I run into a paywall I can go to translate.google.com and input the URL in the "website" field and it will "translate it" from English to English and remove the paywall (for most paywalls). 12ft.io works similarly but also doesn't work on all websites. You may already know about that trick but I just thought I'd offer it in case you don't. I find it really helpful when trying to verify references and such. - Aoidh (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I've tried that with Google with the Wall Street Journal but it hasn't worked. Some of the Providence Journal articles were only available to subscribers. I'll try this and see if it works. Thanks for the suggestion! I never thought about trying the translation page. LizRead!Talk! 04:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah the WSJ is absolutely the one that doesn't play along with that trick, or any trick that I've found. I've even tried installing Chrome which I don't use and turning off Javascript to see if that would work and it doesn't. If you find a way to get around WSJ please let me know. - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I got curious and went digging and found a way around WSJ's paywall (on Firefox at least). This addon worked perfectly. - Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Cool, Aoidh! Thanks for the suggestion. LizRead!Talk! 04:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I subscribe to ProJo just for this. If you want copies of anything I can email them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
His publications are not reliable sources about him. Need secondary sources to support the biographical content and then need sources to support his publications are noteworthy. See the notability guidelines for academics. I suggest keeping the list of his publications to 5-7 of the most notable (based on citation counts).
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vsevolod Valentinovich Konstantinov, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
I knew that this article wouldn't be accepted (although I didn't expect it to be reviewed so quickly!) but it was clear that the draft creator meant to submit it for review and didn't get the "submit" code correctly on the page so I fixed their edit. I might cut and paste this refusal on to their talk page so they can see why it was declined. Thank you for your prompt review. LizRead!Talk! 23:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I will take care of moving the message. If you want the messages to go to the creator, I can provide instructions (I think). Give me a few to put that together. S0091 (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok,I copied the decline message over to the creator's talk page. I didn't want to mess up your talk page so left it as is so you can amend as you see fit. So to change the submitter, after you have submitted a draft edit the draft in source mode, then change the "u=" parameter from your user name to theirs:
I copied the above from a currently submitted draft, Draft:Bioenergy economy. In this example had you submitted it, it would be u=Liz so you would change it to u=Ghz91. S0091 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The version for human editors is {{subst:submit|username}}, or (to put the afc template there without immediately submitting it) {{subst:afc draft|username}}. The documentation's at Template:AfC submission, where you'd expect it. —Cryptic 23:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, this is very helpful! I've been getting unearned congratulations and rejections for years for promising drafts I've seen and submitted while going through the daily expiring CSD G13 drafts that I had nothing else to do with! Now I know how to properly tag them. Many thanks! LizRead!Talk! 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Cryptic, this was helpful for me as well. When did we become human? (ha!) S0091 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Question, please, about a draft article Zoe Empowers
Hi, Liz, I hope I did the "You've got mail" template correctly.
I want to rewrite an article that was deleted. This is the first article I have tried to write and it was deleted, so I want to redo it. It is called Zoe Empowers. I am following the AFC template, and I saw the following (See below), so I am asking you what I need to do. I don't know why, but I am following instructions. Here is what I read.. Please tell me if it is OK to go ahead with writing the draft. Thank you so much! Namamacs
------------------------------------------------
A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
I deleted Draft:Zoe Empowers which was just a page redirect. You wrote the draft and moved it to main space, Zoe Empowers, where it was deleted by a different admin than myself (look at the deletion note at the top of the page). The redirect was just a page that had a link from the draft page to the main space page. Once Zoe Empowers was deleted, it became a "broken redirect" and they are deleted.
If you want to try again, I suggest that you submit the draft for review by an Articles for Creation reviewer who can help you avoid having the article deleted by telling you if there are any problems with the draft. Moving pages prematurely to main space often can result in their deletion if they are written by new editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia's standards.
If you contact the admin who deleted Zoe Empowers and ask him to move the page to Draft or User space (like your Sandbox), you may not have to start from scratch but that would be his judgment call. Good luck. LizRead!Talk! 02:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Namamacs, Liz and I agree with regard to the AFC process. I suspect they may also agree that once an article is deleted it is far better to start from the basics rather than to try to modify what proved successfully how not to do it. I linked to a useful essay on your talk page. Inside it is a process which works, provided the topic is inherently notable, It's vital to start by finding references and creating a storyboard from what they say. Doing it the other way around forces references to fit your text. That often fails. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Liz, for your explanation and information. I so much appreciate all the help I am receiving from Wikipedia folks. Yes, I contacted the admin who removed the page, and he sent very helpful advice. I am finding Wikipedia to be a very encouraging place with people like you and Timtrent so helpful to newcomers. Also, I agree with you and Timtrent that starting from scratch is a good idea. However, I am not sure the organization is "notable' enough yet to be on Wikipedia. So, I'll probably move on to my other causes for awhile. Namamacs Namamacs (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
Good day, for context, the on-going season for NCAA Philippines is Season 97 (2022). The NCAA Season 98 (2023) is yet to be held; I also noticed that User:Chris 0411F has included the list of teams that are in another Philippine collegiate league, UAAP, instead of the local NCAA. They have done it in NCAA Season 97 volleyball tournaments page as well. My apologies, it should have been disruptive editing, and not necessarily vandalism. Thank you. Linsanity 02:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I didn't understand why the article that was tagged for speedy deletion was "invented" as it just looked like another season page. Right now, Chris 0411F has been briefly blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks again, I appreciate the context. LizRead!Talk! 02:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Tausch - article for deletion?
Cesar, Circus Maximus, Thumb up, Thumb down? User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before.
But more neutrality, please. This morning, I visited the website of one of the best libraries of political science in the world, the Dudley Knox Library of the United States Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey in California. Any Wikipedia decision maker now deciding in this deletion Circus Maximus process is kindly invited to look at the Tausch entries in the Monterey library system, [1].
User Randykitty stated in her present contribution in a sentence that could imply a lack of the necessary neutrality and a rather sweeping value judgement about the curriculum vitae of a living person stating that:
"The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions...". But Wikipedia is not the personnel service office of a University.
This non-neutral statement, together with the other non-neutral statement:
„In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC“
And
„I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history“.
Well, if user Randykitty were more familiar with the academic system in Continental Europe, she would realize that it is quite normal that "Privatdozenten" [2], i.e. "adjunct professors" are working nowadays for hundreds of institutions, like government bureaucracies, think tanks, etc, and not only for the Universities. Arno Tausch, at age 71, joined the ranks of the Austrian diplomatic service in 1992, became Counsellor for Labour and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, and then, from 1999 onwards, worked for the Austrian Ministry of Social Affairs in Vienna until his retirement in 2016. [3]
In the framework of improving Wikipedia coverage of Austrian debates and Austrian political science, I will certainly do my best to improve the article over the coming weeks, and especially to shorten it and to free it from citation overload.
As to independent sources from the world press, I will refer to an interesting and very lengthy article published by Al Jazeera on Tausch, it's in Arabic, and I will certainly refer to it in the improved version which I will present. The reference is:
Springer, one of the world’s biggest and most important publishing houses, now lists none the less than 70 entries with Arno Tausch as author, from 1980 onwards to the present day. [4]
At the end of the day, there are not too many Austrian political scientists, who have made it to the pages Le Monde and Al Jazeera and of think tanks like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. His regular contributions to Wiener Zeitung are a proof that this author also contributes to the defense of the values of the open society in Austria, so Wikipedia should handle this “thumbs up thumbs down” issue with great care.
You have posted a wall of content that I'm not going to read. What are you asking of me exactly? Please be brief, do not go into any more detail. I'm about to delete your excessive comments from my talk page. LizRead!Talk! 05:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. Thank you for taking the time to read my question. I'm hoping you can help me. I had been trying to create an article for the company I work for, SOTI. It had been a while since I had actually created a new article (2009) and had not been aware of disclosure rules which are now in place and the draft I had created was not approved and eventually deleted by you (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:SOTI). It appears that Wikipedia also deleted my old account (Special:Contributions/Adaś), so here I am with a new account complete with a paid contribution disclosure in my user profile per the rules, as I understand them.
I would like to ask if it would be possible to retrieve the draft and allow me to submit for publication again now that I have ensured that I am properly following the paid contribution disclosure rules. I am happy to also add the Connected contributor (paid) template to the draft. I wanted to follow the recommendations and not resubmit a brand new submission but see if you would be willing to bring back the draft, given the background on the situation. Thanks in advance, it's taken me some time to wrap my head around this and I hope I haven't missed anything. Fab Colab (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia doesn't delete accounts, we can delete User pages that are inappropriate but that is not the case with User:Adaś.
Second, thank you for posting the disclosure. Editors can be blocked for undisclosed paid editing so disclosure is the way to go.
Finally, Draft:SOTI was deleted because, as a policy, we delete draft pages which are considered to be "abandoned" which means no editing activity on them for six months or longer (what is what we call CSD G13 criteria). These drafts can be restored upon request either to the deleting administrator or by going to WP:REFUND and requesting it there. You don't have to demonstrate notability for this. But if you could incorporate any reliable sources you have located into the draft content, it is more likely to get approval from an Articles for Creation reviewer. This draft has gotten declined many times so, honestly, it might be best if you took the best parts of the article and started from scratch.
I hope this addresses some of your concerns. LizRead!Talk! 01:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz. I appreciate your helpful reply. Have a great day :) Fab Colab (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The article is ineligible. For a soft deletion the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. Articles that have previously been to AfD are not eligible to be deleted under a PROD. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@IAmChaos You seem to be referring to WP:NOQUORUM: If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. If so, that wording explicitly mentions declined PRODs, but not past AfDs, which seems ambiguous, given your interpretation. —Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If you click through to the link you provided (procedures), see step 4. an article is only eligible for prod if it was never subject to a deletion discussion.. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If the intention was to have prior AfDs be a disqualifier, my suggestion for improvement would be that it be explicitly mentioned at NOQUORUM, along with the existing verbiage for declined PRODs. —Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is confusing. I have been told, adamently, that Soft Deletion was not available for articles that had been PROD'd before or been through a previous AFD. I was told this when I used Soft Deletion for articles that I was told weren't eligible for it. So, this was my understanding and also what I had seen since I started patrolling AFD a few months ago. I will say that most of the admins I see who regularly patrol AFDs only use straight "Delete" and don't use the option of "Soft Deletion".
Since this article had been deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavaliers–Celtics rivalry, I thought it was ineligible for Soft Deletion. It has nothing to do with relisting the discussion. Personally, I'm a fan of relisting discussions with little participation and only the nominator's statement but other admins will simply close these discussions as "Delete". But right now, when I went to review policy on this subject, at WP:NOQUORUM, it doesn't say anything about previous AFDs it only talks about previous PRODs! So, either this has been a misunderstanding among admins reviewing AFDs, or I misunderstood the warning I was given on my talk page or I am missing some nuances in the policy about Soft Deletion that might be on another policy page. Since I know I'm not the only admin who has this understanding of Soft Deletion, this might warrant a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process.
If I (or we) have had an incorrect understanding of this policy, it likely means that some articles were deleted that might have been eligible for Soft Deletion. But since this deletion option is only used by a few admins who patrol AFDs (most admins just use "Delete"), then I'm not sure how much this misunderstanding has affected the results of past AFDs. But I really appreciate you raising this question and prompting me to review the policy once again. I hope for some future clarity on this subject and will avoid making statements about the eligibility of articles at AFD for Soft Deletion unless I can see they have been PROD'd before. LizRead!Talk! 01:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Bagumba, I was writing and rewriting my statement (above) before I saw your recent comment which echoes what I saw when I read through the WP:NOQUORUM policy. The policy doesn't mention XFDs, only declined PRODs. LizRead!Talk! 01:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. I'm not pushing for a soft delete (at this point), and wasnt that familiar with the process either, so my question was merely to educate myself. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Two things. I've removed all of my comments about Soft Deletion that I've come across where I made that recommendation based on a previous AFD. I won't write that again until this gets straightened out.
Second, I kept thinking, "This isn't just me! I've seen other admins in similar situations leave this comment." But it's just that most admins do not bother to relist discussions so it's those few of us who do relist who would put that recommendation in there in the relisting statement. Also, this understanding might have come from the the policy saying to treat the article of a the poorly attended AFD discussion AS IF it were a PROD and a PROD would not be valid if there had been a previous AFD on the article. In this way, with a previous AFD on an article, you couldn't treat it as a PROD, so Soft Deletion is not possible. But while I think this is how this conclusion was arrived at, the policy should spell it out more clearly and I think it warrants bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Does this make some sense to you? LizRead!Talk! 06:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see how we all got here. If prior AfDs are a consideration, I do think it would be clearer to mention at NOQUORUM, along with the existing declined PROD verbiage. And I do appreciate the rare times a fellow admin leaves any explanation at an XfD, so hopefully I havent discourage you. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not an AFC reviewer, I don't review drafts. If you have questions about the AFC review process, either contact the editor who previously reviewed your draft or bring your questions to the AFC Help Desk. If you have questions about article creation or editing on Wikipedia, you are welcome to come to the the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 00:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
St. Vincent Grammar School
Hi Liz, could you undelete this article to my userspace? It was an expired PROD. Joofjoof (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Just thought you might want to know Sini Sadanand Shetty, which you draftified yesterday, was moved to mainspace today. Honestly I'm not sure whether it was ready. It's pretty hard on the eyes, but at least it has some references now. However you did tell the editor who moved it to use AFC. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)v
Thanks for letting me know. This article was actually moved to Draft space 3 times. I think articles about beauty show contestants are not valuable content for Wikipedia but there are others who think they do have some notability. I tell all new editors to use AFC but most don't take my advice when they can just move their articles right into main space. They don't realize how active our page patrollers are and how vulnerable new articles are to speedy deletion tagging. I'd say PROD this article but the page creator is likely to just remove the tag. Sigh. LizRead!Talk! 05:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes established editors de-PROD BLP1E beauty queen articles, too [2]. Double sigh. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Sutlej Reformed Church of Pakistan
Hello @Liz ! You quickly deleted the article Sutlej Reformed Church of Pakistan as it was marked as similar to the article previously created about this denomination. However, the article I created is completely different from the previous one. I showed independent sources, wrote impartially and showed the notoriety of the religious denomination, even mentioning news about it on various websites. Therefore, I would like to ask you to reconsider and compare the article I created with the previous one (which I don't know who created it) and you will see that, although on the same topic, they are completely different. Thank you very much in advance! Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for my delay in seeing your message and responding. I think the best strategy now is if I restore the article to Draft space and you submit it for review by Articles for Creation. Even if the articles are dissimilar, if you were to put it directly back into main space, it will be tagged for deletion again. Approval by an AFC reviewer is the only way I know to overcome a previous AFD delete decision. Does this sound acceptable to you? LizRead!Talk! 02:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Liz! OK. I will do it this way. Thank you for your help. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Days after the page protection you provided expired, IP vandalism is back. Considering the extent to which COVID-19 themed articles seem to be a vandalism magnet, I wonder if you'd consider re-adding a protection and for a longer amount of time? I've seen this with another article and it's always IP addresses. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, protection ended on June 27th and there has been one IP edit over the past 12 days. I think I'd need to see more active vandalism before protecting the article again. Please let me know if vandalism resumes. LizRead!Talk! 02:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
That is understood. I'll give you a ping if the rate increases. Thanks. CT55555 (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to overstate it, but two more incidences of vandalism at this COVID19 related BLP Peter Jüni by an IP today. Of course, it's not overwhelming, I only mentioned this because I assume COVID19 related vandalism will be around for a while and it's a BLP. CT55555 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Any way of allowing us to access again the deleted material, to use for a fresh restart, would be welcome. I was offering for instance for you to dump onto my talk-page whatever Alas2022 had already written, and I'll take it from there, together with Huldra. She was very interested in redoing Guillaume-Rey and the Hauran Sanjak, I fully support her on those and I'll try to lend a hand if needed. You offered as an option to pull out the references from the deleted pages, put them on a new draft page and we would write a new article from scratch. Also fine. Scavanging already made formulations is easier, but the references are also a start.
Support, Support, SupportUser:Arminden's request! Also, far more than 43 articles point to Hauran Sanjak, when we also include the different re-dirs (I think there were at least a dozen re-dirs), cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanking you for bringing my attention to messages that have climbed up my user talk page. Before I consider taking action, have you tried contacting, Sir Sputnik, the administrator who actually deleted these articles? Most admins are reluctant to contradict another admin's decisions unless, for some reason, they are unresponsive. I know of a couple of admins who have a personal policy of not restoring deleted content or providing it to editors via email but the first step in these cases is always to contact the admin involved in a deletion or block. Maybe Sir Sputnik will see the ping and respond here. LizRead!Talk! 01:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
I wouldn't even know how to figure out who deleted what (no article => no edit history, so...). Thank you therefore for pinging Sir Sputnik and pointing him out to us! I'm confident that Wikipedia's only raison d'être is to inform the user, everything else is important but secondary, so done work by blocked editors, especially when they're not guilty of major transgressions (hate, vandalism, verbal violence, you name it) or of being utterly brainless, but rather of technical misdemeanors, should be available to be carefully "quarried" by experienced colleagues. What if I did have the idea of copying the content while it was still posted? Maybe it's even out there, via the WayBackMachine? This shouldn't be a contest over who has the better material recovery skills, or is pedantic enough as to store on his hard disk all articles he cares for. It's a bit like putting the cookie jar on the highest shelf in the kindergarten kitchen :) Just my opinion on it, sorry for clogging your page with it. Have a great day! Arminden (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Please be mindful of the rules on WP:FORUMSHOPPING, given that Huldra has already made this same request to User:Ponyo, who declined to restore the pages in question. I see no reason to overturn that decision. WP:G5 unambiguously applies to all of them. If you think the subjects are notable, you're more than welcome to recreate them in your own words, but restoring them would not be appropriate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Sir Sputnik, hi. First, I've asked for access to the Paul Deschamps material on my own behalf. I have often come across the name Emmanuel Guillaume-Rey and the term Hauran Sanjak in my work, so when I saw them mentioned here, I supported Huldra's call for receiving access to the removed material. Again, on my own behalf.
Second, as I have written here-above, Wikipedia's only raison d'être is to inform the user, everything else might sometimes be important, but is always secondary. There's too much bureaucracy out there, why introduce it here too? The removal is based, as far as I can tell, on technicalities, not on the quality of the work itself or on anyone's serious moral transgressions.
Third, of course we can play Sisyphus and start everything from scratch, but that's ridiculous, given the above. We're perfectly capable to reword the material, but there's quite some research & other effort that went into putting it together - why waste what's good in it?
I'm often "escaping" onto Wikipedia from a more boring, scaringly irrational, stiff and bureaucratic "real" world. Let's not let that world spill into this one and spoil it. Not more than it already has. Your chosen name speaks of aristocracy and respect, the skies, and of a "fellow traveller"; that gives me hope. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
As regards to WP:FORUMSHOPPING, I asked Ponyo, as they were the blocking admin. After that, I happened to see that Armiden (who edits in the same area as I do), had asked here, wrt some other articles (Bardawil, Deschamps), and supported him. Here I agree with Armiden (and we two do not always agree!); please don't let bureaucracy come in the way of improving Wikipedia, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
You've seen this request declined twice now. Making the same arguments again is not going to change anything. In case I didn't make my position clear in my previous comment, I will not be restoring these pages. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
My article again moved to draft space. In the article talk page i added Class=Start [3] Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment
According to WikiProject_Film/Assessment Quality_scale [4] it should be in main space right.
why the article move to draft space Redirect also criteria for speedy deletion CSD R2 Process.
This is happening because I add Class=Start instead of Class=stub. Neu84321(talk) 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm almost absolutely sure that the move of the article to Draft space has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the content is on the article talk page. Experienced editors will move recently created articles to Draft space if they think they are likely to be tagged for speedy deletion. They are actually trying to preserve the article by allowing you to work on it in Draft space where it is much less likely to be deleted.
You are free to move the page back to main space but I think you should consider the chances that it might then tagged for speedy deletion after it's moved back. Ordinarily, I encourage editors to work on drafts in Draft or User space and submit them to AFC reviewers. AFC reviews are supposed to point out any potential problems in the draft that could lead to its deletion. Approval by an AFC reviewer greatly lessens the chance that the page will be deleted.
Whatever you choose to do, it would be smart to make a copy of the article in case it does get tagged for deletion, so you don't have start again from scratch. Good luck. LizRead!Talk! 04:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Userpage
Kindly rescue my userpage. --Abdullah☆ (Talk) 05:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
You requested that this page be deleted! If you have changed your mind, I recommend requesting its restoration at WP:REFUND. LizRead!Talk! 05:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Mohan Babu G N
Hi! I noticed that you removed the speedy delete tag from Draft:Mohan Babu G N. Please see User:CANIGET. Thanks! VV 18:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I look at the reason for their block and whether they are blocked for sockpuppetry and if there is a linked SPI case. In this case, neither of those is present. However, their User page now indicates that they are a sockpuppet so I wouldn't remove that tag now. But I look for confirmation of sockpuppetry. If an editor has been blocked for being disruptive or for CIR reasons, that doesn't mean that their page creations should be deleted. CSD G5 is specifically for block evading editors so even just being a recently discovered multiple account doesn't matter if the sockpuppeteer wasn't evading a block at the time. I've had many discussions about this speedy deletion criteria on this user talk page and asked Checkusers to confirm my understanding which they have. But it often happens that the checkusers know an editor is a sockpuppet by their style of editing but can't identify the sockmaster. These are more complicated situations. LizRead!Talk! 22:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Technical question(s)
Hi Liz, and sorry for bothering again.
A last attempt. Sir Sputnik seems impervious to my arguments, nor does he bother to read what I'm saying or even answer on a minimal level - I'm not Huldra, duh; and I don't want anything restored, just access to that material in order to quarry it for new articles. Lost case, basta. Now it's a strictly technical question, and I'm generally not interested in putting much time and effort into studying "Wiki sciences" beyond what's strictly needed for posting useful info for the user. So, is there a straightforward way of accessing material from deleted articles? Who has that privilege? I'm strictly not interested in being a Wiki "clerk" of any kind, but if accepting the invitation to join some lofty "ranks" offers me that tool, I'll take it (I'm old enough around here to get all kinds of invitations I'm otherwise discarding). The long march through the institutions, needed once they go bureaucratic and ego-driven. Thank you for your huge patience and advice, Arminden (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I need to respond with everyone's least favorite answer: It depends. It depends on a) the reason for deletion, b) the attitude of the administrator who did the page deletion and c) the attitude of the administrator you ask for help. Some administrators will restore a deleted article to Draft space or User space like your Sandbox. Or they will agree to email you the content or at least the references used in the article.
What admins you might go to for help don't want to see is if they restore the content elsewhere on Wikipedia or through an email, copied and pasted back into main space. It can get the admin and the editor in hot water if the new article is just a copy of a deleted article, especially the deleted work of a sockpuppet.
Does this answer your question? I'll also say that once Sir Sputnik started replying to the discussion, I took a step back so if you could let me know, again, which article(s) you are interested in, I'll look into the deleted content and see what's there. LizRead!Talk! 16:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I see I didn't answer your fundamental question about who can see deleted content. Unfortunately, that is only administrators. If I could change one thing about Wikipedia, it would be to allow all editors to view their deleted contributions because editors are not always notified when pages/articles they created are deleted and I think they should be able to see what pages that they have worked on have been deleted and why. But a) I don't know if this is even technically possible and b) I'm now sure this idea would have enough widespread support to change current policy. LizRead!Talk! 16:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Deletion - Reinhold O. Schmidt
I added a 3rd-party source (Jerome Clark's UFO Encyclopedia) to this source, and came back to add another (James R. Lewis's UFOs and Popular Culture) but found it had already been deleted. Can it be restored so I can continue cleaning it up? SecretTerrorAmongUs (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Just as a head's up, many PRODs that are restored are then nominated for AFD deletion later. If the article gets deleted through an AFD, it can not be easily restored after that. But it would give you time to improve the content and make a copy of any reference sources that exist so you could work on a future version of an article. Of course, it might not be nominated for an AFD but I just want to let you know that it can happen. LizRead!Talk! 16:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm asking for-- thank you, and thanks also for the information on the AFD process. SecretTerrorAmongUs (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz, I hope you are well. I wanted to thank you again for the message you left on my talk page, I am really looking forward to emailing other editors! One question I wanted to ask, if I email another user, will my email address be visible? The one I have linked to this account is my personal one and it includes my full name, which I don’t want people on here knowing. Many thanks, Blanchey💬 • 📝 15:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's how I understand the system: If you use the "Email this user" link on the left-side menu, your email address isn't visible. But if the person you emailed responds directly to your email, then their email address will be visible to you. And if you directly reply to their email, instead of going through Wikipedia's email links, then your address will be visible to them. So, if you don't have email chain messages and only use Wikipedia's "Email this user" links, your email address won't be visible to the receiver. It's a little clumsy but unless you trust the editor who emailed you, I wouldn't respond directly to any email you get from another Wikipedia editor, especially editors you don't know well or unexpected email messages. I hope this makes things a bit clearer. LizRead!Talk! 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Since no content will be merged, just the sources... same rules to provide attribution as normal copying from one wiki page to another and then set redirect with history? Slywriter (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I know which AFD you are talking about. Who does this merging? It seems like some solutions proposed in a few AFDs go beyond what should be expected of discussion closers. LizRead!Talk! 23:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree on unreasonable expectations for closers and not looking for you to do so. Ill take ownership since I started the AfD on Wii streaming, just want to make sure I do it right. Slywriter (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
You moved the article on this song from draft space to article space. I have two questions. First, the article was previously deleted and cut down to a redirect. Did you verify that the current version of the article establishes song notability? I am assuming that the answer is yes. Second, however, the draft had been submitted to AFC for review. You moved the draft to article space with the Move command, leaving it tagged as submitted for review in article space, and I am cleaning it up. Was there a specific reason why you chose to move it to article space rather than waiting for a reviewer to use the script to move it to article space, or rather than asking a reviewer to use the script to move it to article space and perform related cleanup? If there was a reason why you decided to move it immediately to article space, then we thank you and are glad to finish the cleanup. If you forgot that the AFC script performs various cleanup tasks, then we all make mistakes. Was there a reason why you moved it to article space rather than letting a reviewer do that? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
You ask a lot of questions. The simple answer is that this move was requested by User:VersaceSpace, an editor who I have worked with in the past and who I trust, and they were making what I saw as a valid request. I move a lot of drafts to main space that are requested as CSD G6 page deletions and page moves, there are requests to do this every day. Not every editor who works in AFC has the complicated move system like you did, where you, for some reason, move drafts to your User space before moving them to main space. Why do you do this, by the way? You're the only editor I've encountered who works like that.
Any way, I respond to requests like this every day and base my decision on who is requesting the page move and whether or not I think they are an experienced editor making a legitimate request. If I made a mistake, I'm happy to move it back to Draft space right now and restore the redirect. LizRead!Talk! 04:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Liz, I really appreciate your validation. You're an editor who I have extremely high levels of respect for, so the fact that you hold a degree of trust in me means the utmost. Thanks —VersaceSpace🌃 04:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Liz - I am satisfied that User:VersaceSpace reviewed the draft and found that the issues in the AFD had been satisfied. It looked to me as though they probably had been satisfied, but I wasn't reviewing, but relying first on your judgment, then on VersaceSpace. It now belongs in article space, where it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
User:VersaceSpace - On the one hand, I invite you to become an AFC reviewer, even if you only seldom plan to use the script. On the other hand, if you want a draft moved to article space that is in review, we will be glad to respond to a request at the AFC talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I do have the reviewer script, but I'll take your second piece of advice into account the next time I face a similar dilemma. —VersaceSpace🌃 05:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Liz - I don't think that I have ever moved a draft to my user space and then accepted it. What I have done and do is to use my user space as the temporary location in a round-robin move or page swap. A page swap necessarily involves a third location, and those often cause confusion; there is no right way to do page swaps. I also previously used user space in the case where a redirect with minor history blocked draft acceptance. I moved the redirect into my user space and tagged it for G6. Because this caused confusion, I now instead move the redirect into draft space with a number after it, and tag it as {{moved}}. I can explain this further the next time that I do one of these moves. But I only accept a draft from draft space. The complicated moves involve moving redirects and things into user space and out into draft space. Thank you. I hope that this either answers your questions or can be followed up with another question. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
User:VersaceSpace - If the problem was that the title was occupied by a redirect, then you can tag the title with {{db-afc-move}}, which requests that a reviewer delete the redirect so that you can use the acceptance script. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: I am Hatto, who also contributed to User talk:Liz/Archive 4#Draft:Illusion (Aespa song). I am Japanese and not a native English speaker, so I am struggling with the English correspondence from you, @Robert McClenon: and @VersaceSpace: while using DeepL Translator. However, after reading the Japanese translation by DeepL, I'm not sure what the reason is for not being able to move the draft article to mainspace. I'm so sorry, can you please explain to me why it cannot be moved to mainspace in a way that is more understandable even to a non-native English speaker like myself? --Hatto (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I'm writing to follow up on your close of this AfD, because based on the revisions to the article that happened during the discussion, I am wondering about the policy basis for your close. I am also requesting a relist so discussion can continue, based on how much the circumstances changed during the discussion, e.g. the creation of the book article for the debut collection of short stories by the author, and the author article now being mostly based on primary and nonindepedent sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see this as a controversial decision but will reverse my action and relist this discussion and let another admin handle the closure. LizRead!Talk! 00:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Liz - my concern is with how WP:NOT policy applies, and specifically WP:PROMO, based on the existence of the book article and the sources currently available to support a BLP per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
SPI query
Hello Liz, I was doing a bit of sleuthing regarding possible sockpuppetry/UPE when I came across some comments you made about User:Gingie11 roughly a month ago, now in a talk archive here. Due to deleted articles/contribs I'm not able to glean much about what happened back there; do you remember what that was about?
I'm asking because we've got Mandla Lamba right now which was first created by User:Lamieni55 and then expanded and moved back to mainspace by User:Lamini12 after a draftification. L55 and L12 have similar names and edit summary wording tics; the accounts were created around the same time, then did just barely enough to attain autoconfirmed before creating/moving Mandla Lamba. Gingie11 showed up to defend the article when it got AfD'd and also made a small edit. The article was a whitewashing of the subject (see this rev) so I rewrote it using sources uncovered in the AfD discussion; this triggered G11 to try to restore the article to some "desired" version by undoing edits individually (as opposed to making a single revert). After G11 got a 31hr block for disruptive editing, L12 took over and performed 3 more undos before stopping.
Do you think that's sufficient evidence for SPI? I'm also curious about the Ginginie11 connection you mentioned and wonder if these could be undetected sleepers from then.
Actually, the way today is going, I don't feel like diving back into a new SPI investigation. I just filed another case this morning about some other sockpuppets. I'm sorry not to be of more help but I would encourage you, if there is an existing SPI case, to file a new report. The checkusers can only tell you "No" so I don't see it as a big risk. Just be sure that you are talking about registered accounts, not IP accounts, because they won't link IP accounts to existing sockpuppets accounts. I can see why you are suspicious about this situation but, right now, it's not something I want to take on myself. Checkusers are usually great about being direct about what they can and what they can't do. The only frustration is that there are always so many open SPI cases that it can take a while to get attention on the one you have opened. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 00:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I'll take care of it — sorry if it came across like I was expecting you to take action. Was just hoping for any additional info that might help strengthen the case. Regardless, those remarks you made back in June are already helpful to suggest a connection with previous cases rather than a fresh case, so thanks for leaving that trail. Appreciate the advice and encouragement too. Oh, and thanks also for interrupting a G13 streak to check things out and weigh in on that AfD, I really appreciate that! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, just a courtesy status update: the SPI went smoothly and your suspicions about the user being associated with the previous case turned out to be correct. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your good work! Andrevan@ 05:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Any appreciation really gets you through the day. Many thanks. LizRead!Talk! 00:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
"Attack article"
The article I wrote on Dan Nainan was in no way an "attack article" - everything in it was properly sourced and it shouldn't have been speedily deleted. If there was a problem with the tone or whatever of the article, that could have easily been adjusted, but I didn't add anything that wasn't written about in reliable sources. Wasn't the problem really that everything was actually perfectly sourced and that it therefore was nothing to improve on? R2-tango (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I would like to request the article as I wrote it is reinstated - if there was any part that was indeed problematic, it can be removed. But you would owe me an explanation of why any specific part (all supported by reliable sources) should be removed.R2-tango (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I have never deleted Dan Nainan so I don't know why you have come to my talk page, I just handled the draft version. This article was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Nainan so would be unlikely to have survived in main space of the project. LizRead!Talk! 00:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed you did, or at least that's what you claimed on my Talk page.R2-tango (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I am yet to receive a response. You did delete the article. [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by R2-tango (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
First, I apologize for the delay in my response, discussions that move up to the middle of the page are easy to overlook when new messages are placed at the bottom of a Talk page.
No, as I said, I didn't delete the main space article which was deleted through an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Nainan, 7 years ago. Please look at the AFD and look at the deletion notice on the page Dan Nainan and see for yourself.
I deleted a draft version Draft:Dan Nainan that you created. While there might have been references on the draft, the article was a purely negative article that violated our policy called "Biography of Living Persons". It doesn't matter if you have citations if the article only focuses on negative aspects of a person's life. The article was unbalanced. If you look at the current version of the draft at Draft:Dan Nainan, you'll see that the current version doesn't have the problems your draft had. It is a much superior version to the one you wrote so I'm not going to delete it and restore your own. Feel free to work on the existing draft.
If you have questions about Wikipedia's deletion processes or deletion criteria, please bring them to the Teahouse and get a second opinion if you don't accept my explanation. Thank you and, again, I'm sorry about my delayed response to your messages. LizRead!Talk! 01:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Song of the Cane Fields
Hello. I really hate to ask this (so just tell me it's too late if it is), but is there any way I could still submit further sourcing for [[Song of the Cane Fields]]? Following extensive searching, I was just about to vote "delete" in line with the others, when I realized that one of the sources already cited on the page was a Japanese American newspaper review which might count toward notability (which was very poorly formatted as a reference): The North American Post. I then changed my search parameters and found the TV movie cited in this book: [2]. It caused me to want to search some more, but I had to leave for dinner and came back and the article has been deleted. Thanks in advance for your consideration and for all your ongoing work with AfDs. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You didn't link to the AFD discussion you are concerned about so I'm not sure how to evaluate your comment. If the discussion was a Soft Deletion, you can request a restoration at WP:REFUND. It the discussion closed as "Delete" you can recreate a Draft version of the article and submit it to AFC, this is the only way I know to overcome an AFD deletion decision. After an AFD discussion has closed, there is really no point in presenting additional arguments, the discussion has been closed and few of them are reopened to hear additional arguments. You just have to start an article knowing that the article has been deleted in the main space of the project and any recreation will be tagged for CSD G4 deletion. That's why we encourage editors to create new versions in Draft space where they are unlikely to be tagged for speedy deletion. LizRead!Talk! 00:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song of the Canefields and I see now it is a soft delete so it could be reversed or refunded. Is there a time limit on reversing or refunding, or is it indefinite? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Also... Is there any way to find out the name of the page creator, so I could just leave them a message with the coverage found so far, and what they would probably need to find and demonstrate in order to have the page accepted and kept in the future? (Actually I know who the nominator is, so I guess I could ask them.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no expiration date for requesting a REFUND although I don't think that is stated anywhere. I've regularly seen editors come back for drafts that were deleted in 2019 or 2017. I don't spend as much time there as I used to since there is a great group of admins now who regularly respond to requests but I think the oldest draft I saw requested was from 2012. The page creator and primary contributor to Song of the Canefields is editor CyannaLocke. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk! 22:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
ISO 15706-2 merge question
Hi Liz! Hope you are doing well. I had a question about the reverted edits on ISO 15706-2 - saw that the consensus of the AfD was to merge with the larger International Standard Audiovisual Number article, which I had done. I'm confused about what the process would be for the ISO 15706-2 article then - would we not remove it and/or add a redirect to the ISAN page? I haven't done many of them so I apologize if I've missed something. I'm just confused about the combination of reverting a merged page but then adding a tag that it needs to be merged because, at least as well as I know how to (which is no guarantee of quality), this has already happened. I tried to follow the 'so you're going to merge these pages' guidelines in context but if I messed something up, please let me know and I'll fix it for this page! I'd really like this to be a learning experience for the future. All the best, Kazamzam (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm no expert on merging articles. I just closed the AFD discusion after reading through the comments in the discussion. I can just point you to Wikipedia:Merging as a resource. I'm not happy with AFD results that leave the outcome to anyone who wants to follow through and take action but that's what I summarized people wanted. You might also find some help at the Teahouse. LizRead!Talk! 00:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Market Watch. 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, kind of, for letting me know. That is my least favorite page on the entire project. It's where I am typically told I'm a terrible admin....but I think I made the right call in this AFD since no one was advocating "Keep". I appreciate the notice. LizRead!Talk! 19:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Gotta love the anonymity that the Internet provides to trolls. I agree with your decision as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted article Tariq Hilal Al Barwani
Hello Liz, I've noticed you deleted the article from Wikipedia which was available for about 3 years ago. How can we review and enhance the same ? Kindly advise TerryWiki12 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The deletion was based on this AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Hilal Al Barwani. It has been deleted. You are free to start a new version of this article in Draft space, addressing the problems brought up in the AFD, and submitting it to AFC for review and approval.
If you have questions about Wikipedia's policies or its deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 02:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz, I respect your kind response. The bases shared on the article are weak especially the notability. Could you please share the archive of the content in order to review and enhance? TerryWiki12 (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the article, and its content, have been deleted. However, I don't do this often but I will reopen the AFD discussion and relist it for another week. Maybe another admin will come to a different decision than I did. LizRead!Talk! 02:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz, I respect your professionalism and action. Thank you. What I found a bit strange is how come an article with notability of over 3 years was deleted now. Would you kindly assist on what can be done to ensure it remains? Thanks once again TerryWiki12 (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't guarantee that about any article on the project and we have some articles that are 21 years old. Any article can be tagged for deletion. We have three forms of deletion, Speedy deletion for obvious cases, Proposed deletion for cases that are seen as uncontroversial and Articles for Deletion where the merits or flaws of an article are discussed for at least a week. It was the last form of deletion that involved the article you are concerned about. I'd read over the comments made in the AFD discussion and try to address them. I think the general feeling was that the article was promotional and looked like a LinkedIn page. So, if you could make it more balanced and less like personal branding, that might help. LizRead!Talk! 02:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Big thank you. Your feedback is valuable and will be action. I appreciate your support. TerryWiki12 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz, may I kindly ask you to review the page again? It seems despite votes for keeping it & working on enhancing the page, there are trolls that want it removed. It is notable personality and you may personally do a search online in both English & other languages where you will find legitimate sources. I kindly request you review as number of delete may bypass keep without proper consensus. Sorry to trouble you TerryWiki12 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
according to your message on Randykitty's talk page (here "I'm cleaning up all of the broken redirects to this article and it doesn't look like your typical promotional article. He seems to have done a lot of newsworthy stuff in his life. Liz 22:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)",
I think the article's subject is notable enough (according to references). I can improve and re-write it to solve the problems to serve as an encyclopedia article.
He was on the front page of 2 newspapers in Iran (Shargh &...) just 2days ago (16 July) because of his activity against Internet censorship in Iran.
He also has interviews with the Los angles times, Deutsche Welle, and many Iranian newspapers and news agencies and presents more than 100 episodes of the Charkh talk show on Iran's national tv.
(additional info: This article was created and reviewed by the AFC process.).
Randykitty (the admin who deletes this article), wrote you this message:
"Hi Liz, if you think deletion as G11 was not warranted then feel free to restore the article. --Randykitty 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)"
could you please review this article again and restore it if possible? I'll try to add more references and re-write the main sections to improve them. KidsOnTheMoon (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I guess I got myself involved in this by expressing an opinion. Yes, I'll restore this article but move it to Draft space. I know you say it's been approved by an AFC reviewer already but I think you should submit it again. I think if you move it directly into main space again, I think it will get tagged for deletion again. This article apparently has been deleted repeatedly so you have that to overcome. Continue to work on it, improving the draft, try to make it less like advertising, submit it to AFC and do not be in a hurry to move it into main space. That's my advice to you. LizRead!Talk! 03:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
AFDs
Hi, no worries on that. Ideally at least a dozen people would turn out at an AFD and give a strong consensus. I can't fault you for wanting more editorial input, but I thought it was clear the way it was headed. Hope you're enjoying the summer! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
You know, I thought I had gone through the worst of it with my RfA 7 years ago but I had my first visit to Deletion Review in January and have found trips there to be equally unpleasant. And to think, when I was a new editor back in 2013, I used to hang out a lot on noticeboards, what was I thinking? They are frequently forums where people go to attack each other. So, I try to focus on the work, follow policy and if I'm unsure about my decisions, I leave it for another admin to weigh in. Sometimes they agree with what I was going to do, sometimes they don't, in either case, I think a second opinion (or sometimes a little more time) is useful to determining consensus.
I try to stay out of these delete vs. keep ideological battles but I must say that the folks advocating for deletion are much more persistent and dogged than those requesting that articles be kept. I wonder where that passion comes from, to wipe Wikipedia clean of whole categories of articles deemed unworthy. Aside from copyright violations, those that violate BLP guidelines and those that are blatant advertising, I guess I have a more "Live and let live" attitude. It's a big project, big enough to have articles on all types of subjects from 9th century French monks to Arabic poetry to villages in Vietnam to Roman battles to rivers in Brazil to World War II tanks to little seen silent movies. I think the amazing thing is that in 21 years, we've had volunteers interested enough in subjects like these to compose referenced articles on them. And this has benefitted the whole world, or, at least, anyone who has an internet connection. And while there are still plenty of mistakes that need correcting, that is pretty damn amazing. Thank you for the big part you have played in Wikipedia's development. LizRead!Talk! 18:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Why relist this article?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modo (software) (2nd nomination) has the nominator wanting to delete it, and all three of the others participating saying it passes the general notability guidelines, listing references to prove that, and saying to keep it. No one has posted in a week now. Why extend the discussion another week when consensus is clear and there is no ongoing discussions? DreamFocus 21:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't remember exactly what I was thinking when I decided to relist this AFD discussion. Maybe I didn't find the Keep opinions very convincing, I'll have to reexamine that discussion. And I have an appointment starting in 3 minutes so I'll look it over when I'm out of that and back on Wikipedia. Sound good? LizRead!Talk! 21:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've reviewed the AFD again. I think I relisted this discussion because there had been no improvement in the article since the day it was nominated and the deletion rationale presented by MrsSnoozyTurtle still seemed valid. Almost the entire article is unsourced and, honestly, it reads like the company's website page on how this product was developed, not an encyclopedia article.
I realize my own opinion isn't relevant to closing an AFD discussion but I thought I'd share it with you any way. Perhaps I should have left this discussion alone and not relisted it for another week but I was hoping to gain more participation from interested editors. At this point, I will leave this discussion for another administrator to close. If it is any consolation, some admins go look for relisted discussions to close before another week passes so you might get your preferred outcome sooner rather than later. I'm sorry you are disappointed in the decision I made to relist the discussion. LizRead!Talk! 00:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted article "Apache AGE"
Hello Liz, I found my article was deleted and I don't understand reason due to I am new. I just would like to know what was wrong or what I needed to fix about it. Could you please let me know what was problem and what I could do to restore it if possible? Thank you Sellme4001 (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This article deletion shouldn't have been a surprise to you. You were informed about the AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache age, on your User talk page back on June 20th. I saw you participated there so you were aware that the article was nominated for deletion but you didn't really offer an argument on why the article should be kept.
Fortunately for you, there was little participation in this AFD discussion so I closed it as "Soft Delete". That means that you can request a restoration of the page if you go to WP:REFUND so you are able to get your article back and continue to work on it. Be aware that it can always be tagged for deletion again so you'd be smart to review the AFD discussion again to see why it was nominated in the first place and address those concerns. Good luck. LizRead!Talk! 00:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Sellme4001. Like Liz, I am an administrator, and so I was able to read the deleted article. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable independent sources say about the topic. The deleted article had no references to independent sources. All the sources were directly connected to the topic of the article. Deletion was correct. If you want to try again, then you must use truly independent sources as the basis for writing the article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Cullen328. I appreciate for your explain about my question. If you don't mind I would like to ask an advice from you. I believe 'Global Newswire' was an independent source while all other references were managed by Apache software Foundation in my article. Please advice more specificcally what was independent source and what was not. I really don't want to make problem about article. Please give an advice. Thank you. Sellme4001 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Liz, Really appreciate for your answer. Now I got reason why my article was deleted from you and Cullen328's reply. I hope chance would be given to review again restored article looking forward once exactly I get how fix problems. Thanks again for your answers. Sellme4001 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you'll get a better response if you move this discussion to Cullen328's User talk page. I'm not sure how often they come by here. LizRead!Talk! 00:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you had a look at my significantly cleaned up version before deleting. I see that the timeline of my edit and your deletion are same. Jay(talk) 02:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I didn't see your edit. I have a habit of opening up pages in tabs and gradually going through them. It usually doesn't pose any problems but in this case, I restored the page. I thought the article was in pretty bad shape when I looked at it so I didn't remove the CSD tag. LizRead!Talk! 02:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It is still bad enough to be deleted, but I had just wanted to confirm if it was my version that you checked before deleting. Jay(talk) 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Star Mississippi already got to this page before I could. Thanks for tagging it. LizRead!Talk! 00:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding speedy deletion and transclusions
Thanks for the notice [6], I'll take extra care with this in the future. I do, however, have two questions.
One, could another workaround for cases like this be wrapping the speedy deletion tag in <noinclude>? And two, should I consider your message a declined speedy, so as not to go admin shopping? That malformed AfD is quite harmless; I only tagged it because it appeared to be obviously created in error, but otherwise I'm content to let it be. ComplexRational (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know of a way to avoid a deletion tag being transcluded on a transcluded page. But you know, I always go to Village Pump - Technical when I have questions like this and it seems like there is always a person who can provide an answer. And people generally respond pretty fast so I'd give it a shot.
As for "admin-shopping", I don't think this would apply. Typically admin-shopping refers to going to one admin for special privileges or to restore a deleted article after another admin had refused requests like these. What I meant was, frequently, editors will have an admin or two who they go to with questions or problems and if you had an admin you had that kind of relationship with, it can be easier to ask them directly for help rather than going through regular channels when those channels are problematic. That's all. I didn't delete the page myself because I'm unsure if we delete project pages like this one when they are just mistakes. I hope this clarifies things. LizRead!Talk! 02:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes, wrapping in <noinclude> is exactly how to do it. Twinkle automatically does it in Template namespace actually (Cf. Diff/1099490774) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much, IAmChaos, I appreciate you sharing your technical knowledge. LizRead!Talk! 02:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Liz and IAmChaos for the quick and informative replies. I'll keep these points in mind, and in this specific case, I'll go ahead and re-tag as described. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Liz, would it make sense to move Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi to draft space for further work. Despite the abrasive tone, Morgankarki has done some improvements and I think it's close to acceptable. They pretty obviously copy-pasted sentences from sources (see my comment here) but it's a good starting point. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I have a couple of concerns. You moved Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi to Draft space once and it was almost immediately moved back to main space. I also doubt that Morgankarki would work on a draft, with their attitude, they won't work in Draft space but will move the page back to main space where it could get tagged CSD G4. If they would just dial down their response, we could work something out but I'm not sure if they can compromise here. LizRead!Talk! 17:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm right with you on that. I'm trying to think of a good option. It's probably overkill, but moving it to draft and move-protecting the draft, plus create the redirect again, and protect that. The draft can't be moved and the article title is protected. A blunt warning to Morgankari they need to work on the draft and go through the review process or they will be blocked and anything created at other titles deleted under G4. Annoying to have to do that much, I know. I'll spend some time working on the article. I know nothing about the topic, but my wife's gotten hooked on true-crime podcasts, so this is interesting to me. I guess an alternate would be to create a sandbox page with the version, work on it and if it looks good, use that for a DRV and then a history merge if accepted. That may be easier. Ravensfire (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh boy, this gets more complicated as I look. The production section is individual sentences copy-pasted from various sources (but usually not from the source given for that sentence!). While the subject is notable, I don't think there's any chance this would have been accepted as a draft with what I've found. There's a lot of TLC needed here. I have started something in a sandbox User:Ravensfire/sandbox/Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi, but whichever route you think may be easier long-term works. Thanks for the help with the drama, appeciate it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
No need to thank me, you're doing all of the work with the content here! I just hope Morgankari will allow you to try to get the a draft version into an acceptable condition. I'm not sure if that means we have to lay some protection down on the redirect page in main space for a while. LizRead!Talk! 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Morgankarki here! I am responding in concern with the draft page which I work.yesterday I revisited the article section (draft) and I find the content on the production heading probably copy pasted by another user(name I don't know because the page has been severe edited by me and the creator) he has just copied from the Indian news portal website The Hindu or The Indian express... That need to be cut. Other than that the article looks find. And, about the title I have already mentioned yesterday with you guys. Thanks Morgankarki (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
"Category:Taxa named by Barbara Gillian Briggs"
Something wrong here - my head is spinning from going around in circles. Gderrin (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz! I had CSD tagged Civic Sardinia because the author and sole editor of the page is topic-banned from Italian politics and I believe was banned prior to the page creation: User_talk:Scia_Della_Cometa#Topic_ban_and_partial_block. I agree the user is not a sock puppet (or at least hasn't been shown to be one). Apologies if a topic ban is not a valid CSD reason. Thanks for the heads up on the revert as to your thinking.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Draft and article both exist
Hi Liz,
Sorry to bother you but I was hoping you could give me a bit of guidance. I've run into this a few times in the past week and I'm not quite sure what to do. Often times a user will submit their draft via the AfC wizard, it will get declined, and then they'll copy and paste the content to the article space anyways. Should I apply a deletion tag to either page? If so, which one would I apply and to which version? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, we have a nightly list of pages that have been moved from main space to Draft space (or the other way around) that is the "Draftification list" and I run into this a couple of times a night. I simply leave a Twinkle warning about cut & paste articles..use TW menu>Warn>Single issue notices>Cut & paste moves, Linked page field=Name of main space page. It's a pretty stern message and I think it makes an impression on new editors that we prefer them to move pages out of Draft space rather than cutting and pasting content back into main space. I don't tag the main space pages for deletion, although some page patrollers occasionally do this, because, typically, both the draft version and main version have only been edited by the page creator so the problem of attribution isn't present. As long as the same editor has been the sole contributor to both Draft space and main space articles (except for the editor who moved the page), it's not an attribution problem. The main thing we want to get across to them is to not do any future cut & paste jobs, not to get into any "Move wars" where pages are being moved back and forth between namespaces.
If the article is really in unacceptable shape, use one of standard forms of deletion tagging (CSD, PROD, AFD), I typically see AFD used when cases like this arise. That can seem a little heavy-handed to me because in most cases, these are very new editors who are just unfamiliar with our rules. If they do a cut & paste job, they generally don't do it twice after a warning which is the result I like to see. I think they are generally surprised to see that any other editor has even noticed the articles they are working on! I also frequently leave an invitation to visit the Teahouse because editor talk like "cut & paste jobs", "page moves" and "attribution" can result in them having questions about what that all means. I've found that often new editors don't even know about Draft space and what it is for and just think that their articles have been exiled. They don't realize that experienced editors moving bad, newly created articles to Draft space is actually a way of saving them from being quickly deleted, so that they can be improved over time.
So, that's my approach. It's a different matter if the original version, now in Draft space, has a few different editors who have made contributions to the page, that is the version we need to keep and in those cases, it's okay to tag the newly created main space version for CSD deletion (I think most times when this happens, editors use CSD G6 and leave an explanation). So, it kind of a case-by-case situation, it happens on a daily basis with very new editors and what our goal is is to educate these editors rather than getting in move wars or such which will just confuse and frustrate them (and you).
I also wanted to thank you for tagging expired drafts CSD G13. It's a task I try to keep up with throughout the day but I often get busy with other daily jobs I take on or monitor and fall behind. It's not a very exciting task but the drafts can pile up over a course of hours and it's nice to keep things current. I'm not sure what time zone you are in but this is something that can be done over the course of a 24 hour day/night if you find that they lingered too long past their expiration date/time. And I REALLY appreciate it that you leave a notification on the talk page of the draft creator when you tag an article for deletion, that's not always done by everyone and it is so important with CSD G13s that editors know they can return to work on their draft by going to WP:REFUND and getting it restored. Thank you for doing that.
I hope this loooong explanation is helpful and not too complicated. LizRead!Talk! 19:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and, if you want, you can always turn the Draft version into a redirect to the main space page, I see that done many times when this happens if there are no issues over editor attribution. Draft redirects do not need to be deleted. LizRead!Talk! 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Helpful is definitely the word I'd choose for this long explanation. It's a lot of information and relevant context, so I'll definitely be re-reading it a few times to properly absorb and digest it all. I appreciate the thoroughness of it and the guidance, thanks so much :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for deleting and moving Black Coffee! Utfor (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, you keep creating sockpuppets named Ron and create pages named after Ron, I just assumed you were talking about yourself. LizRead!Talk! 04:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I suppose that is a fair point. Atac2 (talk) . 04:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey Liz. I just want to check I didn't goof with this here action. Article was nominated for deletion, nominator turns out to be a sock of the author and is now blocked. Nominator didn't like the way the convo was going and closed the nomination as speedy keep. I've reverted that non-admin closure. I just wondered a) if I haven't over-reached myself here and b) if all logs etc are correctly preserved/reinstated. Sometimes Twinkle scares me to death... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail
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.TheSandDoctorTalk 16:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The Heat is On
Hey Liz,
Would you be willing to undelete The Heat is On (TV series) and move it (without redirect) to WP:HOAXLIST? WP:DENY and all that, sure... but this case is quite instructive on how hoaxes can permeate sources of low reliability like The Express, and that such sources should be scrutinized heavily when establishing existence. Ovinus (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I have no objections but I have to look into exactly what is done. I handled one other long-term hoax a couple years ago before but I kind of mishandled it, I created an archive page that I linked to. It's probably not complicated but I've been very busy today, it seems like we have a lot of admins who take off the weekends so I closed most of the AFDs for Saturday. Give me a bit of time. Since the article has been around so long, I guess it's not really an urgent matter! LizRead!Talk! 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course! Take your time and thank you for your tireless work at AfD. Ovinus (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Message on my wall.
I am almost 100% percent sure you did not mean for the message on my wall to sound condescending, and I am sorry that I couldn't help but receive it as such. Anyways, There has been NO human changes to Draft:Sumer Singh Yadav when it was declined on 12 Jan 2022. please explain to me why that is not WP:G13. KSAWikipedian (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The non-bot edit to Draft:Sumer Singh Yadav was on March 12th so it would have been eligible for a CSD G13 on September 12. But now that we have both edited the draft, it will next be eligible for CSD G13 deletion on January 25, 2023 (unless someone edits the page in those six months). It's six months since the last human edit to the page, any edit counts. Editors often postpone CSD G13 deletion by making a minor edit to the page to give it another six months time.
If it's any consolation, new page taggers sometimes misunderstand CSD G13 and also tag other pages in User space that just haven't been edited in years but that are not eligible for CSD G13 (see WP:G13 for the exact requirements). The criteria for speedy deletion are very specific and limited but once you are familiar with them, it's easy to make the right call. LizRead!Talk! 05:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you tagged this category for speedy deletion; note that the category isn't actually empty, despite nothing appearing in the category page. For example, the redirects Neo Revelation and Southern Islands (Pokémon Trading Card Game) both have that category in their article page. I tried making a null edit to the former to force its appearance in the category, but that didn't work.
Note that this has also happened with a few categories that have already been deleted. Mindmatrix 23:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Gah. I was looking at the wrong year... Mindmatrix 23:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, CSD C1 isn't exactly "speedy". Categories sit for 7 days before deletion is implemented because sometimes categories are temporarily empty (this often happens when templates are responsible for filling up categories and the templates change) or when categories are emptied "out of process"...this happens when, instead of making a deletion proposal at Categories for Discussion, an editor will remove all of the pages from a category so that it will be tagged for speedy deletion as an empty category. This is not an appropriate action to take but it is very common, even among editors who do a lot of work with categories.
But having this week-long delay does allow category creators and others to take action if there are any problems with the tagging or with the category. It is not uncommon for categories that are tagged CSD C1 to have the CSD tag removed before the end of the 7 day period. I wish other forms of speedy deletion allowed for this time to respond to a page tagging but, unfortunately, pages are often quickly deleted before the page creator even seens the deletion notification. LizRead!Talk! 23:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Belated ninth anniversary on Wikipedia
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Liz! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 9th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris troutman! I actually started editing Wikipedia in 2007 but it was with a different account and then I edited as an IP editor for years. But it still has been 9 years with this account so I will celebrate that! Can't wait to join the 10 Year Society! LizRead!Talk! 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wyoming suffrage, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is populated or is otherwise allowed to be empty. Thank you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know but this is not uncommon. I'd say 8-10% of categories tagged CSD C1 are only temporarily empty. That's why they sit around for a week before deletion is implemented. As soon as a tagged category has pages in them and is no longer empty, the tag is removed so thank you for doing that. Stay cool! LizRead!Talk! 20:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your work! I probably made the category and meant to add the article to it and just forgot! FacePalm! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Coordinates missing categories
Hi Liz, you've recently nominated a few of the "coordinates missing" tracker categories for speedy deletion. This is entirely my fault for not properly marking these as tracker categories, and I apologise. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I intend to tag the entire coordinates-missing category tree with {{articles-missing-coordinates category}}, but cannot do it right at the moment. In the interim, could you please hold off nominating these for deletion? — The Anome (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course! Also, if you tag them {{emptycat}}, they will stop appearing on our nightly Empty Categories list. Thanks for letting me know. LizRead!Talk! 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks again for your guidance regarding RfU. I have restored 1000+ pages since that time. Jay 04:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Was this deleted on accident? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Question regarding AfD closing
Hi, came here after seeing your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Haider (musician). Was wondering why pages in AfD with no opposition to deletion, aren't soft deleted after a week like WP:PROD. Can we consider AfD with no opposition and support as PROD? Thanks. AHatd (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
That's already a thing, Liz may have had other reasons for not doing so. See WP:SOFTDELETE. —VersaceSpace🌃 13:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@VersaceSpace Quite swift reply. Yeah, got my answer after looking a few past AfDs in the archive (every AfD has two relisting before soft deletion). BTW Thanks for being helpful. AHatd (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I have an answer that no one ever likes..."it depends". There are administrators who will close AFDs that have no participation other than the nominator with a "Soft Delete" or even a straight "Delete". I prefer to relist discussions in the hope of soliciting more feedback from other editors who frequent AFD discussions. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. An editor/admin is supposed to have a good reason to relist a third time but I've done it before and I have even seen 4 relistings...in those cases, I think the relister hasn't noticed that the discussion has already been relisted several times before. In these seemingly unresolvable AFDs, our deletion guidelines say that it's better to close with "No conesnsus".
Personally, I like to see at least two editors recommending Deletion before deleting a main space article through AFD. I don't mind deleting pages, in fact, I have deleted more pages than only a few other administrators. But, in my view, aside from pure junk, which is best handled through CSD Speedy Deletion, so much effort is expended to create articles that I prefer not to delete them on the basis of one editor's opinion or assessment. This is a personal point of view and other admins who close AFDs do not have my reluctance. Luckily there about 4-8 admins I regularly see closing AFD discussions and I think you can expect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Haider (musician) to close sooner rather than later. Sorry if my relisting caused any frustration, I would certainly not expect to see another relist for this partciular discussion.
I think VersaceSpace was alluding to the fact that "Soft Deletion" is not always possible with some AFD closures but, in this case, it is a discussion that is eligible for a Soft Deletion and I expect that to be how it is closed, if not by me than by another admin. LizRead!Talk! 21:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I really appreciate you writing me back. Was just curious to know more about AfD closing process. No, there wasn't any frustration at all :-) Thanks for such a insightful response. AHatd (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Hello Liz, as you are an administrator, I'm approaching you to have both the extra rights i.e. Autopatrolled and Extended-confirmed to be removed from my account, as I do not intend to work any further in this project. Thankyou. zoglophie 21:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Done I'm sorry to see you go. I'm not sure what has prompted your departure but I, myself, have left editing for two prolonged periods, once for 6 months when I was a new editor and once for 2 years a year after I became an administrator, and I hope if the desire to edit returns one day, you'll come back as a valued contributor. Good luck! LizRead!Talk! 21:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Validity of “fail” claim
Hi Liz,
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teppei Miwa, there’s one delete vote claiming the article fails WP:GNG, but the reason is because the source that meets every criteria, particularly in from Yahoo News Japan, is not available in his region, even though it is elsewhere. Is it valid for someone to claim a source fails WP:GNG just because they can’t access to the website & don’t know what is written there? I hope you can give a say in the discussion, whatever opinion you agree to, to prevent pointless argument.
Thank you very much. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you have been blocked for sockpuppetry for a week and the AFD will probably be closed by the time you are able to edit. It is unwise to edit logged out as you can see. I looked over the AFD and it seems like it has a healthy discussion going on although you may not be happy with the result when it is closed. LizRead!Talk! 01:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I am requesting your help, please.
As per Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process, I was directed to administrators who have updated recently to help solve an editing dispute, before escalating the issue. I am kindly asking for your assistance.
There is an administrator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohnoitsjamie who has been rejecting credible information, due to their personal dislike of an artist, and therefore they have been threatening to block me. I really do not want to argue with them, I just want the information to be updated correctly. They are continuously deleting the edited content, without properly reviewing the information and they are refusing to engage in a civilized discussion. This is why I am seeking your help.
The information I am trying to update is “the List of people with absolute pitch”. The current sources for this list are also just articles claiming these artists have this ability. My sources match the current list of sources for the other artists. The artist that should be added is Jungkook, the Main Vocalist, from BTS. He showed this ability of “absolute pitch” on camera on the variety show “RUN BTS”, it has been comfirmed and written in a book by a music critic and by a music producer who worked with him, and it has also been most recently confirmed by another artist on the list of people with absolute pitch, Charlie Puth. This artist just confirmed this information on camera in multiple interviews in June 2022. These are all reliable sources, especially Jungkook himself, proving this ability to identify notes without any reference point on camera (which is the current Wikipedia description of absolute pitch).
I can provide credible articles and links if needed. I would be so thankful if you could help on this issue! Thank you! Moniinicole (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Can you provide one or two specific citations to suppor this claim? It is not unusual for any editor or admin to remove unsupported claims from a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia can not be used as a reference or any other user-generated source of information. Have you posted an query about this on Ohnoitsjamie's talk page or on the article talk page? LizRead!Talk! 01:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you so much for your response. This specific source demonstrates that Jungkook has absolute pitch. Absolute pitch is defined on Wikipedia as “the ability to identify or re-create a given musical note, without the benefit of a reference tone.” Jungkook does this on camera in episode 150 of the variety show, “RUN BTS”. This take place within the first 5 minutes of the show and there is an option for English subtitles. Jungkook demonstrates absolute pitch at about 3 minutes and 10 seconds into the video. This is a source of him demonstrating this ability. Thank you for helping to look into this! Moniinicole (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There have also been many articles written about this. Multiple producers and music industry professionals who have worked with Jungkook have confirmed that he has absolute pitch. However, the best source is Jungkook proving this ability himself on camera, which is in the link I provided. Thank you. Moniinicole (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any written sources? Editors evaluating these matters won't sit through a video. The written sources don't have to be in English. If this is a notable characteristic, I'm sure that some magazine or mainstream website has written about it. LizRead!Talk! 05:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The link posted above is to the video source. This administrator immediately dismissed and shut down any conversations and rejected all sources related to this artist. However, they approved sources that were less credible for other artists. When I confronted them, they blocked me. I really don’t want to dispute or have an issue with this person. All I want is for the correct facts to be updated and for someone professional to just take a little bit of time to look into this so that Wikipedia page can have accurate information. Thank you. Moniinicole (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I will collect the sources and send soon. Thank you! Moniinicole (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
These are some articles that have written about Jungkook having “perfect pitch” or absolute pitch. Thank you again for your time to help!
I'll look over these when I have some time. Although I realize this matter is very important to you, I have a lot of tasks I need to complete on Wikipedia on a daily basis that keep me pretty busy. I'll try to get to evaluating these over the next day. LizRead!Talk! 05:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kindness! This truly means a lot to me. I completely understand and I will be thankful for you to look over the information whenever you have the time. Thank you again! Moniinicole (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about you, Moniinicole, today has just been very busy. I'll get to looking at the sources you provided. LizRead!Talk! 23:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I really appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule! Moniinicole (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz; you are one of several people this user has canvassed. Please see the discussion here. I've also asked this user to stop making unfounded allegations against me as they've done repeatedly on their talk page and elsewhere. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, that's not good, Ohnoitsjamie. There are very few places an editor can go when they have an editing dispute with an administrator so I thought I'd evaluate their argument. As you know, it often comes down to having reliable sources to back up your claims. But I'll also look at the article talk page discussion now that you have referred me to it. LizRead!Talk! 23:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This administrator has been attacking me and other users personally and stalking us. That is our issue with this person. As you can see, they even found my personal discussion with you. Please recognize that this behavior is not normal for an administrator to try and interfere when I went to someone else for help. It is unfortunate that they are letting their persona dislike of me interfere with the facts of this situation. This is not about winning or losing but about having someone take the time to look at the facts to do the best job to keep the information accurate. As per Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process, we are encouraged to seek help from a third party, before escalating the situation, which is exactly what I have done here. Moniinicole (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Liz. Can I just drop in and say that @Moniinicole has also canvassed me. I did not find their sources and video for their claim especially sound or convincing. But when I went to their talk page I found that (perhaps in their fervour to see their favourite artist fully lauded), they had engaged in some quite escalatory language and accusations against Ohnoitsjamie. See this I find that level of angst, accusation and suspicion of another's motives somewhat unacceptable, and have left them an 'Only Warning', as I don't want to see them dealing with any other editor in the same way. I note they've now responded to me rather sharply there, too. I don't feel that this is going to pan out too well. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Healthy discussion
Hi Liz! As you mention a healthy discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teppei Miwa, I think I should give some of my opinions on the matter, because I have seen you as decision makers in recent gymnastics AfD discussions.
The first comment (by user who nominated this for deletion) claimed that Teppei Miwa didn’t win any medal at the 2018 Voronin Cup & cited the women’s results. This might due to the source in the article, but even after it was fixed & announced in the comment below, the user still remained the claim.
The 2nd delete vote said that None of the articles linked count towards GNG with listing what types they are. But in the article Teppei Miwa, there’s no source as scoring error, press release or his profiles from his school or team.
The 3rd delete vote claimed that the article failed WP:GNG but he also said that he couldn’t read the Yahoo News Japan source as it blocked users from UK & EEA. This fails WP:SOURCEACCESS.
Right now, you are blocked for a week. Is this one AFD so important that you are willing to be blocked indefinitely? I don't think you realize how lucky you are to only be blocked for one week. Please stop socking. I don't want to extend your block. After your block is over, we can discuss the situation with gymnastics articles on the project. Please take the long-turn view here. LizRead!Talk! 03:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Asking for Advice
Hi Liz, hope you well. First and foremost, the sockpuppet at the AFD, as you previously noticed, has been blocked for using sockpuppet accounts. Hopefully the user in question can use this time to learn and reflect upon his mistakes, and I want to confirm this will not deter me from this AFD.
However, I would like you to offer some advice. In your opinion, did I handle this situation correctly at the AFD or could I have handled it better? I believe that I was acting in a respectful manner within the discussion as this is what I always like to do, and that my point was valid, although perhaps it was unwise for me and another user to raise suspicions on a sockpuppet explicitly. However, I think, in a way, this is useful for whoever is closing the AFD to see. I would like a second opinion on this, so if there is a next time, I could improve the way I deal with a sockpuppet if you believe I didn’t handle this situation correctly.
Most importantly, this experience will of course most certainly not deter me from engaging in future discussions at the AFD as I believe a discussions to be beneficial in helping to improve and save an article, if it can be done. Fats40boy11 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
No offense, but I look over an entire week's worth of AFD discussions which number in the hundreds. If you could be a bit more specific and provide a link to the one you are talking about, I can answer your questions better. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 05:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I’m sorry, of course I can. I thought I did, however, my tea hasn’t kicked in yet. It is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teppei Miwa. Again, please accept my apologies for not including this the first time around. Thanks for your help. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi again @Liz, sorry to bother you. I seem to have answered my own question on this.
Above on your talk page, you have already said that the discussion was healthy. Although I could have been less sarcastic when talking about the sockpuppet in the AFD (link above), I think it was appropriate for me to point out my suspicions on the AFD so that the closing admin can see that one of the votes is from the same user. I think that they will learn from the mistakes, especially after your warning to them to stop socking.
Feel free to ignore this, and I hope you have a nice day. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
You haven't bothered me, I just have a healthy list of daily tasks on Wikipedia that I attend to and sometimes it takes me a while to set aside time to respond properly. I think there are questions in the middle of this user talk page that I have forgotten about that I still haven't responded to, which doesn't reflect well on me.
I think there are two points here: Your participation in the AFD and you starting up the SPI case. I don't think there are any issues with starting the SPI case because there was sockpuppetry going on. The only time I wouldn't recommend opening an SPI case is when it is done in bad faith, in an attempt to intimidate another editor. That was not the case here as you had good reason to believe the editor was editing logged out which was confirmed.
The other question was your responses in the AFD. While they were mildly sarcastic, they also stayed on topic. I think you were a little insulted at being told your "vote" was invalid and it is true that just because you can not view a source (because of language or inaccessibility) it doesn't mean that it is not a good source for establishing notability. But your argument stayed on point and didn't get personal which is what we ask of editors. It's generally bad form to accuse an editor of misconduct like sockpuppetry in a discussion setting because it can also be seen as an attempt to silence someone with an opposing point of view. But, in this case, I think you had grounds to be suspicious. You raised them and then you did what you were supposed to do which was stop talking about it and go to SPI to start a formal case. You don't want to be a broken record or make repetitive accusations, it is not civil and it also gets the discussion off track. If you find yourselves in future disputes with this editor when they return, I wouldn't keep referring to the sockpuppetry unless you believe they have returned to doing it. Every editor has made mistakes in their editing career and it's best to remember but move on.
I should add that I haven't fully read over all of the comments in this AFD discussion and so I don't know how I would close it and I consider myself unbiased towards you and the other editor and the arguments you were making. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk! 23:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Liz. I will go back over it and make sure that nothing says that the article shouldn’t be used (I don’t think I was explicitly arguing that the source could not be used). It was just at the time, I couldn’t establish what was in it, and I think that was the point that I was trying to get across and was alerting users that accessibility was denied in certain regions.
I’ve just seen that there is a small section that I have said something factually incorrect and I will correct this. It looks like I was slightly drawn in by the sockpuppet here, but nothing unprofessional happened.
In regards to the sockpuppet, I don’t have a problem with them, and I most certainly won’t keep reporting this user when they return, unless they have returned to doing it. I had my point of view and they had theirs, albeit the way they went about it was wrong. I am a strong believer that you learn from you mistakes not only in editing but in life, so this would never affect my judgement.
As ever, thanks for the neutral opinion and guidance. All points have been noted. It’s much appreciated, and I will learn to not necessarily get drawn in by a sockpuppet again to avoid giving factually incorrect information and potentially creating other problems. Thank you, this has helped massively. Have a nice day. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
But User:RicardoSadik keeps adding his original research. He removed pronunciation (saŋʈgaiyaŋ) from infobox, changed order below and added his original research (সিটাইঙ্গা) first. I and other editors reverted his edit but he keeps doing it. (on bnwiki, we have an admin (Al Riaz Uddin Ripon) who is also native speaker of Chittagonian, i asked him and he said it's চিটাইঙ্গা, not সিটাইঙ্গা)
On bnwiki, i asked User:RicardoSadik many times but he never replied. on ctg wiki incubator, he even invented some new character for Chittagonian. Here on enwiki, he created Chittagonian calendar (no such calendar exists). He was already warned many times in the past. Please ask him to stop, take necessary action. Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This looks like a content dispute. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page? I don't much about languages other than English, much less Chittagonian, so I don't know who is correct and who is wrong. But it does look like there is some edit-warring going on here so I will post a warning about this and also tell you to please resist reverting, particularly a revert or undo without an edit summary explaining your edit decision. Typically when I see these problems it helps to get other editors who are knowledgeable about the subject involved if you know of any on this Wikipedia or you can try bringing it to the attention of a relevant WikiProject.
If this becomes an edit war, you can try filing a case at WP:ANEW but know that your own behavior will also be scrutinized so please do not indugle in edit warring yourself. LizRead!Talk! 21:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I see that this editor has already received some warnings on their User talk page about edits on this same article so if disruption continues, they could receive a partial block from editing that page. I wish they would participate on talk pages though. Let me know how things go here. LizRead!Talk! 21:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I tried to discuss this on talk page, see Talk:Chittagonian_language#spelling. It seems User:RicardoSadik doesn't care about discussion and keeps doing it. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Languishing AfD
[[7]] this AfD was last relisted on the 14th. It seems like it’s fallen through some crack somehow. Jacona (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think forgotten AFDs are that uncommon. Admins patrolling AFD pages (and probably all deletion discussions) prefer the closure of clear cut cases. No one wants a trip to Deletion Review to resolve a contested closure which is like ANI for admins. It can turn into a pile-on of editors pointing out ones mistakes. This is probably one reason why complicated discussions tend to linger around longer than simple ones.
But once I read through all of the comments on this one, it seemed clear to me that this should be closed as "Keep" so I did so. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. LizRead!Talk! 21:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I noticed that you removed my CSD tag on the page Draft:Manish Shukla by leaving behind the edit summary "page creator is not a blocked sockpuppet". I haven't claimed that, but the blocked user is known for using Dubai-related IP addresses to circumvent his block (see [8]). IP locator confirms the same origin of both 2001:8f8:1a65:6c7b:7020:fc69:f856:efa3 (draft creator) and 2.51.37.255 (second editor). Additionally, their article interest is almost identical, so in my view, the block evasion is as obvious as it can get here. With that in mind, I'm convinced that the decline decision should be reconsidered. Or does G5 not apply for block evasion via IP? Regards, Renewal6 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
For me, I need to see confirmation that a page creator is a blocked sockpuppet to delete a page for CSD G5 reasons. My first piece of advice is to contact an Checkuser who is familiar with the sockmaster you think that this is and share your suspicions with them. As long as the IP account is unblocked, they are free to create more pages so I don't think that even if you are correct, deleting one page will do much to dissuade them from editing. Probably nothing short of a block range will do that but I'd give that task to a Checkuser or one of the admins who helps out at SPI. But for me, I'm pretty strict about CSD G5, to have a page deleted, the page creator has to be the sole or primary editor to the page and they need to be blocked for sockpuppetry and block evasion, not for any other reasons.
Although I don't advise it, you can try retagging the page and see if a different admin patrolling CSD categories and reviewing tagged pages agrees with you. But for me, I need to see more than suspicions if I'm not familiar with the sockmaster. Sorry I can't provide more help to you. LizRead!Talk! 21:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Illusion (Aespa song)
Hi, I'm Hatto. I asked User:VersaceSpace if he could move Draft:Illusion (Aespa song) to mainspace. As a result, he didn't seem particularly opposed to moving it to mainspace either and added a Db-move template. You then moved it to mainspace but for some reason 6 hours later moved it back to draft again. I asked VersaceSpace about it, but he also did not seem to understand why the article was moved back to draft again. What do you mean by "Mistaken page move"? I have no idea why "Mistaken page move". Your move to mainspace is definitely not a "Mistaken page move"! I consider moving it to mainspace to be sufficient. Is it not possible to move it to mainspace? --Hatto (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a longer discussion about this particular page move above at User talk:Liz#Illusion (Aespa song). From what I remember, this page move wasn't totally accepted so I reverted my page move. Please read over this earlier discussion and see if it helps explain what happened two weeks ago. LizRead!Talk! 04:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
If there is article content that could be relevant to another article and there is support for a merge option in an AFD discussion, which is how I assessed this discussion, I'll lean that way as an alternative to deletion. I have removed my "Merge then delete" comment since it might cause some confusion for any editor working on a merger.
Is there a reason why you are objecting to merging content? Is this an objection to the procedure of the close based on "votes" or do you actually believe that the content of this article would be better deleted entirely from the project? LizRead!Talk! 04:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply and the removal. I disagree with your assessment because it gives too much weight to the merges. My opinion on the appropriate content in Golden Grove, South Australia#Transport is in line with the quoted comments above: maybe one sentence, which can be easily rewritten from the sources. The {{Infobox station}} template would be inappropriate, only the History section has sources, and practically any portion of the article would be excessive detail in the merge target. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm the "page creator" of record because I moved the article from this ridiculous title. But thanks for the notice, I deleted the page under CSD R3. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 07:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Closing Deletion discussion Colin Singer
Hi Liz!
My name is Tom and I'm with immigration.ca. I have opened this account to reach out as I saw you were the editor that closed this discussion with deletion.
I was suggested by wiki deletion appeal process to first talk to you before appealing a deletion.
On the original discussion, a consensus was not met and only few participants were involved. Then it was relisted to get a better consensus. Even then, the arguments for both parties remained the same and no new information was added. Following the first discussion, new reliable references were added, but those weren't even evaluated in the following discussion.
The second discussion, involving the same participants as the original one, didn't add anything new, so isn't it still a no consensus result? And if so, shouldn't this discussion remain open for more time?
Note: we opened this article in 2018 with the assitance of an external paid editor. Any additions or editors acting afterwards are not affiliated with us.
I thank you for your help and reply. Tom from immica (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for your clarification on the discussion page. Can't we move this to draft instead and work on the issues instead of deleting? Tom from immica (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they used it on Christopher Elliott. It was originally a page about an actor that was deleted via PROD in 2012 and then recreated as a disambiguation page. Sorry for the delay in my response, I got out of my routine today. LizRead!Talk! 04:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No longer soft?
I realise that I am involved (being the nominator) but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute seems to be eligible for just a standard deletion - there is support for the proposal. Why drag it out another week? It's not like if there is no further discussion it won't be deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It's just me but for a straight "Delete", I like to see at least 3 editors supporting deletion (including the nominator). I'd rather close this as "Soft Deletion" but that's not possible here because it was PROD'd in 2018. You won't find this matter on any policy page, it's just a rule of thumb with my AFD closures. If there is any doubt in my mind, I leave the decision to another admin. By relisting this discussion, I was also hoping for a little more participation by editors who frequent AFD discussions but there are fewer than I realized before I started closing discussion back in January 2022.
I'm not going to close this discussion (and I obviously will not relist it again) but you might approach Explicit. He's more flexible with what he'll accept to close a deletion discussion than I am. LizRead!Talk! 04:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
AfD responses are different on two different pages
Hello Liz, I have a question: when generous volunteers like you close AfD's, do you look at the individual AfD page, or do you look at compilation AfDs? I ask because you relisted this AfD about 10 days ago, and now we have the following different !votes:
• (a) On the individual AfD, one keep and 2 comments. The keep precedes the comments.
• (b) On this Schools AfD compilation, 2 comments only.
My concern is that when the volunteer closes, he might rely on a (b) page, and not get a fair representation of the !votes.
What do you think? Is this a technical issue? What do you suggest? Have a good day, XavierItzm (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If I were to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Education Center, I'd look only at this AFD discussion. To be honest, I didn't know the deletion sorting pages existed as I don't just follow some subjects, I look at individual discussions. I don't know why the discussions would be different on the AFD page and the "compilation page" but maybe the compilation page doesn't update regularly.
I can't speak for other admins and non-admins who close deletion discussions but this is how I approach an AFD. I hope this answers your questions. LizRead!Talk! 04:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I hear you about the update not being regular; and yet the "keep" precedes the "comments." It seems slow updating would neglect newer comments while presenting older ones. With very best wishes, XavierItzm (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Category:Ryerson University alumni
Hi there. I'm not sure why you're deleting "Category:Ryerson University alumni". Why not just redirect it? The biographies that have this category on them are of people who attended Ryerson University (before the name change to Toronto Metropolitan University). Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I just re-tagged categories that had already been tagged for speedy deletion CSD C1 for being empty categories. I think all of the Ryerson categories were tagged as empty categories after the University changed its name. If you want to set up category redirects, go ahead! I guess this option didn't occur to the editor who originally tagged them for speedy deletion.
Looking over empty categories is just one task among the many I do each day. Empty categories sit for 7 days before deletion is considered and if you don't get around to changing them to category redirects, maybe I'll get to it before next week. LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's what happened. A brand new editor, User:Horatio Bumblebee, went to every biography of a Ryerson University alumni, and changed the category to "Toronto Metropolitan University alumni", see [9]. My concern is that each of these biographies is now incorrect, because technically, these people attended Ryerson, not the newly-named university, and all of the sources cited in their bios indicate they attended "Ryerson". A category redirect would have been far simpler, and maintained the integrity of these biographies. Would you agree all these edits need reverting, and a category redirect should be used instead? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I would have to look at the edits to determine whether or not they should all be reverted. If you believe so, go ahead! If this editor's edits are reverted, then these Ryerson categories may not stay empty for much longer. If they are still empty, then I'll change them to category redirects before they are due to be deleted.
I'll look into this issue when I have some time but I don't know the circumstances of this university name change. If you do, please feel free to make changes that you feel are appropriate. LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
AfD for Corporate republic
Hello Liz. Could you please re-consider the closing comments on this one? The reason for soft delete was "minimal participation", but it looks to me like there was a solid quorum for this one. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow, you are absolutely right! It's a clear "Delete". I'm not sure why I checked off that box for "Soft Delete" when I closed the discussion. I reverted myself and reclosed it as a regular "Delete". Thank you for catching this and bringing it to my attention. LizRead!Talk! 23:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for re-closing this one, much appreciated. I thought that perhaps it was just something like accidentally clicking the wrong button. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Best course of action?
Hi Liz, I was hoping I could get some advice on how to handle a situation. See James Van Patten, a redirect that has remained untouched since 2008. A user appears to be trying to make it into an article, but it's entirely unsourced, uncategorized, and lacks a neutral point of view. I'd normally move the page to draft space, but the original page would not be considered acceptable to move there because it's older than 90 days. Should I AfD, revert, or move to draft space in this instance? Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure that is the correct page title? There is not redirect at James Van Pattern and no indication that an page ever existed at this title. LizRead!Talk! 23:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. LizRead!Talk! 18:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Assistance requested
Hi Liz, I noticed you posted on Phwriter20's talk page and wanted to flag up their latest behaviour on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emski, and was hesitant to go to WP:ANI to get not too involved myself. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
P.S. This is sorted now, the user ended up blocked anyway. Thanks, -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I either respond immediately to talk page messages or look over my talk page at the end of the day. But I'm glad the situation is resolved. LizRead!Talk! 01:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
A picture of concern
Liz, I was hoping you could help me with something. About 2 weeks back I posted a delete tag on this picture [10]. You removed the delete after 6 days. I don't think I understand how this process was supposed to work based on your edit summary. Anyway, my concern with the picture is it doesn't appear to be a free to use image. It is being used as an illustration in the Kenosha Unrest Shooting article in a way that doesn't appear to be commentary on the picture nor transformative. Basically it appear to be a copyright violation as used. Is the correct action to request removal of the picture itself or just remove it from the article? Thanks! Springee (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
BTW, sorry I didn't notice this earlier. I forgot about the original edit that added the picture. I was reminded when the picture was added to the Kyle Rittenhouse article today. Springee (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I removed the PROD tag because you didn't provide a deletion rationale. You implied something in your edit summary but with PRODs, you need to provide a reason why an article or file should be deleted on the PROD tag. For example, look at File:Bonnie young princi.jpg or any of the 90+ files proposed for deletion in Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 July 2022. The file can't be PROD'd again, but you could try speedy deletion, with an appropriate criteria, or nominate the file for deletion at WP:FFD. If you have specific questions about copyright violations, I'd consult Explicit or Fastily who are not only admins on the English Wikipedia but also on the Commons and they are much more familiar with image regulations than I am. You could also look over WP:FFD and approach any of the editors who regularly nominate files if you find a name that is familiar to you.
If you want to not just delete the photo from Wikipedia and just remove it from the article, I think it would be best to raise the issue on the article talk page. Sometimes suddenly changing images that are central to an article can result in edit-wars which you don't want to get into. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk! 01:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Liz, thanks for the reply. I will reach out to Explicit and Fastily. My personal feeling is, ignoring any possible copyright issues, the picture in question is appropriately used in the KUS article. My only concern is I think the use isn't a legitimate fair use and thus is violating copyright. This is why I figured the correct action was to flag the file vs simply remove it from the article. If an editor weren't aware of the copyright issue it would be more than reasonable to restore an otherwise obviously related image to the article. Springee (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Would you please restore Talk:Octamethylendiamine to the correct spelling, Talk:Octamethylenediamine
Hello Liz! I had made a spelling mistake. The typo came in converting from the German spelling, de:Octamethylendiamin to the English spelling (see wikidata:Q27095148). It should have been the talk page for Octamethylenediamine. Before submitting, I had tried connecting it in the URL string & refreshing but for some reason my browser or the MediaWiki interface did not update my correction.
Would you please restore it & move it without a redirect to Talk:Octamethylenediamine? Peaceray (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Idoghor Melody. It was a very, uh, memorable experience. I hope you have a pleasant weekend! LizRead!Talk! 18:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Three new editors writing in Tamil
I'm not sure where to take this. Three new editors have written Userpages in Tamil. All three translate into an agricultural subject and the 2,000+ initial size suggest that the content was copy/pasted from somewhere. It appears to be a good-faith effort by somebody who doesn't yet know our policies but I cannot know how many other accounts this editor may have started or if there is a group collaboration. The probable copy/paste is worrysome as there can be a copyright problem and, since it's in Tamil, how are we on the English language site to know that? Can you take a look at this? The three accounts so far are:
If you suspect sockpuppetry, the best thing to do is to file an SPI case because the checkusers have tools where they can verify if there is a problem with multiple accounts.
As far as writing in languages other than English, we are most concerned when this happens in Article and all Talk spaces because it prevents communication with other editors who don't, in this case, speak Tamil. We are less concerned if editors want to use other languages on their User pages like their Sandboxes, unless they are submitting a page for AFC review. There are templates that are available to advise editors about them but I use Twinkle for my talk page notices and I can't offer you a link to the Template page where these exist. If you use Twinkle and would like to do this, go into the Twinkle/TW tab>Warn>All warning templates and do a search for "English". There are four warning templates about English use/non-use, including one warning for articles in languages other than English and one for use of other languages on Talk pages. I'm running out right now to do some errands but can take a look at this when I return. LizRead!Talk! 18:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
New Page Review queue August 2022
Hello Liz,
Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Goth Angel Sinner. 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. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 23:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I guess. LizRead!Talk! 23:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It's okay I mean I disagreed with the decision but fair is fair and others ultimately agreed including reviewing administrators. My opinion isn't the majority - but this is a community-based asset and so I respect the community's will. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 07:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, you suggested to me asking for a draftification of Grace Ofure and a participant also mentioned it as an option, and I also requested for it, but even then the discussion has been closed as delete by an admin. Is there any chance for that option now? Thanks! Insight 3 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Insight 3: (I'm not Liz, but I might be able to help) You would probably be best to ask the deleting admin, Sandstein, why they did not consider draftification to be appropriate. If they have overlooked that as a possibility, I'm sure that they will be happy to restore it to draftspace or your userspace where it can remain until you find more sources. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 22:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok thanks Mako001 (C), I do that. Insight 3 (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Mako001 is correct, the proper first step is to approach the admin/editor who closed the AFD discussion and ask them if they would be willing to restore the article to User or Draft space. Many admins are willing, but some are not. If they refuse, you might go to WP:REFUND and ask for the article to be restored and moved to User or Draft space. I've seen the admins do this sometimes but they can be unwilling if the admin has already refused your request. If both those methods fail, please come back to this talk page.
I think the reluctance to restore deleted articles comes from the fact that after an article has been restored to Draft or User space, some editors just move it directly back to main space where it will simply be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. What the page creator must do is rewrite the article so it addresses the problems brought up in the AFD and then submit it to Articles for Creation for review by an AFC reviewer. It is much less likely to be immediately deleted if the article has received AfC approval. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk! 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Whoops
If you hold off, I'll remove it from the ones that I stupidly tagged . Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
"And now for something [not] completely different..."
Since the blocked user was also (as far as I have seen) the only one actually transcluding those templates, what would be done there?
Many of these templates also don't comply with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY either. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
according to the CSD template, if the transclusions were all done by the banned user, G5 is able to apply to transcluded templates. I'll review the translcusions, and G5 the ones where I can confirm they are the only user who transcluded it. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
All sorted. It took a while, but I was able to confirm that all but two templates that they created had not been transcluded by another user (excluding a 🦆 IP). The templates without any transclusions by non-block evading editors have been G5'd.
Thanks again for catching that. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't respond to your messages when this incident occurred. I kind of got on a roll, untagging the pages. I know the caveat that CSD G5 criteria can apply to trancluded templates if the ban-evading editor did the transclusions. But that takes a while to untangle and I wanted to remove the pages from the CSD category because, well, admins can vary in how closely they examine pages tagged for deletion. Things are much better on this front than they were a few years ago but there are still admins who are not always very careful at inspecting tagged pages. It seemed to me to be easier to deal with the transclusions when the templates exist than after they have been deleted.
Can you let me know if you followed up on checking on these transclusions? It looked like a time-consuming task but perhaps we could do a revert of the sockpuppet's edits. LizRead!Talk! 00:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I was undoing the transclusions as I went to help keep track of which were theirs and which weren't. (Only two or three transclusions of any of their templates were by another editor). And yeah, it took a while, but after undoing all transclusions that they made (which I was able to get to without something crashing), I then G5 tagged the ones with no transclusions by other editors, only two templates had transclusions by other editors. I think the New York one had a few transclusions I wasn't able to remove without something going kaput. I wish there was a mass-Undo for times like this, (sure there's mass rollback, but that only works on the latest lot of edits). Sorry for leaving so many messages in a row, but I figured I should keep you updated on it. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Deletion notifications
Heya, I didn't want to derail the discussion you posted (and I know you don't always get pings), but I see you posting a lot on various users' talk pages about leaving notifications following XfD tagging. In general I have no issue with you encouraging people to leave notifications, but most of the posts I've seen you make leave the impression that the notification is required, which it is explicitly not. Please consider revising your notes so that it more accurately reflects our policies and guidelines. To reiterate, my issue is not with the notes themselves, just the "requirement" aspect. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think that I implied it was a requirement although I do state that I think that all editors should do this. Does this sound like an order? That's not what I meant to imply but maybe my words read stronger than what I intended. I'll try to be more nuanced in how I express myself.
I do think notifications are really important but I know it is not mandatory to leave them. I just think it's a very good habit to have. LizRead!Talk! 22:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Page move/deletion
I notice you deleted New pages patrol/CoY userbox 2018. This was indeed my error in forgetting to use the drop down to select the correct namespace as can be clearly seen from my move rationale. What don't understand is why the move didn't delete the original page. Am I missing something? (It's been a while since I no longer have the admin tools). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you have to uncheck the box saying, "Leave a redirect behind", when you move a page. I move a fair number of pages from main space to Draft space and I occasionally forget to uncheck this box. LizRead!Talk! 22:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Thank you for reminding me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
AfD closes
I was wondering if you would consider relisting two AfDs that you closed recently:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John West (cricketer, born 1861) - I simply don't see any way that this can be closed as "Keep" based on the current !votes, as none of the Keeps provide any sources or policy-based rationale for keeping in mainspace. Seems like it should be draftified at best, however there aren't really enough valid !votes to find consensus here. Typically something like this would be relisted with a note that sources need to be provided.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheraldine Oudolf - Again, closers should disregard or give less weight to Keep !votes that do not provide sources or policy-based rationale. Two Redirect and one Delete seems like enough to Redirect, however relisting would be appropriate to try to get more input. –dlthewave☎ 05:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I can see why I closed these two AFDs the way I did. I might have also been influenced by the fact that the nominator for both AFDs was the sockpuppet of previously very active editor. But you are not asking for these articles to be deleted but for the discussions to simply be relisted and I have rarely found relisting a discussion to be a bad idea so that's what I have done. In these situations, I always let another admin close the AFD discussion that whose closure is being contested.
I'll keep your comments about "Keep" votes in mind when considering future closures. I think I am a conservative, noncontroversial deletion discussion closer but it doesn't hurt to receive constructive criticism from editors who have a lot of experience in the AFD area. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Some editors are slow to adjust to the new NSPORTS standards, and closing admins will be on the front lines of making sure that LOCALCON does not trump the guideline. I appreciate you relisting these two. –dlthewave☎ 02:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For the great works you have done in this collaborative project, especially closing deletion discussion, speedy deletion etc... Comr Melody Idoghor(talk) 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! I also appreciate your participation at AFD. For some reason, some of the admins who patrol AFD pages are reluctant to relist discussions that have low or no participation, they just skip over them. Thanks for getting to the discussions that have been overlooked and relistng them so they have a bit more time for consideration of the deletion nominations. LizRead!Talk! 00:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I contested the speedy deletion of the above mentioned category as it is a maintenance category. I'm not opposed to a reopening of the discussion on whether {{overlinked}} should be used, but MOS:OVERLINK suggests that it is a valid template/maintenance category. RyanVesey 22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand. This is why empty categories sit one week before being considered for deletion. I put an {{emptycat}} tag on the category. LizRead!Talk! 01:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Incorrectly categorized articles
Hello, and thank you for your post. My edits was made in the honest belief that I was doing something uncontroversial: by simply removing articles from a category which did not answer to their description. The category was named "Wives". These women were not wives, but concubines, which is evident from reading their articles. I was under the impression, that articles should be placed in categories answering to their description. Since they were not wives, it was incorrect to place them in a category that described them as such. The category was thus incorrectly named from the beginning. This was the reason to why I assumed my changes were uncontroversial. I suffer from anxiety, which is why I will not protest to anything that is done to me or my edits; however, I would like the above to be stated to make clear why it was my honest belief that my edits were uncontroversial, and as to why reverting my edits would - it is a fact - be placing the articles in a category which does not answer to their description. I have explained this more clearly in my talk page. I will take no further action or interest in this and leave everything to others to do as they see fit. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know whether you are right or wrong on this matter, but this is exactly the kind of discussion that occurs daily at Categories for Discussion. The regulars there have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of categories, past and present and how articles are categorized across different cultures. I'd just like you to put your suggested changes out there to be discussed, especially when they affect an entire group of categories on a particular subject.
I know you are acting in good faith and I'm sorry if I came across as stern. I post a lot of user talk page warnings every day but they are rarely to experienced editors like yourself so I might have been in "schoolmarm" mode. LizRead!Talk! 01:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted contribs
Hello. Mind checking where the uploads of Joseph.Re were used? Can't seem to find any lead. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this helps, but that editor had a lot of deleted edits to an article titled MechMania. There are other deleted files that have a version of MechMania in the file name. LizRead!Talk! 01:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless work closing deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of John West (cricketer, born 1861). 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. –dlthewave☎ 22:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cheraldine Oudolf. 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. –dlthewave☎ 22:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm behind in responding to talk page messages. I either read and respond immediately when I see them or I forget to check my talk page. I will do so now. LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I've responded to your original message at User talk:Liz#AfD closes. I've reverted my closures and relisted the discussions. I apologize for the delay in replying to your talk page message. LizRead!Talk! 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
CSD ricochet
What's the appropriate channel to delete Draft:Forelsket (TV series) and Draft:MacLaren's Pub? Two full AfD discussions seemed like overkill. Although the IP itself wasn't banned, the images were uploaded to Commons by the blocked sock CartoonNetworkUS, and the sockmaster AHeistwithEgeSamil's goal at Wikipedia seems to be to claim that the Turkish child Ege Şamil runs various fictional American venues and media companies, which is what these two drafts are doing. Lord Belbury (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this message but it looks like you resolved it by labeling the pages hoaxes, CSD G3, and Ponyo deleted them for you. I trust that this was an appropriate criteria for the page.
I'm a bit strict on pages tagged, CSD G5. Years ago, I was chided for deleting a page on C5 grounds when there was sockpuppetry but no ban evasion going on so I now will decline cases where the sockpuppetry isn't confirmed or an editor was just found guilty of multiple accounts (so no ban evasion was involved) or an editor was indeed blocked, but not on grounds of sockpuppetry. Sometimes I'll remove the CSD tag and other times I'll do what many admins patrolling CSD categories do when they are unsure, take no action and let someone else handle the tagged page.
I realize that this can be frustrating to editors like yourself who are familiar with a particular sockpuppet and their MO but I just can't delete a page based on suspicions. It really helps to have made a report filed at SPI but don't tag pages for deletion immediately after you have filed a case, tag them when the Checkuser or admin working at SPI has confirmed your case and blocked the editor. I don't think there is any urgent reason to rush CSD G5 deletions. What I also recommend editors do who just KNOW that a new account is a sockpuppet of another account but who hasn't been blocked yet is to make an inquiry on the talk page of the checkuser who last handled the sockmaster. They will be the admin who is most familiar with the ways and habits of a sockmaster and they may be able to confirm your suspicions without launching a new SPI case. That has sometimes worked for me in the past but there is always a backlog of cases at SPI so they also might advise you to file a new case there.
I hope this helps but it looks like you got the page deletions you were looking for. LizRead!Talk! 21:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Wise words, thank you, will keep that in mind in future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you'd have to ask Taivo why he created that User page for that sockpuppet. I was going to inquiry after seeing this message but it looks like other admins have already taken care of this. Just to be clear, I did post on Taivo's User talk page but not the User page of the sockpuppet. Yikes, what a horrid username. LizRead!Talk! 21:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Remove perm
Hi Liz, could you remove my pending changes reviewer perm? I don't intend to use it anymore, and I'd rather focus my efforts elsewhere (maybe NPP). Thanks! ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Done This is one of the easier requests I've gotten lately. I know how busy you are so I completely understand. Have a good weekend! LizRead!Talk! 21:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Jeffrey Teague - Nashville
Hello,
I work for Jeffrey Teague who is a Nashville music industry professional. Earlier today I was editing Jeffrey's wikipedia page which was formerly titled "Jeff Teague (music)". Per Jeffrey's request, I updated some of the information on the page and changed the title to reflect his professional name Jeffrey Teague. We decided that the title of the page should also include the word Nashville to distinguish Jeffrey from other wikipedia pages under the same name that were not related to Nashville/the music industry. Now, after spending time making the requested edits for Jeffrey, the page has been deleted. Can you please tell me how I go about reversing this action, since the page is legitimate and being managed by the subject.
Thank you,
Amelia Ransom
ameliaransom94@gmail.com Ameliacransom (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
First, Jeffrey Teague - Nashville is not an appropriate title for an article on Wikipedia. We do not add city names to biographies, if anything we add occupations and the year the individual was born to distinguish them from other people with the same name.
Secondly, if you look at Jeffrey Teague (musician) you'll see that the article was deleted on grounds of G11 and G12 which is Wikipedia deletion code for a promotional/advertising article and copyright violation, in this case content that was taken from https://artandrep.com/whoweare/ . Wikipedia articles have to be all original content or there needs to be permission granted by the copyright holder (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details).
Also, the article can not be "managed by the subject", he and his employees should not be editing the article at all. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information as well as the notice that was posted on your User talk page. If you are an employee, that you can be considered to be a "paid contributor" and you should post a disclosure on your User page according to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. If you want to continue working on an article on this artist, you need to post this disclosure or you could be blocked.
I don't think any administrator will restore an article that is promotional that contains copyright-violating content. We can't for legal reasons. Your best bet is to start a new article from scratch, making sure to write it all in your original words, in Draft or User space, and submitting it for review to Articles for Creation. If they approve the article, it can be moved to main space.
Just to be complete, you can try request article restoration at WP:REFUND but the policy for articles tagged G11 and G12 is to deny these requests and offer you the same information I have just told you. But you are still free to make this request should you choose to.
Sorry I don't have an easy answer for you...judging an article to be promotional is a bit subjective but having content that has been "borrowed" from other sources is a deal-breaker here. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 02:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this thorough explanation. Nothing was done on my part with the intent of violating Wikipedia's guidelines and I apologize that is what has happened. Given that the page existed prior to the edits I made on Friday August 12, I'm wondering if it is possible to revert the page back to its identity previous to my edits? To my knowledge this page has existed for over 10 years and I would hate that the page be deleted due to my ignorance on Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Please let me know if that's a possibility. Ameliacransom (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this message. I will take care of this tomorrow. My apologies. LizRead!Talk! 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Bumping this up. — AMK152(t • c) 23:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so bad about missing unfinished discussions that scroll up the page. Again, my apologies, I'll take care of this now. LizRead!Talk! 23:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raka (film director) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Liz!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to oblige so I looked over the May 11, 2022 page of CFD discussions. The ones I saw that were closed were all closed by experienced CFD discussion closers, even the ones closed by non-admins, they both have experience closing CFDs.
The only open discussion I saw was about Category:Songs about religion and it is a very complicated and involved discussion. I have only closed a handful of very straight-forward CFD cases that had low participation and do not feel like I have the talent to take this on. If you are concerned about this particular discussion, I'd try approaching Fayenatic london or Explicit, two admins who I know are experienced at closing deletion discussion at CFD. Sorry not to be able to help you out here. LizRead!Talk! 03:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
There was a misunderstaning. I was talking about implementing the reuslt of already closed discussions. Like, for example, Category:Hololive, was not deleted, even though there was a consensus to delete. Techie3 (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I just realized that most of the categories have been dealt with. Sorry about that. Techie3 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Liz , The page named Paras Kalnawat was deleted on 19 February 2022. Which user created this? [11]PravinGanechari (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your question is. You can look at the page history and see who has edited this main space article. There was a previous version of this article, that was one sentence that was created by Paraskalnawat in 2017 and then deleted.
I think your question might actually involve the draft version, Draft:Paras Kalnawat. I moved the main space article to Draft space in February 2022, without leaving a redirect and that draft was later deleted by Athaenara on May 14, 2022 on G11 grounds. There were 587 deleted edits to that page so I can't summarize who worked on this deleted version but it was created by AbhisheK123 in 2018. Then on May 26, 2022, Jha09 created the new draft and they later moved the draft article to main space and it is the article that is there today. Does this help? LizRead!Talk! 03:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
It's hard for me to look at your diffs because you are using a mobile device. You can just provide me with the page name and describe the edit you are concerned with and I can find it on the desktop version. LizRead!Talk! 03:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz. Thank you, I just needed the information you gave me. Because the user who is contributing on the Paras page, I think that user is an old sock master. PravinGanechari (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't tell if an editor is a sock or not but when I looked at the deleted edits, the draft article was edited by some of our busiest editors who work on Indian film article, including some who were sockpuppets or are now blocked. LizRead!Talk! 04:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz ,
In the information I have as evidence, there is a user of "Prierya2k8". Paras is the creator of the page, he gets his connection from him. [12]
The information you just gave me. He is the sock master in the paras page. In that case also "Priety27" was the name user.[13]
Among the users who contributed to the Paras page is a user named "Pri2000". And the creator of both these pages is the same.
If you are compiling "evidence", you should really be sharing this at a SPI case, not my talk page. See if there is an existing case for a suspected sockpuppet and just list a new incident. Most active sockpuppets already have archived investigations and you just post the lastest incident on their page. You can search on the WP:SPI page. Or go directly to a checkuser and ask for help. LizRead!Talk! 05:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Liz , Yes I will definitely do the SPI case but I am waiting a bit. Both of these users can contribute to the next draft page. I have given username information above. Remove that lest both of them be careful. PravinGanechari (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I see you've been very active over at SPI. By the way, please review Wikipedia:Indentation, you need to start indenting your talk page comments so the discussion is easier to follow. It's really very simple, just start putting colons (:) before your comments. LizRead!Talk! 23:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your new information. I will definitely use this next time PravinGanechari (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Old draftification
Hey Liz,
Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page; I am indeed aware of the RfC on old draftifications. But Lola B10/60 was created on August 14; it was converted from a redirect, created 2009. My understanding of the RfC result was that articles that are too old should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD (emphasis mine), and not redirects. Sorry if the result was meant to include redirects. Ovinus (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
You are correct and I made a mistake. I looked carefully at the first Lola article and then just checked the first edit on each other Lola page, I didn't see that Lola B10/60 had been changed from a redirect to an artice recently. I have moved it back to Draft space. Sorry for the preaching. LizRead!Talk! 03:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me the last two posts you made on my talk page?
I pinged you there but instead you did it again (and didn't reply to the ping).
Please and thanks! Dr. Universe (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Universe,
I replied on your User Talk page. LizRead!Talk! 20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Harriet Hageman. 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. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the edit summary for this [14]. That list entry is sourced, so I'm not sure why it should be deleted there instead of added to the article in question (which article, by the way?). Geogene (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I removed the breed from the listing because there is no mention of being a fighting breed on the Shar Pei article. If you disagree, you can undo my edit. LizRead!Talk! 03:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Draft article help
Hi. I never use draft articles, so don't know the best approach to take in this case - so, as you moved it to draft, can you help!
Draft:Bill Ditchfield is the same person as William Ditchfield - one of those Lugnuts stubs as it happens ;-) I've incorporated th stuff from the draft into the base article and was planning on either creating a redirect from Bill Ditchfield or moving William Ditchfield to Bill Ditchfield, as clearly he was known by that name whilst playing. I've no doubt that there's shed loads more out there on him.
Am I OK to simply do that? And what do we do about the draft? Apologies for my ignorance - as I say, I've never had anything to do with them before. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, you could turn the draft into a redirect to the main space article and then move the article to a better title (and change the draft redirect to the new title). Or you could try a request for history merge and try merging the two articles.
But I'm concerned about your "incorporating" content from one article to another...have you reviewed Copying within Wikipedia? You need to make sure that you provide attribution if you are copying content directly from one article to another. LizRead!Talk! 20:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - requested a history merge. I think the majority has been reworded actually, but I've covered it as well. Thanks for reminding me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I also posted a note on the talk page of the draft creator to let them know about the existing article in main space they can work on. LizRead!Talk! 23:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm FormalDude. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Catherine Humphries, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Please disregard this message. I am undoing the auto-patrol since you are not the page creator.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Huh? You are the editor who requested this page move. I just moved the page, I didn't create or review this article. I see that you said to disregard this message but I wonder why you posted it. Was it some automatic step with the page curation tool? LizRead!Talk! 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Because you are an autopatrolled user, the page was reviewed automatically when you moved it into mainspace. Hence my unreview, which automatically left the above message. ––FormalDudetalk 03:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I see that a large number of Iranian "village" articles were created using the Persian word "Ab" (اب) in the title, which I understand means simply water, and many of these seem simply to be water features. See, e.g., here, for the location of the "village" of Ab Band, which is clearly the middle of a lake. Even the ones that don't have location data, or have location data that point to apparent dwellings, are suspect if the only sources are the Iranian census and GEOnet Names Server, for the reasons reiterated in many AFDs. However, no complete list of them is likely to be shorter than 200 articles (even searching quite restrictively I can't get it under 300 articles). Should I open an AN discussion and ask for assistance on this? What do you suggest? FOARP (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I'd like to refer you to User talk:Liz#Raft of unreferenced/orphan human settlement articles where this issue was discussed and I called in Hog Farm and Mongoe, an admin and editor who have dealt with hundreds, maybe thousands, of geo-stubs, some by Carlos but there have been other editors who generated hundreds of these stub articles. I think you would get more specific advice from talking to them.
My opinion is that these are better dealt with via PROD than AFD. This is mainly because doing a huge, bundled AFD nomination can bring up complaints from editors who disagree with compiling so many articles at once while the PROD area is quite different. There are a few editors who monitor PRODs and de-PROD'd articles where the PROD rationale is weak or not valid but your nomination won't have the visibility of opening a huge AFD case. Of course, a conclusive AFD case is a more permanent deletion than a PROD deletion but I think it is really unlikely that any editor will ever want these articles restored.
My only request, as an admin who deals with a lot of page deletions, please do not PROD 200 or 300 articles at the same time. Each PROD has to be evaluated individually to make sure it is a valid nomination and there are only a few of us who review them. It's much better if you do 10-40 PRODs/day over a week than hundreds all at once!
Let me know if you have any more specific questions and thank you for taking on this big project. LizRead!Talk! 03:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I need your help Liz!
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I really need help with an article I am trying to get published. It has been protected by you because of repeated creation. I was a veery disruptive user and made many sockpuppets but I have now done my time and been unblocked. I am looking forward to becoming a positive member of the community but I am facing issues with getting my initial article up again. I have written a new draft and removed the unambiguous advertising. The new draft article seems to be, in my opinion, valid to be published to the live-space. However, I still want to publish it for review for improvement purposes but am unable to do so as it is protected. Please take the time to read my email. I highly appreciate your time admin Liz,
Thank you. SJYTMAIN (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I responded to you via email and on your user talk page. LizRead!Talk! 03:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Some redirects you deleted
You deleted several redirects including Lovech Despotate, Despotate Of Lovech, Lovech despotate, and Despotate of lovech. I understand the deletions since the page they redirected to was draftified, but now the draftified article is not a draft anymore, but an actual article (to be specific, it was the Despotate of Lovech). Does it make sense to bring the redirects back as well? Suasufzeb (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a reasonable request and I'm impressed you even kept track of what pages redirected to a deleted page. I'm just in the middle of something right now but I'll look at this later. LizRead!Talk! 03:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand, thank you for the reply. Suasufzeb (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. I assume the admin who restored the article didn't make an edit to the page because there was a bot edit. But those who review expiring drafts discount edits made by bots and just look for the last edit made by an editor. So, I've restored the draft now and made a human edit to the article so this doesn't happen again.
My apologies to you for having to ask for this page to be restored...twice! LizRead!Talk! 16:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP message
Hi Liz,
Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
NO! I mistakenly deleted some project pages and I'm trying to fix them as soon as possible. This one might go on the "blunders" page. LizRead!Talk! 07:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll go check if the roof's still on... :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
(Interested readers can see [15] for the relevant deletion logs) I'm guessing it started with trying to delete 129 articles listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Tahqiqati Tutun—which then resulted in Twinkle deleting all of the pages that were linked to from that AFD. Out of curiosity, did you use the "D-batch" option in Twinkle? That's the only thing I could think of that would result in such carnage. But hey, I guess we no longer need notability! (Time to recreate K6ka) —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
K6ka, now that this is not an emergency, I can reflect on what happened last night. First, we've been having problems with XFDCloser not being able to handle bundled nominations of multiple articles. This has happened with several nominations recently that I have tried to handled. I posted a note on the XFDcloser page talk page to see if they have a solution. So, what has happened in these situations is that XFDcloser just deletes the first article in a bundled nomination and leaves the rest of the articles untouched.
What I have done in the past was then delete each article separately. But with this particular nomination, there were over 130 articles nominated to be deleted. So, I tried to use Twinkle's batch delete to take care of all of these articles. I thought I unchecked any pages that were unrelated to the articles to be deleted but I obviously missed some project pages because I was left with a complete mess. Primefac helped me out considerably but there were a lot of deleted project pages and a few User pages that needed to be restored. It was all remedied within about 10 or 15 minutes after they were deleted but before then I was kind of in a panic over what had happened. Needless to say, I will not try this solution again without a lot more care. This might be worth an addition to WP:STOCKS. LizRead!Talk! 01:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
For me personally, the last time I used the D-batch tool (which was many years ago, and I think only as a test in my userspace), I made a list of links to the pages I wanted to delete in my sandbox, and then ran the tool there. That way, I didn't have to worry about unchecking all the right checkboxes and would still be assured that nothing would be deleted unintentionally, since the list would contain only the pages I wanted to delete and nothing more. Maybe this method should be mentioned in the documentation (and it would seem the admin modules are not very well documented). And I'm sure someone will put you in the village stocks soon enough! —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Jawaker
Hi Liz, I'm Mohammad. I'm reaching out because you're the reviewer of an article I created Jawaker. A few months ago, I created the article. That was then draftified in July, which I took notice of a few days ago and objected to. Now the editor Praxidicae came and tagged the article with a udp tag claiming I'm paid by the company, which I denied then removed the tag. Now they placed this back. What is the proper course of action to address this? Thank you. MohammadALH1 (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't "review" this article, I just deleted the redirect that existed from main space to Draft space. I have no opinion about this article. As far as advice goes, it's been tagged for deletion, so I'd go make your argument at the AFD where this argument is being discussed. The AFD discussion will determine whether the article is kept or deleted so review the criticism of the article and try to address it.
If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 00:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to see whether this article is kept or deleted before taking further action. If this article is deleted, then revision deletion is unnecessary. If you are acquainted with another admin who is more "activist" than I am, then go ahead and consult with them. But'd like to wait and see how this AFD is resolved first. LizRead!Talk! 01:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Reply - I tried to post on WP:aN, but was reverted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
You edit was "reverted", Jax 0677? I'm surprised but I guess I can understand the logic behind that action. This matter actually confuses me because we have had several different articles come to AFD about this same story, some focused on the perpetrator, some not, so I'm not sure if there are multiple articles out there about this incident. LizRead!Talk! 01:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Reply - You might want to archive your talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Reply - Since the discussion was closed as keep, would you be willing to delete the edits in question? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
As you say, AFD discussion was closed as "Keep" and I assume that means the entire article. Sometimes, revision deleting an edit means you have to revision and delete quite a lot of other edits if the information isn't immediately removed. If you think the decision should be altered, you should contact the AFD closer.
I'm sorry if you think that this talk page is too large but I like to keep a few months' worth of discussion on it. I do archive it monthly but there is a lot of activity here. LizRead!Talk! 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz, could you please help to retrieve the article: Heshui County Grotto group & remove the speedy deletion tag?
Hello Liz,
Thank you for your help editing the title, but only seconds later, the article got deleted from another administrator. I believe it's due to the hanging speedy deletion tag on it. I have lower case the "group" in the title to avoid being misleading as an organization. The "group" here simply means a group of grottoes/caves of ancient Chinese Buddhism and also, the further reading of the article would show that this is a documentation of the grotto group rather than advertisement of any sort on the account of the deletion tag reason.
May I please kindly ask for your help to retrieve the article and also remove the tag? I have talked to both the tagger and the deletion administrator, but neither seems active at the moment. On contrary, I see you very active and contributing, so I am reaching out to you for help. Also, if cannot be removed, could you please kindly let me know if there is any revision that I can apply to make this non-advertisement or promotional.
Thank you so much!
While this article may be very important to you, editors and admins on Wikipedia are all volunteers. I'd like to see what the response is to your message before taking any further action and people edit Wikipedia when they have time to do so. It is unlikely that an article deleted via speedy deletion will be restored to main space but it could be moved to Draft space for you to continue to work on it and improve it. Please give it a little more time to get resolved.
If you have questions about article creation or Wikipedia's deletion policies, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 04:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Liz, definitely appreciate your reply and the volunteers' work on this. I will wait for the replies from the tagger and the deletion administrator and will ask for your help in the future if needed.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nge Lay and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it. LizRead!Talk! 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
As long as you have taken note that your interpretation of protocol was inaccurate in this instance, all's well. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI
I proposed a little plan to Lane a while back, not a fully thought-out plan but a plan nonetheless, about how we can possibly utilize draftified articles while at the same time getting them improved for main space. I'm thinking they could be utilized for editathons, and student training exercises. We get a lot of students who are assigned to create articles, so why couldn't we approach those schools/universities with article improvement of those draftified articles and have those students learn why the articles were draftified, and what they need to do to improve them, which can only make them better article creators. I thought maybe setting up a teaching team (WMF $ supported) and perhaps make it a division of NPP with our own tech support to automate certain aspects and keep our tools up-to-date. Wha'cha think? Atsme💬📧 18:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
LOG
Rings of Maye This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 01:41, 24 August 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Rings of Maye (G3: Blatant hoax) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
The Rings of Maye are the accretion disk of Earth.. they exist as BOTH of these sources indicate. Please restore my work immediately.
Accretion (astrophysics) In astrophysics, accretion is the accumulation of particles into a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter, in an accretion disk. Most astronomical objects, such as galaxies, stars, and ---> planets <----, are formed by accretion processes.
accretion disk, a disklike flow of gas, plasma, dust, or particles around any astronomical object in which the material orbiting in the gravitational field of the object loses energy and angular momentum as it slowly spirals inward. In astrophysics, the term accretion refers to the growth in mass of any celestial object due to its gravitational attraction. The formation of stars and planets and the powerful emissions from quasars, radio galaxies, X-ray binaries (see X-ray astronomy), and probably also Type Ia supernovas all involve accretion disks [1]https://www.britannica.com/science/accretion-disk Cygnius (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Improper deletion
Caliber Rings This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
LOG
01:41, 24 August 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Caliber Rings (A11: Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
The Rings EXIST there are TWO MOONS OBVISOULY visible which reside within the accretion disk region.. STOP BOTHERING ME
Accretion (astrophysics) In astrophysics, accretion is the accumulation of particles into a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter, in an accretion disk. Most astronomical objects, such as galaxies, stars, and planets, are formed by accretion processes.
accretion disk, a disklike flow of gas, plasma, dust, or particles around any astronomical object in which the material orbiting in the gravitational field of the object loses energy and angular momentum as it slowly spirals inward. In astrophysics, the term accretion refers to the growth in mass of any celestial object due to its gravitational attraction. The formation of stars and ---> planets <--- and the powerful emissions from quasars, radio galaxies, X-ray binaries (see X-ray astronomy), and probably also Type Ia supernovas all involve accretion disks [2]https://www.britannica.com/science/accretion-disk Cygnius (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
EVEN IF THERE IS LITTLE VISABLE MATTER WITHIN THE accretion disk REGION, if the OBJECT IS MASSIVE, THERE IS STILL STUFF COLLECTING THERE.
WHY is it important?
There are bands of THICKER atmosphere, which pass over the Earth, they are thicker due to the GAS and dust which are the accretion disk, and it's shadow.
First, please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of talk pages. They are easy to miss when you insert them in the middle of a full talk page.
Secondly, I explained what was required to have an article on Wikipedia, it's not a matter of what seems obvious to you but what reliable sources you have to support your claims. If you have questions about what is a reliable source, this noticeboard can be a helpful place to go and ask questions.
Finally, you are indefinitely blocked now because you created these hoax articles. If you ever become unblocked, we can continue this discussion. LizRead!Talk! 20:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz. I need assistance w/ Draft:Lukas O'Neall
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 morning Ms. Liz. I saw that Draft:Lukas O'Neall was moved from the main namespace. First of all, I am not upset by any means. Just wanted to clarify before beginning my inquiry. I appreciate you moving it back to the Draft so I can have a opportunity to fix it instead of just deleting the page. I truly do. I am wondering if you could give me some pointers or assistance in getting this page together for main name space inclusion. Thank you and looking forward to speaking with you soon. :) Bamamade251 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I've got a busy weekend here and then am heading out of town for a few days. I can't help you immediately so if it's an urgent question, I'd recommend going to the Teahouse with your questions. And if you have submitted a draft for main space review and need some help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is the place to go for answers. I'll check in when I return to town later this week. LizRead!Talk! 19:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
It's no worries at all. I knew youd get back to me when you could. I appreciate your help either way it goes. Enjoy your weekend. No rush at all. I have submitted the article for review after adding some more sources. Once again I appreciate you. Bamamade251 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
TMNT
I've placed a post on the article's talk page requesting that people figure out what's right or wrong and quit editwarring over it, and I've also posted to WP:FILM to request further input. Ultimately, the real problem is that other people have been editwarring over whether it's a Lithuanian coprod or not -- but since we don't have any other articles about Lithuanian animated films, that edit war just forces a continual create-delete cycle on the animated films category because it can't just be left sitting in Category:Lithuanian films itself. Hopefully somebody can figure this out one way or the other sooner rather than later so that we don't have to keep putting up with this. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Category wars are even sillier than edit wars but once someone has it in their heard that a page is in the wrong category, they can come back months later (or longer) and still recategorize articles. It just seems to get under some people's skin to have one they see as a mistake, no matter what proof you show them that the information is correct. LizRead!Talk! 19:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Dee McLachlan
An editor created the category Category:Films directed by Duncan McLachlan even though they knew her name was actually Dee McLachlan, as evidenced by the page history. I've created the category Category: Films directed by Dee McLachlan. I've blanked the wrong category and put the movies in that category into the correct one. Thus, I believe the Duncan McLachlan category unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria. Apologies if this is the wrong page to post this, I think it's the right one though Stephanie921 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, the Duncan McLachlan category popped up on the Empty Categories list so it has been tagged for a speedy deletion, CSD C1. It took me a bit of time to figure out what had happened with the name change. In the future, if it is just a matter of renaming a category, please propose a speedy rename at Categories for Discussion.
Thanks for letting me know what happened here. LizRead!Talk! 18:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
No need to apologise! Take as long as you want and/or need :) Also, I see that you're out of town so I'm guessing you probably responded to me when u did cos u were busy preparing for that. Thank you for your advice about renaming - or in this case correcting the name of - categories. I'll propose them that way from now on! And you're welcome 😀
Also, since the editor named the category with Dee's assigned name rather than her actual name, please could you talk to them, since they shouldn't have done that? They knew her actual name was Dee as well, since the edit history of the category shows they changed the category name from her actual name to the wrong name Stephanie921 (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Mini-Munks exists
I see you have deleted an article for a film known as Alvin and the Mini-Munks. I've seen many screenshots, sources, and even an IMDb page for it. So, what do they mean by "Unsourced" article for a direct-to-video movie? 2600:6C51:627F:4D5:7911:FF28:6EE6:9F10 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
In this case, the entire article was the plot of the film. There were no reliable sources that reviewed the movie or analyzed it. It's not enough to have photos proving a movie exists, there has to be some independent coverage of a film, showing that, in some way, it is notable. If you want more details on what is required to demonstrate notability for films, Wikipedia:Notability (films) describes it well. LizRead!Talk! 18:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Apollo Braun
Why did you remove this article? Fabiorahamim (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Brian Carter. 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 there! I noticed today that my boss' page has been deleted for his not being a "notable" person. I'm hoping we can get this turned around so I don't have to tell him about this! haha. Brian Carter is a thought leader in the world of Facebook, LinkedIn, and digital marketing. He's written multiple books on these subjects and has spoken all over the US. His sites are keynotespeakerbrian.com and briancartergroup.com. He's also a partner at rgersonassociates.com. I hope I did this correctly. Thanks and have a good day! Traypup (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism
Hello ma'am! Please see the page Jiribam district as an ip is continuously removing references, notes, and other information, saying that those aren't necessary. In fact, all the references from the lead para are removed. I reverted once but it's doing again and I think I need an admin intervention. Moreover, that ip is adding information (maybe of own interest) with non functional citation. Please have a look. Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Erminio Confortola
Hi - could you reconsider whether this might be redirected rather than deleted? a couple of !voters did suggest redirection as an alternative, and there seems to be no good reason not to. Ingratis (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Done I've restored it to User:Joofjoof/St. Vincent Grammar School. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
07:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
04:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
And now gone. Just making sure because Liz had posted at that editor's page. Atsme 💬 📧 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kyle_Rittenhouse_Kenosha_shooting.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Hoover Dam explosion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 14#2022 Hoover Dam explosion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
