User talk:Liz/Archive 4

Hi, ran across this because you closed it as delete and removed incoming links.

I disagree with the contention that there are not enough sources. I think the fact it became a separate company when it was not its own company in the days when it was a major deal in radio is muddying the notability waters. If this had been brought up to WikiProject Radio Stations, I might have contributed a Keep !vote.^[1][2][3][4]

I'm not sure how to proceed, but I feel like the sourcing is there. In several markets where MOYL became a thing, it led to long-form articles, and it was clearly a popular radio format for mostly declining AM stations in the 1980s. Thoughts? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sammi Brie,

I'm not exactly sure what to do in these situations either. I kind of look at them on a case-by-case basis. There was some discussion on this article but those editors advocating Deletion came in after the relists. I'm willing to revert my closure to let you offer your opinion on this case. If the article is kept, I'll add back all of the links. The timeline is that the discussion was just relisted on Tuesday so another relist isn't timely today. Does this sound acceptable to you? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. This was just...a surprise to me, and I certainly would have offered a Keep !vote. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In general, I've been disappointed at the low number of editors who participate in AFDs. I can understand getting burned out by that area but it's tragic to have a few uninformed editor determine the future of articles. I'm not referring to this specific discussion but I've seen it happen in other AFD discussions...some editors are excellent and do a thorough review for sources but there are far too many that just offer a thumbs up or thumbs down. But it seems like an ongoing problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know I incorporated these sources and others. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Requesting that recently deleted page 2022–23 Delhi Premier League be made available in draft space so that it can be improved and verifiability issues can be removed. Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dhruv edits,

I will consider doing this if you will go through the AFC process and get a new version approved by a reviewer. If you are just going to move it back into main space, it will be deleted under speedy deletion criteria CSD G4 and could result in a loss of your editing privileges. Do you agree to doing things this way? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Liz Yes. I will go through the Afc process for reviewing the draft once it is good enough for mainspace. Dhruv edits (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dhruv edits,

Okay, I have restored this article and moved it to Draft space. You can find it at Draft:2022–23 Delhi Premier League. Good luck!

@Liz Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, you deleted Transportation in Sarawak a few days ago per an AFD. I assume you use Twinkle to remove links to the article. After the article was deleted, there was a redlink left behind in a hatnote in Tanjung Manis District, which is even worse than a redlink in an article. Redlinks are allowed in articles for subjects that have potential, but should never be in hatnote or the see also section. There should have been a warning message in Twinkle that no link was found to the deleted article in Tanjung Manis District. That is because the link was not made with [[ ]], but was in a hatnote. So the article was added to Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page. I fix several of these almost every day, but there are over 8,500 and article deletions cause it to grow every day. Mentioning this because you commonly delete articles. Do you recall getting a warning message from Twinkle? MB 17:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MB,

You are absolutely right, our unlinking tools do not remove broken links in hatnotes. This happens both with PRODs and AFDs. With PRODs, you have to manually select an option to unlink all mentions of a deleted article so I can see when there is a failure in the unlinking process and I try to follow up when I see this. The failure to unlink is not as visible with XFDcloser so I'm not sure how to catch these unless admins check "What links here" with every deletion they make, whether it is a CSD, PROD or AFD/RFD/etc. This can be a big problem when doing batch deletes or bundled deletions as the tools often don't remove red links or redirects/redirect talk pages when the multiple deletion are done. And there are some admins who don't use Twinkle to delete pages which is the deletion tool with the primary unlinking feature we use.

I'm sorry for any additional work I caused you to do and I'll try to be more conscientious about checking for these hatnote red links. I wish there was a way to bring attention to this to all of the admins who spend time in a deletion area, maybe a note on WP:AN would help but I'd be open to other ideas. Last year, I saw a note on the user talk page of an admin who has been active for over a decade, reminding him about the unlink feature so I think that a reminder to all of us might be useful for those who are either not aware of red link problems or who have forgotten about taking care of them during their page deletions. Thank you for this reminder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Not sure whether you noticed, but Pizza Tower looks to be the same as Draft:Pizza Tower. The creator of both is the same and they were indef'd; so, it's unlikely the draft is going to be worked on. Does it need to be MFD or is just OK to wait until G13 becomes applicable? FWIW, if the article is deleted, File:PIZZA TOWER.webp will evntually end up deleted as well if it remains orphaned. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,

Yes, I was aware of the draft version. As it is though, CSD A7 doesn't apply to Draft space. The only speedy deletion criteria I could see applying to this page is G5, if the editor was a sockpuppet (which they weren't) or G11, which is for promotional articles, which might apply, I'd have to review the page again. But I usually just let bad drafts sit for six months until they are stale. You could take it to MFD but the editors who participate there are reluctant to delete pages that are not problematic in some way and I don't think this Pizza article is. But you are free to nominate it for deletion. I just haven't seen many editor have much success at convincing the MFD regulars that ordinary Drafts or User pages should be deleted. They kind of embody a "hands off" attitude there at MFD.

Any way, I hope you had a good weekend! It's nice to see you visiting my talk page. Have a good week! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Waiting six months for G13 to kick in is fine with me. Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

An issue with File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg involving you has been reported at WP:BOTN#Issue with File:NWA 74 Anniversary.jpg. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GeoffreyT2000,

Oh, what a mess. Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I have made a comment there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

hello colleague. this article has been created and deleted on other wikis. It is confusing to keep this article on the English wiki. the article contains serious exaggeration and is a non-encyclopedic organization. I posted a delete template but you deleted it. I could not nominate the article for deletion. thanks. Atakhanli (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Atakhanli,

The CSD, Criteria for Speedy Deletion, are very specific and limited and I did not think this article qualified under CSD A7 criteria. If you believe this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then you have a couple of options. You could edit the article to improve the content so that it is not so exaggerated. You could go to a related WikiProject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey, and ask for assistance on the WikiProject talk page. If you seek deletion, then I suggest using Twinkle and either tagging the page for a Proposed deletion or nominate it for deletion at Articles for Deletion. For either PROD or AFD, you need to present a convincing deletion rationale and I suggest you mention whatever policy you believe this article is violating.

If you need any additional help, either using Twinkle or with Wikipedia's deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you guidance and support. It would be a good place to go for getting a second opinion on this article. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The organization is based in Turkey and has been removed from Turkey Wikipedia. It just remained on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, where I also work, and was nominated for deletion on that Wikipedia. will be removed in the next few days. Atakhanli (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have suggested a number of different options you could take. I suggest you pursue one or more of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. You BLP prodded Mariano Yenko back in February 2021, but it was deprodded when someone added a citation. That citation, however, just mentions Yenko once by name; so, in and of itself, it's not really sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. I came across the article because of the non-free image being used in the main infobox. The rationale provided on the file's page states that Yenko has been dead since the late 1980s, but I can't find anything to verify this and the article is still listed as a BLP. I've asked the uploader about this at User talk:WayKurat #Mariano Yenko and also asked at WT:PINOY#Mariano Yenko so perhaps someone will be able to find some more sources. It's not so much that the file will most likely need to be deleted per WP:F7 if they can't, but rather more that there will be a one source BLP of someone who is supposed to have died around 35 years ago that is unlikely ever going be than it already is. Any other suggestions on what else to try and do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,

It's not clear to me what you are asking me to do. I tagged Mariano Yenko for BLPPROD 18 months ago, it was a time when I was reviewing lists of BLP articles that were unreferenced and I was tagging a number of articles for BLPPROD. But another editor supplied a citation and untagged the article. And in the last day, both you and Lenticel have added additional references to the page. If both of you are continue to review and work on this article, I think my additional participation here is unneeded.

And I'm no expert on dealing with files so I'd go ask Explicit or Fastily for help with this matter. You seem to have a good working relationship with Explicit so I'm sure they could offer you more valuable advice than I can about whether or not this file is eligible for CSD F7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear and not updating my post sooner. Both issues seems to have been now resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,

No apologies necessary. I either respond to talk page messages immediately or wait until there is a lull in my work tasks and respond to them all at once. This was a case where I waited and in that time, the problem changed and was resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am the page creator of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tomoharu_Ushida and I want to delete it please. Shalom777br (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shalom777br,

I'm sorry but the page history shows that Joannabr started this draft, not you. And CSD G7 wouldn't be valid even if that editor tagged the page for deletion as other editors have contributed to the draft. If you, and other editors, leave this page alone, it will be tagged for deletion in six months as a stale draft (CSD G13) and deleted in March. The only other Speedy Deletion criteria that could possible apply would be CSD G11 for promotional articles but I would decline that tagging as well because the article doesn't seem like overt advertising to me.

You could also nominate it for deletion at MFD but you'd have to have a persusaive deletion argument for why this draft should be deleted which I can't see that you have. I would just recommend abandoning this article and it will just be deleted any way in early 2023. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am joannabr but if you think I would not be able to delete it on my own, please help me to make it better and publish it. Shalom777br (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I created a new article on Mudville, Texas. What do you think? Colman2000 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Colman2000,

I don't review articles but I don't see major problems. However, I don't really see the relevance of how many white students attended the school 100+ years ago. You might rephrase this to focus on the point you are trying to make which I think is that there was a school operating in this town at this point in time. We have editors who primarily focus on reviewing articles on small towns and geographical features so if this article gets tagged, let me know.

By the way, I see by your User page that we are neighbors as I'm also in the Portland metro area. But you know, you should really be rooting for the Blazers and Timbers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz! That's cool that you live in the Portland metro area with me. I will most definitely root for the Blazers and Timbers as long as they play opposing teams that are not from my part of the woods. If you want to know what part I live in, I live in Aloha, which is sandwiched between Hillsboro and Beaverton. If you don't mind me asking, where in this area do you live? Colman2000 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for restoring the article to its original title . This was a disconcerting situation and quite a mess. Here is a barnstar for you:

		The Minor Barnstar
		For helping out the (Wikipedia) project and a group of concerned editors. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, Steve Quinn! It's very confusing to participating editors and the XFDCloser tool when articles are moved around to different titles during an AFD discussion. And this article was moved several times! If it survives the AFD it can be moved again but since this article has generated a lot of opinions, it should probably only be moved after a move discussion on the article talk page or we could end up with some move-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes moves during an Afd are very confusing for editors and the closer. It was only one editor who was the culprit making not one, but two page moves. Maybe it was more than that by some other editors. Jeez! I think they had no idea the page moves are prohibited during an AfD. So I am AGF on that one.

Besides that, I just want this AfD to be over with. It is one of those AfDs that are not smooth sailing. Also, thanks for suggesting a move discussion on the article talk page after the AfD is over, if the page survives. This would probably the best way to go. As an aside, I changed the section title to differentiate it from at least one other thread here that is also entitled "Thanks."---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)d

Hi Liz,

I know you deleted the SBS PopDesi page but can you do the opposite (undeletion). Thanks. Bassie f (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,

You created this page and then tagged it for deletion. But you can request its undeletion so that is what I will do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

via WP:REFUND Bassie f (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. You can find it at SBS PopDesi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't see the all history but it looks to me like a COI account had you delete Italia Conti, which had been an article about the actress before it was moved to Italia Emily Stella Conti to enable a move of Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts. The actress should be at the basic title, surely? Anyway, Italia Conti was certainly not a "one editor" article, given the history before the move. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DuncanHill,

Thanks for catching this. What happened is that an editor moved this article to a different title which left a redirect. Then they blanked the redirect page so a very experienced editor tagged that page as a CSD G7. When I looked at the tagged page, I saw that it was a blanked redirect and deleted it. But, G7 doesn't apply to editors who move an article and leave a redirect, it only applies to the page creator of the original article that had been moved. So, I should have investigated this more fully and caught that mistaken tagging because G7 didn't apply here.

It was correct to move that article back to its original title so thank you. A page move might be called for in the future but it shouldn't happen like this but through a discussion either on an article talk page or at Requested moves. I'll look into this editor and see whether any other edits were improper. I appreciate you seeing this and correcting the error. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, hopefully it will all settle down and get sorted out properly now. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

I know you deleted the redirect page PRT Company Limited and it’s talk page but can you do the opposite (undeletion) through WP:REFUND. Thanks. From Bas Bassie f (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,

 Done. But you know, both of the pages you asked to be restored had only 2 or 3 edits and were redirects. You could just recreate them yourself when there is so little page history. The situation would be different if they were articles but these were just very simple redirects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz - I see you deleted this in January 2021 as an expired PROD. I have found a couple of sources that I think will establish notability. (I found it as a disambiguation for Falling for Christmas, which is an upcoming film.) StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, StAnselm,

 Done Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious about something. You removed a redlink saying that the subject was moved to Draft space. There's a redlink just below the E06 row in that table for E09. I thought redlinks for subjects were a good thing. Per WP:ROADOUTCOMES that article would be kept. I draftified it earlier because it was an infobox-only situation. If the author had added some prose, I would have tagged it as a stub and moved on. So I wonder why the redlink is so harmful that it needs to be removed, twice? Imzadi 1979 → 02:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Imzadi1979,

Actually, you are right here. I'm used to removing red links of articles that have been deleted either through CSD or AFD because it is unlikely that those articles will be recreated. I was also instructed to remove these red links years ago by a more senior editor when I started doing more article deletions. But recently (like for the past 2 days), I started removing links to articles that have been moved to Draft space on the premise that it was unlikely that they would be moved back to main space. That's an incorrect assumption. I spend most of the day deleting hundreds of drafts that have been abandoned and gone stale (CSD G13) and so one comes to the conclusion that few articles that get draftified go back to main space and that is just flat out wrong. I'll stop doing that now and I'll revert edits involving this draft.

I really appreciate you challenging my editing decisions so I could change my behavior. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The other version was deleted because it was created by a sock. This one doesn't seem to be. May not be a good project, but that will need to go back to MfD. Thank you. GedUK  10:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ged UK,

Yes, I was looking to see if that page was deleted and saw your explanation. When I'm not 100% sure about a page deletion, I just tag it and let another admin make the final evaluation so thank you for checking it out thoroughly. It's appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, can you please undelete Forest Lake Shopping Centre so I can save the history as part of the redirect? There wasn't any reason why that couldn't have happened as part of the close of the AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Deus et lex,

The reason why it wasn't done was that the majority of discussion participants thought the page should be deleted. You were the only one advocating a redirect. Is there a reason why you can not just create a redirect now from the deleted page? I see no reason why you need the article history to create a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. It really helps an editor or admin if you would add a link to the page you are talking about when you start a discussion on a User talk page. It's just a common courtesy so the person you are talking to doesn't have to go searching to see what you are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not linking, although it's disappointing that you don't remember it. I would like to have the page history back so I can redirect that and enable it to be used for future reference. I don't think that is unreasonable. I'm not looking to create anything other than a redirect. Deus et lex (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

There's an open request to revert an undiscussed move which you were involved. Left a ping to you, but your notifications may have been busy so leaving a note here as well. Would appreciate that you comment on it. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, – robertsky,

I actually don't keep track of my pings because I get so many so I appreciate the talk page notice. I've left a comment on that noticeboard about this page move request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome. :) – robertsky (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz. I can see you're busy, but if you get a moment... (1) Is a closing admin at an AfD able to decide to redirect rather than delete an article even if no-one has explicitly !voted for it? I ask mostly in connection with the many Olympic stubs now passing through the system where there is always a plausible redirect target, since all events at all Olympics have their own articles; and (2) (brought forward, with apologies, from further up your talk page on 31 Aug): Could you reconsider whether Erminio Confortola 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. Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ingratis,

It's hard to answr hypothetical questions but in the case you mention, I could have created a redirect but I didn't, I deleted the article and have left it to editors to create a redirect if they think it is appropriate to do so.

A couple of remarks. First, every admin has a different way of assessing a closure to an AFD discussion. Some admins, for example, never close discussions as "Soft Delete" even when it is a perfectly acceptable option but I do. Second, I often choose an alternative to deletion if one is suggested by participants but I have been criticized in the past for not deleting an article completely and then creating a redirect instead of simply turning an article into a redirect and preserving the content. When a closer acts against the consensus of the discussion participants, you get accused of "Supervoting" and can get taken to Deletion review which is about as pleasant as a discussion about an editor being started at ANI. Since the partipants in this discussion preferred Deletion over Redirect (their 2nd choice), I took their opinion as an indication that they wanted the article to be deleted and a redirect could then be created from this deleted page to the preferred target by an interested editor. This is how I interpreted their opinions but reading over the discussion now, I could see how another admin might have reached a different conclusion.

I started closing AFDs in January 2022 and one thing I've learned through this experience is to not IAR and to abide by the opinions of the participants in coming to a closure decision. If I disagree with them, I should be adding a comment to an AFD discussion, not closing that discussion. I hope this explains how I closed this discussion. But again, I'm sure if you looked through a daily log of AFD discussions, you will find that different admins have different approaches towards closing AFD discussions but they vary within a narrow range of what is allowable. If there is too much divergence from recommended behavior, well, that will lead, first to a Deletion Review case and if it persists, a case at Arbitration which most people want to avoid if at all possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful reply, which makes the restrictions on closing admins a lot clearer (what a thankless job!) I was hesitating to create the redirect myself because in the light of the AfD decision it may be deleted again by someone else but have now gone ahead with it. Thanks again for taking the time to reply in detail - I do appreciate it. All best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz go outside OwainAFC (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OwainAFC,

You're right. I am taking a break later to go wine tasting which will be outside. But I need to be cutting back on my time on the project, especially at night. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Care to block 2405:201:4004:4091:918A:DA18:4606:4624/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for legal threats? S0091 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ignore. Taken care of. S0091 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, S0091,

Yes, it looks like someone got to them first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Pls help me to review this draft and moved it to article. It's a really urgent matter. Alphaechoromeo (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alphaechoromeo,

I'm sure every editor who submits their draft to Articles for Creation for review believes their drafts are urgent. But you still have to wait your turn. Also, I don't review drafts, I leave that activity to the experts who spend their time on Wikipedia focused on doing exactly that. I do look at a lot of declined drafts and most of them are declined because they don't have adequate references so make sure your article is properly sourced.

If you have more questions about draft creation, you can go to the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse for help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I know you do a lot of closures of deletion discussions, so I don't want to be annoying, but could you elaborate on your decision in this closure please? Personally I think it seems more like a no consensus than a keep. I realize they're effectively the same in the way they impact the article but there is still a meaningful difference between no consensus and keep. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FormalDude,

You have every right to ask about a closure. Looking at this AFD now, I think I was influenced by the fact that Gidonb' Keep argument was strong while the two Delete votes simply stated that the individual didn't have notability. After looking at AFDs so much, I have come to not weigh comments that merely state "Fails GNG" or "Meets GNG" (or similar words), without more elaboration, very heavily. Also, Gidonb did a lot of work improving the article since the time it was nominated for deletion (and even after the AFD was closed) which indicates to me that there are editors who are willing to improve the article and address any sourcing problems that came up in the AFD discussion. And I was influenced by the fact that the nominator wanted to withdraw the AFD. They couldn't do this because two editors were advocating Delete but when the nominator changes their mind, that seems stronger to me than if they merely made a vote to Keep the article. They have gone from being the primary advocate for an article deletion to changing their mind and wanting it to be Kept.

While you could say that the "vote" was 2-2, I also saw BeanieFan11's comment, and the nominator's withdraw as recommendations to Keep the article.

I will say that with all of these AFDs about athletes/football players pouring into the AFD area, I have closed very few of them as "Keep" and maybe only one or two as "No consensus". Those advocating for article deletion seem to have numbers, policy and momentum on their side. For me, this was a rare "Keep" closure. I hope this addresses your concerns. And just a reminder that you can always renominate an article for deletion after a suitable period of time has passed. I wouldn't do so immediately after an AFD closure but I've seen this happen with other football player articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This definetely addressed my concerns. Thank you! ––FormalDude (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, good day. I see you deleted a redirect only four days ago for Shakira impersonator. This has been recreated under a full article. I'm quite green at New Page Reviewing and for my own learning want to get this correct. Is there a version you deleted that is relevant to assessing this article? I'm slightly confused - is it just coincidence we had a redirect deleted four days ago, now a full article comes back under the same name? Article creator looks like a diehard Shakira fan. Normally I skip over the more tricky reviews and leave for someone more experienced but I thought I should reach out and ask what you think is the go here. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaxnaCarta,

Okay, when a page is moved from main space to Draft space, either by the article creator or a new page patroller, there is typically a redirect from main space to Draft space. If the editor who draftifies the article is a Page Mover, they can repress having a redirect. But, if the article move is done by an editor without this user right, there is this redirect that needs to be deleted as a CSD R2, redirect from main space to other namespaces. So, that was the page I deleted, a redirect after the article was moved to Draft space. It wasn't a judgment on the content of the article. And it's just the same article, it has not been recreated.

I had some skepticism about the article content but we have a similar article about Madonna impersonators and it seems like this is a big phenomena in South America, in a variety of countries so I was just ignorant about this subject. Personally, I'd give the article a little time to develop since it is pretty new but if you judge it to be lacking in notability, you can always nominate it for AFD deletion. I can't think of a CSD criteria that would apply here and the article creator is active so they would just remove a PROD tag so a page deletion, if you are set on it, can only really be done through AFD.

I hope this explains a little bit about what happened. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz! Thanks so much. You’ve helped me. I needed guidance not just for this article but for future ones. I’ve been asking a few people for help on certain reviews. I didn’t think this needed to be tagged for deletion. I just am learning the ropes and like to run weird ones past someone experienced. Sometimes it’s confusing because the log says it was previously deleted but of course because I’m not an admin, I cannot see what was deleted. So it can be hard to see exactly what’s happened in the past. And yes, because this user has created good content I knew this article was likely going to be fine. Thanks so much for always being there to answer my questions. I am a little cautious with things I don’t understand! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz, and thanks for noticing the workaround on my user name. What I can't figure out is how a new user page with the name 'User:Randy Kryn' was created when that combination of letters was already in use. Do you know how this could be done? I've tried figuring it out, as he has in the past substituted I (capital letter for i) for l (lowercase L) in impersonating other user names, but don't see how this one was accomplished. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Randy Kryn,

I don't know exactly how this was done either. There is no obvious substitute letters going on like, as you mention, "l" for "I" or "1". User:Rаndу Krуn looks just like User:Randy Kryn. But some keyboards have alternative alphabets available to use and one of the letters in R-a-n-d-y K-r-y-n might look normal but actually be a similar looking letter or symbol from a different alphabet. Now that I'm thinking about it, I think I'll just protect that fake user page from being created so this will not happen again.

I found an SPI case that looks like it is the same vandal. You just seem like an odd editor for a vandal to target...trolls mostly target editors who do counter-vandalism work or admins who have blocked previous accounts and you are such a considerate, thoughtful editor. I don't know how you would have gotten on anyone's grudge list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and the possible explanation, and for the nice compliment. What happened is the fellow was doing good work on the United States page but has a habit of doing dozens or even a couple hundred edits at once, which was going on for weeks and tiring out the regulars there (I'm not a regular, just happened by to check something, forgot what now), and then was being reverted without anyone checking the edits and put up for a ban and somewhere along the way I came to his defense. In the past two-three months he's been editing various pages as well as focusing on myself and a couple of topics, and I've complimented his edits (he is a good editor and writer, seems to really like editing Wikipedia, and does a good job but keeps doing the too-many-edits at a time thing which causes him to be found). He did focus for a time on the James Bevel page, where he purposely forced my attention to add some references, which I've promised myself to do very soon. A book by Thomas Ricks will be published in early October which will probably contain quite a bit on Bevel, so the page should be gotten into better shape by the end of September. It still surprises me that more editors haven't worked on the Bevel page, as I've been surprised since 1983 on why and how journalists, writers, publishers, and historians have either missed Bevel's story or have chosen not to add to literature about him (Bevel had a way of doing things that made people not publicize his massively important and world-changing 1960s work, even before his incest conviction which no journalist has ever investigated). As for the editor in question, lots of socks and he knows how to do them, although the name duplication and personal focus on me seems somewhat unfair. If it were my choice I'd give him a clean account and let him edit. Thank you again for keeping track of some of this, and for following up. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey there Liz. I noticed you recently deleted Draft:Jessica Jones (Marvel Cinematic Universe) under G2, which confuses me because I do not recall that page looking like a test page. Am I mistaken, or did you mean to delete it under G13 instead? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, InfiniteNexus,

Well, it was just a page that had headers on it and a navigation box and no other content, there was no article draft there. I can restore it if you wish. It was due to be deleted via CSD G13 and that's what caused me to look at it and delete it as a test page. I know that the page creator is an experienced editor and their pages don't usually get deleted for being test edits but that's how the page looked to me.

Since we have such a lengthy article on Jessica Jones already, I'm not sure what this draft was going to be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Your question caused me to look at this draft again and so I restored it and deleted it again under CSD G13 criteria. It can still be restored again by request. But this was a more appropriate speedy deletion criteria. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The draft was a valid one and has the potential of becoming an article, but it can stay deleted per G13 until there are editors who want to continue working on the article again. Thanks again. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, InfiniteNexus, well, I can restore if you or the page creator want to continue to work on it. Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to voice a concern about your decision to delete the Wikipedia page of my country and others. Bermuda, Azores, Bahamas, Bahariterra. 2600:4040:139F:1000:1977:F8D2:B2D6:96C9 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 2600:4040:139F:1000:1977:F8D2:B2D6:96C9,

Before we can discuss why a page might have been deleted, you need to provide me with a link to the deleted article you are concerned about. I don't know what page has been deleted that has gotten you in such an upset mood that you are making personal attacks against an editor. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Per cats tagged on my talk.) Apologies for leaving those empty, hopefully it’s cleared up now. I had hoped to automate the various steps of creating and moving the cats by creating the cats, then filling them. Clearly that—and/or requesting that C1 that truly would have been empty—pinged your radar. — HTGS (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HTGS,

I would warn you against any action that would "automate" creating or moving categories around. Categories are very different from other pages on the project and can't just be moved like an ordinary page. If you wish to rename, merge or delete a category, you need to make a nomination at Categories for Discussion or make a simple speedy rename request on the CFD page. But because categories impact a lot of different pages, you can't just move them around like you would move an article from Draft space to main space. There are editors who are quite devoted to making sure there is consistency in Wikipedia's categorization system and if you are interested in categories, you can find them debating at CFD. They have very long memories of categories that exist or did exist and were deleted so they are a great resource for the project but it also makes it a challenge to act spontaneously with categories.

As for the categories you created today, every night, at 01:02 UTC, a database report is issued which lists all empty categories and they get tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. "Speedy" is really not an appropriate name because the empty categories sit for 7 days before they are deleted (if they are still empty after a week). If the categories are only temporarily empty--which happens quite a lot--then the CSD tag is removed. But please do not remove a speedy deletion tag from any page that you have created because that is a red line rule that shouldn't be violated by any editor, from newbie to arbitrator. We have a few editors who scan the Empty Categories category throughout the day and remove categories that are no longer empty so you don't have to worry about a mistaken page deletion.

And this is Empty Categories 101. There will not be a test! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand Lizzy. It's a terrible mistake. Okay, the real page and this one is fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaunTheCatBoy2005 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand Lizzy. ShaunTheCatBoy2005 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this was a poor edit. I understand the practice of unlinking deleted articles, but if a subject is non-notable (as this was deemed to be), the whole entry should be removed from a list like this. StAnselm (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: In fairness to Liz, it's a script that automates the process of removing links from deleted articles so that there does not remain a redlink. It would require human intervention to then make a conscious decision as to whether the former reference to the article is also necessary or not. I don't think we can expect those deleting articles to scrutinize potentially redundant former article links in this manner, as it isn't always the case that the former link's text be removed from articles too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, StAnselm & Bungle,

I hope you can accept that it was both a poor edit and an automated edit that occurs when an admin closes an AFD discussion as "Delete" or when one uses Twinkle's "Unlink" tool. All of the red links are coverted to regular mentions, I don't always see them or their context. I use to pick an option where an entire paragraph that contained a title that was deleted would be removed but I was told that this was removing otherwise useful content. When I first started doing page deletions, a much senior editor came to my talk page and criticized me for not removing red links when I deleted a page so it is ingrained in me to do so. I don't always go back to see the context of the unlinked article title.

And that's not even the worst part, if a link is part of a hatnote, it remains a red link and doesn't get unlinked, despite our tools and I just found out that there was Category:Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page that contains articles with red link hatnotes that a few editors are taking the time to manually remove. But those occur every time an article that is mentioned in a hatnote gets deleted and becomes a red link which I think is more unslightly that having an unlinked name in a table.

Because of the work I do, I end up deleting a lot of pages here and I can't promise to check each page every time a person's name is unlinked. But I will try to be more careful in the future, especially if I see that there are a lot of associated links to an individual's now-deleted article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response, Liz. In this particular case, I was aware of the addition to the table, and I was waiting for the AfD to be resolved before removing it. But it struck me that automated delinking is problematic. StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add my biography to wiki, I am a graphics designer Tanver247 (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you move SBS TV to SBS TV (South Korean TV channel) and after the move redirect SBS TV to SBS#Broadcasting please Liz. Bassie f (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,

I understand moving SBS TV > SBS TV (South Korean TV channel) but I don't understand the second part of your request. What page title of the redirect and what is the target of that redirect? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like SBS TV to redirect to SBS#Broadcasting Liz Bassie f (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I moved this page just five minutes ago and SBS TV now links to the Australian SBS TV. Bassie f (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you put SBS (Australian TV channel) in place of SBS TV on Australian talk and user pages that still link to SBS TV please Liz. Bassie f (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,

It is almost 2 am here so I'm taking care of a few last things and heading off to bed. I'll look into this tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Namasthe from India. My brother uses Wikipedia for a while and he's a sockpuppet holding so many accounts. Am his sister, able to create new account for myself? I'm using the same WiFi connection. Is there any problem? I'm also following my brother since a year. I'm trying to learn everything slowly. Now I've gone through the norms, understood about the sockpuppet. How can I create an account for myself? Can you please help me? Thanks --202.164.139.101 (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man this is his sockpuppet investigation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.139.101 (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• (talk page watcher) You tried that line before. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Tamzin. I'm not sure why they think I could assist them here! Sockpuppet cases this big are beyond what solitary admins like myself can help out with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I got a notice that you deleted my page User talk:Macquigg/Sandbox/ThorCon nuclear reactor
I am assuming this is a good faith mistake, not something related to the controversy over nuclear power.
As I understand Wikipedia's policy, our User pages are not subject to censorship by other users.
Please restore my User pages, and tell me how we can stop this from happening again.
David MacQuigg 14:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, David MacQuigg,

If you are talking about User:Macquigg/Sandbox/ThorCon nuclear reactor, it was deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted page, Draft:ThorCon nuclear reactor - draft and it was deleted when the draft was deleted. That draft was deleted under CSD G13 speedy deletion criteria which states that any draft pages, and some User pages that have been submitted as drafts, that go 6 months without any edits are deleted. Hundreds of "expiring" drafts are deleted daily.

But a draft that is deleted purely because of CSD G13 grounds (and not, say, for copyright violations or being advertising), can be restored upon request, either to the administrator who deleted the page or by going to WP:REFUND and asking for the page to be restored. It's usually no problem! But there is no purpose in restoring the User page if the draft article isn't also restored. Is this what you would like?

By the way, we don't have ideological censorship on Wikipedia based on your political views. The typical "censorship" that might happen is when content violates copyright rules or when it is BLP=violating content, that is when it makes unsourced, negative assertions about living people. If you present a fringe point-of-view (and I don't know if you have), it's unlikely that a draft would be approved by Articles for Creation to be moved into main space but your draft wouldn't be deleted on this basis. There has to be a valid and recognized rationale for deletion, not just because someone disagrees with your viewpoint.

The best place to go with questions like these is the Teahouse, where experienced editors can offer you advice and support while you try to work within Wikipedia's complicated system of policies and guidelines. I hope this helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

But, as you (Liz) know, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored is often misunderstood, especially by inexperienced editors, and editing is not censorship, and removal of copyvio and BLP violations are not censorship. I know that you already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. I misunderstood the connection between user space and draft space. Deletion of the draft is OK. I will restore my user page separately. As for "censorship", my wording was a bit too strong. What I am seeing is an general anti-nuclear bias or group-think, probably a result of the anti-nuclear sentiment in our general population. This shows up as biased enforcement of the rules - for example, in the ThorCon article, a regulatory agency, the IAEA, is not accepted as a reliable source, but an anti-nuclear organization, the UCS, is featured in the Criticism section. A balanced presentation of the UCS critique was deleted. David MacQuigg 13:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this article, or rather by the closure of the AFD for the article. The closure is to merge the article into Draft:Jean Dawson. However, the article never had any information that wasn't in the article, so there is nothing to merge. I think that the recommendation of multiple editors that a merge was in order was a mistake, but maybe you can explain something to me. I also don't understand how some of the editors said that the subject passed notability, but my guess is that they are seeing sources that aren't in the text of the article. I have declined the draft as not meeting musical notability, but I am puzzled about the article. I see nothing to merge.

I don't want to go to Deletion Review, partly because I think that it will confuse the reviewers there also, but the current situation is a mess with a stub article saying that it needs to be merged, and there is nothing to merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert,

Well, it maybe should have gone the other way, the Draft should have been merged into the main space article and I had it backwards. But the draft article is in much better shape than the main space article. I read the consensus of those who participated in the discussion as that they felt that the two articles should be merged. I didn't compare the two articles to see whether they had identical content. There were some sources brought up in the AFD discussion that the editors thought aided establishing notability and I don't see them all used in the articles yet.

If you went to Deletion review, what resolution are you seeking? As for me, I don't see myself reverting my closure but I could revert the merger proposal. But the discussion was already relisted three times so I don't see reopening and relisting it for a 4th time. The only participant advocating deletion was the AFD nominator so I can't see the outcome of this discussion being article deletion. It's been a month since the AFD discussion was closed so you could renominate it again for a second AFD. I try to be cooperative with editors that are unhappy with AFD closures but I'm not sure what is to done at this point. Ideas? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right about Deletion Review. You made me think what User:Robert McClenon would say at DRV if I appealed Jean Dawson, and I would probably Endorse, because we can't expect the closer to supervote when the participants in the AFD are off-base so that the AFD is useless. The participants did indeed say to merge, and there was nothing to merge. You said that I could renominate it, and I probably will renominate it. The fault is that of the editors at the AFD, not of the closer of the AFD. However, something has to do be done, because there is nothing to merge, and there is a stupid merge tag on the article, but the article doesn't have enough content for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the article to a second AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz, can you link SBS TV (South Korean TV channel) with the Korean articles on the English Wikipedia that currently link to SBS TV please Liz. From Bas Bassie f (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,

You know, that sounds like something a regular editor can take of. I have a lot of admin work that keeps me busy all day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please tell your Wikipedia friends Liz. They will do it probably. Bassie f (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon Liz. You might want to delete Category:Move (Japanese band) albums, since there are no more articles. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jax 0677,

Thank you for the notification. But in about an hour, the Database Report listing Empty Categories gets issued so if it is empty, I'll see it there, too. But I'll check on it now, thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you just deleted five pages (after this) I wasn't against the deletion, that's why I didn't participate in the discussion but based on the nominator's request I thought they will be merged into the main article, but now they are deleted and I can't merge them with the main page. I wonder if you still have access to those deleted tables/information? I would like to add some of those tables to the main page which was the nominator's request too. thanks in advance. Sports2021 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sports2021,

There's no need to panic. As long as the content isn't oversighted or a copyright violation, administrators have access to deleted content. Please give me a day to review the AFDs. There wasn't much participation on the AFDs so I think most of them closed as Soft Deletion. I believe on at least one, an editor recommended merging content.

Tell me about your plans...do you want to combine all five articles into one big article or selectively merge some of the content into a different article? Let's spend a little time talking this out and I'm sure we'll come up with a solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer, first it will be 6, I assume this one will be deleted too, no I don't want to put back the whole 6 articles into the main one. mostly just the "Results" section. I did some edits on at least 3 of those pages but right now honestly I can't remember what I added (or removed) so it will be great if I can see the whole thing to pick up what I needed. is it possible to copy/paste them all to one of my sandboxes? Sports2021 (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I haven't forgotten about this. My gut response is that it might be better to restore them to Draft space as long as I can count on you not to move them back to main space. The pages are kind of lengthy so I don't know about pasting all of the content into one User page. That would also result in a loss of attribution so I think Draft space would be more suitable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's totally OK, I just need them for a day (to take what I need) and then you can delete the draft version as well. Sports2021 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sports2021,

Just scrolling up the talk page to find messages that I lost track of over the past two weeks and yours is a big one. Are you still interested in recovering this content? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course Sports2021 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like you to reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growler, Arizona. Right now we have a mess of redirects because, when I promoted my (unfortunately extremely stubby) version of Growler Mine Area, I redirected the discussed article to it, which was not only then reverted, but my article was copied over top of the old version of Growler, Arizona, and the NRHP article cut-and-pasted over the latter and then redirected to the town article, to the point where "Growler, Arizona" begins "The Growler Mine Area is a historic mine[.]" I have tried reverting some of this with comments as to why, but I am now up to two reverts and obviously that's not going further. I am headed to @Onel5969:'s talk page to try to find out why he is being obdurate about this, but the impression I get from his comments is that since the AfD result was "keep", there must be an article at that name and not a redirect. I personally have my own issues with "keep" as a closure, but perhaps a clarification of the result is in order. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mangoe,

I know you were hoping for a Delete but the AFD consensus was to Keep the article in some form. What resolution are you looking for at this point? I don't want to encourage edit wars but I also trust your judgment on articles like this one. I will look this page over but I might not get to it tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of the AfD discussion was to keep the article and transform it to include information about the NRHP site: "But the consensus here is to Keep this article and improve it so that it is more clear where this town is located." When I began to do just that, another editor erased those changes. There's no train wreck, simply one participant in the discussion trying to enforce their opinion above the others in the discussion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that was the consensus; as far as I can tell the only consensus was that the mine was notable (because NRHP), and maybe that the original spot was not. In any case it is likely only a matter of time before the NRHP project comes along and tries to have the article moved back to the NRHP title, because that is the usual pattern for non-towns. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like this isn't a dispute about the closure of the AFD any more but is about the content of the article. It would be more suitable to discuss this on the article talk page where more interested editors can see it and participate. You might ping editors who participated in the AFD discussion, regardless of what they thought should happen with the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Good morning Liz, I am writing to greet you and thank you for your visit on my page, here I ask you if you can intercede for Draft:Dado Coletti, I submit it and propose to your vision, if you think it appropriate to be able to publish it I would be happy to know. Anyway, I am available for anything, waiting to hear from you I wish you a good day. Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino,

Unfortunately, my tasks at Wikipedia don't involve reviewing draft articles. Those who are AFC reviewers are very skilled at reviewing drafts, checking for copyright violations, seeing whether a draft duplicates other articles on Wikipedia, checking references, this is what they do so I'd try to be patient and wait until an AFC reviewer gets to your draft. Approaching individual reviewers and asking them to review your draft usually results in a negative response. There are thousands of drafts to look at and AFC reviewers, like all of the rest of us, are volunteers.

If you have specific questions about editing on Wikipedia, its policies or how AFC works, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you support and advice. Who knows, maybe one of the editors at the Teahouse will look over your draft and offer you some suggestions! Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Hi Liz,

I'm just messaging about the recent deletion of the Valda Energy Limited page on my account Lukeweaver95 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC). It was cited as being deleted for violating G11. I have since read up more on this code and completely altered the draft offline as in my sandbox, the notice I received has stated the following: ' 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'. As this is very different to the original draft, should I proceed with creating a new draft or request the page be restored?

Kind regards

Lukeweaver95 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lukeweaver95,

Can you provide me with a link to the deleted page you are talking about? I know it was important to you but I look at hundreds of pages a day and will need to look at the content. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Thanks for getting back to me. The deleted page is Draft:Valda Energy Limited. Lukeweaver95 (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lukeweaver95,

I'm finally getting back to you and it looks like I'm too late as you have gotten blocked. It looks like you haven't gotten the unblock request code done correctly so I'll fix that for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, please can you expand on why you draftified Draft:Peninah malonza instead of just deleting it per CSD A3? As I understand with drafts, they should be plausible topics that have some potential as an article, but surely not when the entire contents are headings (not even formatted correctly) with zero prose or useful information? This isn't the first instance, though I am quite sure this is not the kind of article we should be sending to draft. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bungle,

Well, I read over the CSD criteria for A3 and it states that A3 applies to articles consisting only of external links, category tags or "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, questions that should have been asked at a noticeboard, chat-like comments, template tags, or images, which didn't seem to apply to this page which consisted of section headings. Typical main space articles I have deleted as CSD A3 just contained external links or an image and this looked like pages I usually come across in Draft space where I do much of my work these days. Also, this editor has been working in Draft space so I thought that it looked like the start of an article they were intending to write and it was mistakenly placed in main space.

I'll admit that I don't know who or what "Peninah malonza" is or was so I don't know whether or not an appropriate draft can be made about this subject. I just thought I'd give the page creator the benefit of the doubt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm unsure if you observed that this editor in fact created numerous articles of this nature around the same time, all of which either have little or no meaningful content to them (and I don't consider section headers exclusively to be meaningful). I'd consider ext links and images to actually convey more information though, ironically. As far as I can see, they have not been working in draft space, but created these in mainspace. I think, as it seems this has been the case on a few articles rather than just as a one-off, maybe they would benefit from some helpful words of advice. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Ann Cotton 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Theroadislong,

I was hoping that you'd notice that we currently have a stub article on this individual, Ann Cotton, and that this draft has much that it could add to this main space stub. Any chance that a merge would be possible? Have you seen this happen with other drafts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that! I have little experience of merging and even less of merging with a draft! Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for your tireless work. What's really striking to me is that despite the volume of your actions at AfD, you take a very level-headed approach to closings and relistings, including relisting comments which often direct the discussion toward a "healthier" consensus, for lack of a better word. I would probably get exasperated much quicker. Ovinus (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ovinus,

Well, that's very flattering, thank you for your kind words. I still think of myself as new to AFDs...I've been an admin since 2015 but I only started regularly checking AFDs this January. Over the past 9 months, I've learned a few things I'm trying to get better at. Unless the participants are unanimous in their opinions, most editors prefer an explanation instead of a one word closure so I'm trying to write more statements about a closure when it seems like a close division of opinions. Some admins are just superb about doing this but they do fewer closures than some of the rest of us. That's fine, if they are willing to read through some of these complex discussions, weighing all of the factors and comments, then if they do 4-7 AFD closures a week, it's something we all benefit from. But I still have a ways to go on this.

I do often think that editors who regularly participate in AFDs wish I was more decisive handling AFDs rather than relisting ones where I don't see an obvious closing decision. Editors often get impatient with relistings but a closer can't make a "Super Vote" and impose our own ideas about what should happen in a discussion. And I've seen knowledgeable editors show up after 2 or 3 relistings and offer an opinion that changes the direction of the discussion so I think it can be worth doing it. I wish that would happen more often but there are just a lot of articles that come up in AFD discussions that very few editors care about.

What has helped me is if editors unsatisfied with a closure come to me instead of heading directly to Deletion Review which is generally an unpleasant experience, even when a closure is endorsed. Sometimes, discussion, both at AFD and DRV, can turn personal and that just deflects from the stated purpose of the discussion.

Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it just common courtesy to bring up a problematic deletion with the closer?? Rather unfortunate to take things to DRV immediately. Also agreed with dividing closures among admins to avoid tiring people too much—Sandstein, for example, seems to do really well with the contentious ones. I do hope the upcoming RfC will help with the anomie in some parts of AfD, particularly borderline sports biographies, but I haven't seen quite as much acrimony as before the recent Arbcom case. Not sure whether that's due to individual problematic voters being topic banned or simply because people are worried about being sanctioned. With regards to relisting, I really appreciate it, despite the perceived backlog. Ovinus (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

• New instant-access collections:
  • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
  • Project MUSE
  • Taylor & Francis
  • ASHA
  • Loeb
• Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes ScottishFinnishRadish Staxringold Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes Cyberpower678 CheckUser changes GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Hi Liz, sorry to bother, but I think I'm just confused about the CSD rules. In rejecting my tag, you said: "It will not be eligible until 6 months from today (unless some else edits it in the meantime)."

Are you saying that simply CSD tagging in and of itself, and rejecting of that tag, counts as a human edit of G13? That this would reset the clock? This seems to be a strange thing since I was just attempting to correct an earlier CSD.

G13 says "human edits". The only edit in 6 months aside from my original CSD was from citation bot and someone using an autowikibot apostrophe fixer. I was under the impression that these were bot edits, not human edits, for the purposes of G13. If I was mistaken, I completely understand. But does that mistake alone really reset the clock ANOTHER 6 months? Why does it not simply mean, wait until 6 months have really elapsed (which they now have, even from those edits I thought were bot edits).

It sounds quite cyclical in reasoning. I'm also noticing that different admins appear to treat this question differently. is it ambiguity that needs clarification in G13?

Please provide any clarity you can as I'm quite confused about this! Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you're right here Shibbolethink (or at the very least have a very valid point), as when you tagged it in early Sept, it hadn't quite been 6 months since the last human edit (albeit an automated one) however your second csd tag was definitely over 6 months since the last edit (clearly, we can't count your original csd tag as an "edit", as that would be somewhat ludicrous). If Liz is counting your original csd tag as an edit and clock reset, I think that would need to be taken somewhere else for some consensus and discussion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I should have responded to this comment last week! But I see it has been escalated and more editors will be participating in a discussion about this which I think is good for policy development. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Hello Liz. Hoping you're well, I write this message to you to know in which reasons was my Sandbox deleted. I created the sandbox with the purpose of creating drafts and testing. However I decided to rewrite it from scratch, deleting all previous drafts I made, however the thing is I found out today that my sandbox was deleted due to the misuse as a Webhost. However I wanted to make this clearing, because the recent draft I created was a draft for my user page, however as it was a user page draft, I added by mistake the external links of my personal pages section with two (equal signs) instead of three to include it as a sub title of the draft, but I didn't make any misuse, it was a little mistake I was going to fix but due of other things I have to do (such as study and work) I didn't fix it, and obviously that made my sandbox look like a "webhost".

Hoping a sooner answer and solution,

Diego Esquivel (Got any questions?) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, this is awaiting your response, either here or at WP:Requests for undeletion#Sandbox:Diegoesquivel2004. Jay 💬 14:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

I missed seeing this on my rather busy talk page so I'll check REFUND tonight or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Diego Esquivel and Jay,

I apologize for the delay in responding to your questions, I see that REFUND request has already been archived without action being taken.

However, I just reviewed User:Diegoesquivel2004/sandbox and wasn't an article draft, it was an autobiography about you, your work as a freelancer and your hobbies. This is exactly what we mean when we saying "using Wikipedia as a webhost". This is content that is suitable for your own website or blog, it is not an article draft for an encyclopedia. We don't have editor profiles in the main space of the project and your User page should not be used to promote yourself or your interests. It is okay to have a limited amount of biographical content on your main User page but it should concern your editing activities on Wikipedia, like a list of articles you are working on, it's not intended to be a social media profile.

Feel free to recreate your Sandbox but please use it either for a) article drafts or b) information you might need for editing, like template codes or links to different editing resources on the project that might come in handy in your work as an editor. We are really serious here about keeping content on User pages reserved for editing content and not using Wikipedia as a social network. I hope this explains helps explain my decision to honor the CSD tagging and delete the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No don’t delete OllysTV draft Wiki power creator (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wiki power creator: If you want to continue working on the draft, you may list it at WP:REFUND, and an admin will restore it. However, you will need to continue working on it, or it will be deleted again. Wikipedia will not host unused material indefinitely. Thanks! Ovinus (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, my apologies, it has been many years, and it seems the only way I cross paths with distant colleagues is when a misunderstanding or disagreement occurs. Thankfully, it does not often happen (which adds to the time elapsed between points off contract).

At issue is a huggle-driven assessment of an extensive corrective edit as being vandalism, that original edit being driven by an article clearly in violation of WP:OR and (esp.) WP:VER. The article was a physics glossary, all but devoid of citations.

The bot/tool having identified the edit as possible vandalism, the editor then mistakenly affirmed the tool's catch, and reverted the hours of work on the edit. (In the communications between this original editor and the reverting bot user, see links below, and then this editor and the admin supporting the tool-inspired reversion — these make clear the extent of the edits, which go far beyond anything that could be considered vandalism. You can see these in the links that follow. "An edit that in part or more substantially, another editor could disagree with." Possibly, yes. But vandalism contrary to the aim and history and spirit of WP? No.)

Following the original edit, and that initial reversion, I contacted the tool-driven editor, pointing out the case for their misinterpretation of the original edit. I then made a mistake: instead of walking away, and waiting, thinking my communication to that reverting editor was sufficiently explanatory, I reverted their original reversion. This is the only step taken, between the original edit and what followed, that I regret. I should have given the initial communication the time needed, so that the tool-driven editor had time to reverse their own action.

At that point, I would say, the edit and its responses took an unhelpful turn. An administrator joined the fray, returned the tool-driven reversion, and issued a two week block of this editor. (The block appeared in two places, one as a two day block, the second as a two week block, the latter apparently being what took technical efect.)

That block was unnecessary—insofar as the easily applied but extreme restraint miscast the original edit as true vandalism, and this editor as a true vandal/miscreant, rather than the original edit being an earnest attempt to improve WP, and this editor a longstanding contributor dedicated to WP, and its important policies and guidelines. A simple communication with me would have accomplished the same, and wasted less time of all parties involved. Moreover, with a view toward fairness and justice, and a better encyclopedia, it would've allowed us to move toward understanding and a better encyclopedia, rather than shutting down communication and leaving the violation-ridden article in place, as it stood before all this began.

So, I'd ask you to look in, or have another fairminded editor (or editors) look in, and decide if the original edit was reversion-worthy—as opposed to being a bold edit that we all, IP-editors included, have always been encouraged to make (even if it needed to be modified by a further build edit!).

Then, second, I'd ask the same attention to the decision to block—was that single reversion (which I've admitted to having been a mistake) sufficient to issue such a block? Along with that, was the reason for the block that was given, in is very abbreviated form (no reference to WP policies or guidelines), and pointedness (to the point if being uncivil) — is this in keeping with current expectations of WP administrative action?

Third and finally, I'd ask what expectations one questioning a block might have. Perhaps by this time, the challenge to the block that I wrote has led to a reply. But after several days (and because work put me on the road again), I have seen no response to the appeal, and so lost hope of an easy, fair review of this matter.

And in this last paragraph, we arrive at what I think was the only real (and unfortunate) outcome of the tool-driven reversion of the source-checking and policy-noting original edit: that an article was returned to its clearly problematic, policy-violating state without any hint of the issues, and that this editor, dedicated to WP and its ideals, policies and guidelines (if not it's oversight apparatus and practices), is all the further disallusioned.

So, I request you have a look at the following links, which are presented in rough order of the interactions related to this question.

With regard, a former regular, note occasional editor (and professor).

50.224.57.42 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_physics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Discospinster [See the Talk section entitled, "The edit you just rolled back is not vandalism...".]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Glossary_of_physics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111977506

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111983553

Hello, 50.224.57.42,

First, if you are blocked in any way on Wikipedia, you shouldn't jump to a different IP account and edit. This is called "Block evasion" and you would not be looking at a two week block but an indefinite block for any IP or registered account you edit with. So, please wait out your block and don't contact me again until your block is over.

Second, I have never reverted a block by another administrator. What I have done is that your unblock request was inappropriately closed by a regular editor, not an admin, so I reversed their edit and reopened your unblock request. I haven't studied this, but I think unblock requests for limited duration blocks like this one are unlikely to be approved.

Finally, I don't really understand why you were blocked. I think that the admin who reverted your edit should have responded to your inquiry about why you were reverted. I will say that large edits/content changes by IP editors are usually scrutinized and you went overboard placing source tags on this page and, to the average editor, that would raise suspicions. You would be better off in the future to do smaller edits. It is so much easier to revert a questionable edit that selectively undo just parts of the edit. I probably don't need to tell you this but while IP editors are just as valid editors as those with registered accounts, their edits are subject to more review than registered editors, especially ones that have been active for years. I think you would not run into these situations if you created an account.

I realize that my answer is not the vindication you sought but I did read your entire appeal and it is not my nature to go to battle with another admin over a questionable block of an unregistered editor who I don't know. I think you'd be better off not editing until this block is over, registering an account and engaging the Wikipedia community with an identity that admins and editors could learn to respect and trust. If instead you choose to go to battle over this perceived injustice, you will find yourself forever in conflict which doesn't serve you or the project. It's your choice. I'd let this one go if you want to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

If you don't sign the initial report, you won't see two sigs - it automatically signs it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Bbb23,

Thank you but it's strange, when you fill out a report, it says you need to sign it in the instructions. But, in the future, I will omit it. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're reading the wrong part of the instructions. It says: "Enter your evidence below. You do not need to sign it - it will be signed for you."--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. You think I'd have it all figured out by now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, after my article was moved to a draft I added many corrections and citations, and I really think it is a good article. It is a translation of the HEbrew article on the same write of book that won a FIDE prize. Could you please check it and write to me what is the problem? Yoavd (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Yoavd,

I do a lot of different things on Wikipedia but I don't review draft articles. Your best bet is to submit it to Articles for Creation and one of their AFC reviewers will evaluate it and give you their opinion. Their primary job on Wikipedia is reviewing draft articles so they are the experts.

Also, The Teahouse is a great place to go for advice, there are experienced editors there who might offer an opinion on it. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, I did not keep my work about Noam Manella so if you could send me the last version I will try to continue the work. Since then the book was translated to many languages so I could add this to the draft. Thanks! --Yoavd (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please send me a copy of the deleted article so I can continue to work on it. --Yoavd (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Hope you are doing good. I want a clarification for your reply to my vote and striking. You said I already express my vote before. Thats not true. Please check clearly and please remove the striking. Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jehowahyereh,

You voted twice. That's apparent to anyone looking over the AFD. You can only vote (a bolded "Keep", "Delete", "Merge" or "Redirect") once on an AFD discussion. Look at your comemnts in this discussion, you were the first comment on this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you relisted this AfD and then you deleted it after two days without any clear consensus? Can you please clarify? Thank you. Haueirlan (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Haueirlan,

You are absolutely correct, I relisted this AFD discussion and then closed it hours later. That was a mistake. I have reverted my closure, restored the article and I'll let another admin/editor to close this discussion. I appreciate you bringing this oversight to my attention so I could correct it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate it. Haueirlan (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Liz. I see The Sandbox (blockchain platform) as a redlink in my watchlist and didn't realize there was a deletion discussion. Since it was closed a little bit early, would you be willing to re-open so I can make a comment? CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CNMall41,

I don't see that this AFD discussion was closed early and the consensus was pretty clear to Delete this article. The majority of editors participating thought there wasn't significant coverage of this company and only one editor disagreed. I don't think your vote of support would have changed the outcome so I'm reluctant to reopen a discussion that had a clear consensus just to allow you to comment on it.

However, I might consider restoring this article to Draft space where you could work on the article and submit it to AFC for review. Do you realistically see yourself wanting to devote time to improving this article in the time you spend on Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That would work. Can you put it in a subpage for me (User:CNMall41/TheSandbox)? I will work on in whenever I have a chance. I am not sure that editors did a thorough BEFORE as Google Books turns up a bunch of information. I guess I disagree with people saying that it isn't notable when significant coverage could be presented. However, I completely understand your position as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

While I have you, can you assign permissions such as "Rollback"? Going to try using Huggle and need those rights. Not sure why I don't have them yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CNMall41,

 Done and  Done. You are an experienced editor so I probably don't need to tell you this but I will any way. If you move the The Sandbox article back into main space, even after you have improved the article, it will likely be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. Please submit it to AFC for review to ensure that the problems that the participants in the AFD found are no longer an issue. I think reviewing the AFD discussion would help with sourcing and foreseeing any problems that might arise with an article about crytocurrency.

Regarding rollback, please review Rollback policy, particularly When to use rollback and remember to not use it when reverting a good faith edit or when there is a disagreement about content, it's primarily intended for reverting vandalism.

If you have questions, please ask me or any other admin you have a good working relationship with. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I truly appreciate it. As far as The Sanbox, I will probably discuss with editors involved with the AfD. I also probably won't have time to even look at it for a month or so. Take care. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Seems my user page was put up for speedy deletion at 8:37 on sunday(by Minorax) then deleted 8:42(by yourself), under use of web hosting. The deletion notice on my talk says to contact the deleting admin, not the proposing admin, so I've come here to figure out what's up. I certainly didn't intend to be using wikipedia as a host.

Seemingly I messed something up with the content- I tried to put a breif introduction so people would know who was editing and what my focuses were, but i've no interest in a random out of context bio and I've not pointed to the page from anywhere else. While my own web hosting is(ironically) undergoing downtime right now, I've got access to web hosting and domains if I want to use them.

Can you advise on creating a talk page with a similar spirit which doesn't come across as using it for web hosting? Adacable (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Adacable,

Over the past few years, I've come to trust Minorax's judgment on speedy deletion tagging and so I just spot-check a few of the pages they have tagged for deletion because they typically are very accurate in their tagging. But I think this CSD tagging was mistaken and I'm glad you came to me about it so I could rectify it.

We run into a lot of editors who use their User page as a personal profile page as if Wikipedia was a social network but in your case, the information you shared has to do with your editing work and interests on Wikipedia and you were not using the platform as a webhost. I've restored the page and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Feel free to remove the warning from your talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adacable: Hello. Seems like it be an oversight on my end. Apologies to both. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. I hope you're doing well. I just have this small issue here with an editor who seems that they aren't aware of their actions which is disruption of WP:CIV.

The user Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs) had reverted my edits on the Tara Sutaria page. The edit summary stated words like "reductant crap" referring to my edits. I took this matter to their talk page. And instead of coming to a consensus, I get replied by a warn which makes no sense. And added to this, they deleted the message on their talk page.

I'm surprised that this editor has various permissions as well. I hope you'll look into this and just guide me. If I'm mistaken anywhere do let me know, because it seems the other editor is least bothered to do this.

Thanks  Rejoy2003  12:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rejoy2003,

To be honest, neither of you comes off as being very civil. That was a glib edit summary Krimuk2.0 left on their edit on Tara Sutaria but your message on their talk page wasn't a neutral warning, you called them arrogant, questioned why they had been given advanced permissions and bordered on being insulting to them. You can't expect civility from others if you are not going to practice it as well. That is, you can't warn an editor about being insulting by being rude yourself. I'm just glad you stopped edit warring on that article before either of you got taken to WP:ANEW. If you care that much about the content of the edit under dispute, you should stop talking to each other in edit summaries and move to a discussion on the article talk page.

I'm not giving Krimuk2.0 a free pass but you will find editors that have been editing Wikipedia for 10+ years can be very blunt and to-the-point in a way that might not seem civil to a new editor. The ideal of Wikipedia as a collaborative editing project is that editors will treat each other with respect, patience and politeness, even when they disagree. But human nature being what it is, every editor, especially those who have been doing this for a long, long time, can be cranky. Maybe by the time you accumulate 45,000 edits like Krimuk2.0, you will find yourself being grumpy to editors who have been editing for 2 months, too.

For Krimuk2.0 to face a sanction over this, they would have to have a record of being rude to multiple editors over time and not just leave one ill-tempered edit summary after a disagreement with one other editor. On Wikipedia, conflicts between editors is very common and if you are going to stay an editor, you will need to develop a good sense of what conflicts require intervention and which conflicts you need to just walk away from. Most editors who have been doing this for a while develop a thick skin and just move on from the majority of disputes because escalating them to, say, WP:ANI, can end badly for both parties. I know there are editors/admins/arbitrators who have been here for decades who avoid dealing with certain people they have had past conflicts with and that's not a bad way of dealing with other editors you just don't get along with. I'm sorry you had a bad experience and I don't mind you coming here to talk about it but I would hope you could just move on from here and not let this get you down or become a feud between you and Krimuk2.0. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Liz. I'm glad I got a third opinion in this. But regarding warning me, doesn't it seems that they kind of misused their power?

I mean to be honest, I have applied almost 4-5 times for permissions on Wikipedia which I've been declined and such petty warns over small issues, I personally feel was uncalled for. And which will in return not so help me while asking for certain permissions. Do let me know what you think

Thanks  Rejoy2003  19:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, you are a very new editor, Rejoy2003, and it's a bad sign to admins that you have only been editing for 2 months and you have already asked for advanced permissions 4 or 5 times. I would deny those requests as well. I would say that you need a track record of 4-6 months of regular editing before I would grant you any permissions. Please focus on becoming a better editor and not on "hat collecting".

I'm sure that with each refusal, the patrolling admin told you exactly what I'm telling you now and by reapplying so quickly, it looks like you are ignoring their advice. Ignoring the advice of one of the few admins who work on the permisions noticeboards is a guarantee that you are unlikely to be granted rights if you make requests soonafter.

I'd also advise you to read Wikipedia:Indentation and learn to indent during a talk page discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, your reply still didn't answer my question about Krimuk2.0 warning me here User talk:Rejoy2003. Could you brief me about it as well? Also Just to make myself clear about this, I never really considered of "hat collecting". You can go through my perms applied you can check I have applied for the same 1-2 roles as I felt I'm ready. Also about ignoring the advice of patrolling admins, I never really did that. On the contrary, there was one of the patrol admins that told me to apply after a month, which I did to only get rejected again. Maybe I'm not the best with words or like you said, I'll try to sit out for 3-4 months as I feel it's appropriate as well. Also about the indentation, that's actually my first hearing that and me being a mobile editor, Indentation has always been difficult and "too much of work" I'd say then to those who own PC or a computer. Nevertheless this discussion really has helped me alot to understand what areas I should be working on.  Rejoy2003  09:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz (talk · contribs) just pinging you incase you missed this.

Dear Liz, as for your last comment on my talk page, please see pages Ljupčo Kocarev, Talk:Ljupčo Kocarev. Reagrds, Academician.NYAS (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Academician.NYAS,

This was not a personal message that I left for you. I delete stale drafts, drafts that go longer than 6 months without an edit and in the process of deletion, Twinkle, the editing tool that we use, sends out a deletion template notification and posts it to the talk page of the page creator.

So, among the hundreds of drafts I deleted today, one was Draft:Ljupčo Kocarev that you apparently started and you were notified about this deletion. I have no opinion on this draft, I was just notifying you. If you would like it to be restored, please make a request at WP:REFUND and it likely will be undeleted. That's all I can tell you about this situation. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Best regards,Academician.NYAS (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I need the help of a seasoned admin. Can you explain to me what type of revision was performed on Theatre organ? It was performed by Lettherebedarklightwith no prior talk page discussion, whom I have just contacted about the issue. I'm more concerned (wondering) about the type of revision that can hide all the revisions back to 2013, and I have no way to revert any on them. Seems like an admin level thing to be able to do, but the editor is not imho •Bobsd• (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bobsd,

When you see mass revision deletions like this on an article, it is because of a copyright violation. In this case, the content was originally added in December 20, 2013 and at least some of the content remained until now. Lettherebedarklightwith might have removed the content from the article that violated copyright rules but it was Nthep who actually did the revision deletion of the different versions which you can see when you look at the page logs (check the link in the page history). Having to remove access to all of these edit versions is a hassle to do but it's because there are legal consequences to having copyright violations on the project which is taken very seriously.

Nthep is experienced dealing with copyright violations and I would ask them about specifics in this case. We have about half a dozen admins who have a focus on remedying copyright violations and I am not one of them. It's a time-consuming job and some of the investigations looking into copyright violating editors can last months or even years. I hope this answers your basic questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, thank you for the reply. That helps my understanding of the process. Here is what I replied to Lettherebedarklight

@Lettherebedarklight: I couldn't tell what the process was, but as I now understand it, you did a manual cleanup to the current page, removing problematic copyright sections, and then Nthep performed a revision deletion back to [Revision as of 10:15, 4 November 2013] when the violations started.

Your edit comment (it's a copyvio! that explains a lot.) was helpful, but (why?!?!?!?!??!!? ), (why would anyone trying to learn about theatre organs care about this!?!? ), (wtf is this article), were less so and at first, sounded to me that you had personal opinions about what previous editors should or should not have found relevant to the subject matter, and took an ax to it.

But with such a large cleanup in mind, shouldn't a discussion have occurred for consensus on the talk page? I understand that copyright violations should be handled immediately, but not everything that you removed were violations.

An irony is that the San Diego chapter of the ATOS uses the Wikipedia article as their "history" page. , so how do we determine the provenance of each sentence ... i.e. who borrowed from whom?

Anyway, thank you for managing the copyright violation cleanup, but I do think that in the future, some type of explanation, at least after the fact, should be placed on the talk page so that past editors of the article can know what is going on.

Regards, Bobsd •Bobsd• (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Liz! Following up in case you missed the ping here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sdkb,

 Done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The article on Dejan Ferdinansyah was closed/deleted at AfD recently, but it's been recreated again in mainspace; what's the procedure for something like this? Do we open a new AfD, re-open the old one, unsure what happens now. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Oaktree b,

If the new version of the article is substantially identical to the previous article that was deleted after the AFD discussion, then it gets tagged CSD G4 and the tagger provides a link to the deletion discussion so the admin who reviews the page can look at the AFD discussion. Do you use Twinkle? IT's an editing tool that many editors and admins make use of to tag articles, start AFDs, report vandals to noticeboards, and it makes things like this very easy to do. It will also keep deletion logs for an editor which can be handy to review so you can improve your tagging skills. If you run across instances like this one in your work on the project, I encourage you to try Twinkle out.

As for this new article, I'd prefer to let another admin review this recreated article. I don't like to do multiple deletions of an main space article unless there is vandalism or sockpuppetry involved. I don't like editors to ever feel targeted. Unfortunately, CSD G4s can sit around for a while until an admin comes along to review them but I don't think it's hurting the project to let this new article hang around for a while. Thanks for the notification! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Hi Liz,

I'm just messaging about the recent deletion of the Lucy Chege (nutritionist) page on my account User:DanielMaithya (talk) 02:32, 06 October 2022 (UTC). It was cited as being deleted for violating G4. The notice I received stated the following: ' 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'. As this page content is very different from the previously deleted page over one year ago, only the page name is the same this time round please help retrieve and restore it I continue editing. Also I would appreciate if you suggest some changes I should make to the article. DanielMaithya (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Kind regards

Hello, DanielMaithya,

Sorry for the delay in replying. I'll review the old and new versions of this article and see whether CSD G4 fits. I believed it did when I deleted the page but it can't hurt to take a second look tomorrow. I'll have more information for you then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Just reaching out to find out if you managed to review the page. Thank you! DanielMaithya (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Did you manage to review the page? I will appreciate if you helped me out. Thanks! DanielMaithya (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DanielMaithya,

No, sorry, I haven't but thank you for the reminder. I'll take care of it within in the next day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DanielMaithya,

I just reviewed the first version of Lucy Chege (nutritionist) along with your version and I think they are basically identical. It's a totally self-promotional article with terrible, unreliable sources to support claims in the article. Even if I restored it to the main space of the project, another admin would soon delete it for speedy deletion CSD G11 for basically being advertising. By Wikipedia's standards, she just isn't notable enough to have an article on the English language Wikipedia.

I agree with the unanimous decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Chege (nutritionist) that this article should be deleted. Please review this AFD so you can see what problems editors had with the earlier version of the article.

If you disagree with my deletion decision, you can make an argument at Wikipedia:Deletion review that the article shouldn't have been deleted. You should be able to argue that this article does meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. I can restore the deleted article to your User space so you can review it but if you move it directly back into main space, it will be deleted again and this time it will be more difficult to restore.

I'm sorry not to have better news but creating a new article is the most difficult task to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. I hope you can find other ways to contribute to the project. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Liz for your response, and also for taking your precious time to review the page. Please restore the deleted article to my User space so that I can review it. Thanks! DanielMaithya (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Please reconsider your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaver Junction. While numerically the keep votes are in the majority, they without fail are all either drive-by votes with no real rationale, or are seriously flawed with respect to policy. I did a thorough analysis of the article and sources, showing why the article did not meet GNG, and no editors were able to refute my analysis. I realize I'm borderline asking you to supervote here, but I quite simply cannot see valid rationale for keeping this article when no examples of significant coverage can be found. I've tried to find some, but was unsuccessful. I queried multiple keep voters about what they thought was significant coverage, and all either ignored my question or responded with vague claims that "we've kept stuff that was pieced together from a bunch of trivial mentions before". I believe a keep close is inconsistent with the strength of the arguments presented in the AfD, and you should reconsider.

On a wholly unrelated note, I've noticed you're a lot more active in closing AfDs in general, and I do appreciate you helping keep this area of the project running smoothly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Trainsandotherthings,

I read over the discussion again and while you did provide a good source analysis, I think the editors advocating Keeping the article offered substantial opinions and were not all "drive-bys" votes. At most, I could change this to a "No consensus" closure but I don't think that would provide you with the decision you are seeking. I'll admit that, as a closer, I am also infuenced by the amount of improvement an article undergoes in the time between the AFD nomination and the discussion closure and this article was heavily edited during the past weeks. That is a sign to me that there are editors here that are willing to continue to improve the article to address problems brought up by those wanting to Delete the article.

Like most discussions that are far from unanimous, this was not an easy decision and in my time this year working at AFD, I've observed that it is a lot easier to get an article Deleted than to get an article Kept. But I thought, at the time of closure, that the Keep editors had some good arguments and seemed committed to improving this particular article.

If I were you and this really, really bothered me (you did put a lot of time into your participation in this AFD), I'd renominate the article in a few weeks. I'm sorry that I'm not willing to revert my closure but I've seen different AFD discussions have greatly different results depending on who decides to participate. I guess that's a flaw/benefit in the AFD process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• sigh* - there was a reason I sent it to Draft, and I am well aware of what just happened. Email me and I will be happy to discuss. Atsme 💬 📧 21:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Atsme,

I don't know of any extenuating circumstances that would let this draftification bypass the "recently created" guidelines of when it's appropriate to move a main space page to Draft space. It looks like the moves have led to improvement in the article though which I think is the goal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, to what guideline are you referring for "recently created"? Atsme 💬 📧 12:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You might notice that I reverted a bunch of your edits, but not because there was anything wrong with them; that was just the most efficient way to restore a large number of links to a re-stubbed article that was previously deleted as a copyvio. I would note, however, that since the subject was clearly notable (a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice), per WP:REDBIO it also would have been permissible to leave the red links in place. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412,

Thanks for letting me know but I don't monitor those types of things so I didn't know it had happened. If the edits were reverted, I'm sure you had a good reason to do it. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

👍 It's an unusual confluence of circumstances. BD2412 T 20:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I'm curious as to what happened with Driggu? It was at AfD and you moved it to draftspace... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,

I just deleted a redirect from main space to Draft space. If you look at the page history of Draft:Driggu, you'll see that you need to ask User:Moniiquedecastro who moved it to Draft space. This was inappropriate considering there was an AFD going on so I'll revert it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, right, got it. Bit of a slow bear, see. I did think it was all a bit odd! Thanks! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, can you please delete the redirect pages SBS Mobile24, SBS Mobile 24, SBS MOBILE 24 and SBS MOBILE24 because they aren’t mentioned in the target article. Thanks. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bassie f,

These are subjects of RFD discussions. I'm not a regular at RFD, I think you should ask one of the admins who regularly closes discussions there to intervene and close these early. I'm more likely to let the deletion discussions continue until they close at the regular 7 day time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Also Liz, I originally nominated this redirect page on RfD on the 28th of September but it was relisted on the 5th of October by CycloneYoris. Bassie f (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WT:CSDAdministrators' Noticeboard which may be of interest to you. The thread is WT:CSDAre CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 14:49, 8 October 2022)

Hello, Shibbolethink,

I appreciate the notice. Thank you for telling me about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shibbolethink,

I don't see a thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion by this title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusion, it is now at AN, the original venue. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, @User:Drmies restricts Talk at that page to registered users, apparently, so I cannot go direct with this request. Could you request there that the article glucuronic acid be examined, and that whatever is believed to be the minimally necessary WP:VERIFY reader warnings for an article in its state, that those be placed, so I can see? (You are welcome to express your view via an edit as well, but I really do not wish to make substantial extra work for you.) The first citation in the main body of that article does not appear until the second main section, and therein, the second subsection. Moreover, most of the rest of the second section is unsourced as well, and none of the unsourced content I've reviewed is sky-is-blue information.

Given the fact that edits at WP from IP addresses that warn readers we are violating our own rules about sourcing now risk reversion, at least, I would like to see a clear example of what WP Admins believe to be a sufficient addition of templates to an article in that state. I would add: it is likely, given the overall paucity of sourcing there, that the lead, while perhaps adequate in beginning to summarize the article — that it is nevertheless derived from content that is not based in any source appearing, and so likewise deserves an edit introducing that further warning. Cheers, thanks in advance for whatever you might choose to do. 2601:240:CD06:74E0:C9A9:6475:CF47:41A2 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Postscript: If you can direct me via a reply here to the instructions that exist for contacting you by email, I will send you a brief reply to your earlier post to me. There is a little yet to be said — in addition to the thank you for a further case of your always very clear communications, and for the fairness with which you approach your responsibilities, which I can freely say here. Cheers. 2601:240:CD06:74E0:C9A9:6475:CF47:41A2 (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ulises12345678 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie, Ulises12345678! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks! Ulises12345678 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

more? Ulises12345678 (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, i noticed that Ramparkashkohli have moved the Kolhi to Kohli but Kolhi is a seperate Dalit caste of Sindh and Kohli is a clan of Khatri caste. So please revert all edits made by Ramparkashkohli. 106.204.112.248 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 106.204.112.248,

I think we got this sorted out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You know categories better than I do. These cats might need to move to use "c." instead of "ca.". – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jonesey95,

I deal with content categories and categories that hold categories, I'm not very schooled on template categories or content dealing with different languages. Don't we have a few industrious editors who love to plough through categories with pages that need small corrections and use AWB or some other tool to do some quick fixes? I can't remember who right now. Maybe BD2412 has some ideas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Now that I read the message again, it may be saying that we should not move the category, because the official name of the language is inherited from somewhere. I notice that the name also ignores our MOS:DASH guideline as well. Maybe PrimeHunter, who created this cmbox template, knows more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Using "c." versus "ca." is just our style convention. I'm glad to do the category moves (there really aren't that many), but I would consider this a pretty low priority for the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 23:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: The categories use the ISO 639-3 names of languages. For example, in Category:Articles containing Middle Dutch (ca. 1050-1350)-language text, "Middle Dutch (ca. 1050-1350)" is the name of a language (see https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/dum. "(ca. 1050-1350)" is not a term made by Wikipedia to describe the language. The categories are populated by templates using ISO 639-3 language codes to generate those names, in this case dum. It would be a mess if we made up our own language names just because the real ones deviate slightly from our manual of style. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

See also User talk:Good Olfactory/Archive 37#Category:Articles containing Old English (ca. 450-1100)-language text. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412 and PrimeHunter who clearly know what they are talking about, much more than I know about ISO language codes (which is nothing!). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I appreciate the education, I did not catch that the date range was part a set phrase. In that case, these should not be moved at all. BD2412 T 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added documentation to the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what to say but i wanted to reach out. This whole Athaenara affair is sad and brings me no joy. Odd as it may sound, i'm sorry for your loss. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, EvergreenFir, this is unexpected. I felt like I'd be criticized for my point-of-view. It's just difficult when you work alongside another editor/admin every day and then they do something completely out of character. I just feel like there has to be more to the story. This talk about "cancel culture" when airing an obviously unacceptable comment is just bizarre. I understand why action has been taken, it was necessary. I don't see how this can be resolved in a positive way though. We'll see what the arbitrators have to say, it's in their court unless there is an unblock request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize. There certainly could be some explanation; Doug Weller, for example, was experiencing post-operative delirium the other week and was acting very odd, but at least we know why. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It was quite a lapse in my judgment to re-state that personal attack, so I came to thank you for removing it. You know, it's the kind of situation that prompts reaction before reason. Needs work on my part :) —VersaceSpace 🌃 05:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, VersaceSpace,

Well, at the time I removed that comment, it was the first time I had seen it repeated and the content had been revision deleted on the RfA so I thought the content should be off-limits. But it's now right in the middle of an arbitration case request so perhaps I acted too quickly myself. I was just thinking of the possibility of it reoffending people and wanted to remove the words without removing it from the page history. Let's both live and learn, okay? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. This is a new one to me, so wanted your advice on quite where it goes next. I nominated John Mateer for deletion as a fail of WP:GNG and the author clearly got into a state about that, posting walls of text in the AfD. You kindly suggested draftspace was their friend and I said I wouldn't object to you draftifying it (remember this one?) as there was no other vote on the AfD. The author then took it to draft themselves, changed the article title and slipped it right back into mainspace. So now we have John Mateer (filmmaker) in mainspace and a redlinked AfD that's not closed. I'm not sure the article is any more WP:GNG-worthy than it was before, but the modus operandi struck me as a tad, well, egregious? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,

Oh, my, what a mess. And, unfortunately, it is 1:15 am where I am and I'm heading to bed soon. I think you should copy what you just told me (or part of it) and include it on the still open AFD discussion along with links to both the Draft page and the new main space article. Has there been much participation on the AFD yet? Has it been relisted? Nevermind, I can check it myself! Don't worry, this is inappropriate behavior and it will get sorted out in the next day, either by me or another admin who is patrolling the AFD area. But you should definitely mention in the deletion discussion that there are multiple versions of this article now. Sorry for not taking immediate action on this problem at this moment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. 'night! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alexandermcnabb,

I think this AFD is back on track. It's been moved out of Draft space and I have replaced the AFD tag to the article. I have also warned the editor not to be so disruptive. I have made my opinion known so I won't be closing this AFD. Thanks for alerting me to the chaos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz - it's been a tad messy as AfDs go! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You won't believe it, Alexandermcnabb, but that editor just asked for their User pages to be deleted. I guess they are leaving the project. I'm sure lots of new editors find all of the rules and policies here hard to work around. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

They did leave a 'you are all bullies' line on the AfD! I'd feel bad that someone felt harried off the project, but at the same time I can't help noticing that this was the one article they had dedicated themselves to (beyond reason, IMHO) and that taking it so personally was maybe linked to it being, well, personal (AGF and all that). I remember when I started out having a hard time about changing the name of the place I lived back then, which was spelled wrong on WP - but I also remember taking it easy, asking for help and not going around moving pages and breaking stuff. That wasn't meant to be sanctimonious but you don't arrive at a party screaming blue murder if you want to be handed a drink. If that makes any sense at all! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

User account recreated, the Mateer AfD discussion blanked (reverted by another editor). A passing pang of regret wasted, it would seem! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sign, Alexandermcnabb. There is a page somewhere in Project space called the Law of Holes which states that when you get yourself into a hole, you stop digging. There are some editors that get blocked that wouldn't have if they had just stopped digging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Good day Liz, I hope you having a great day.? Wanted to ask how do I get the wiki code to achieve section on my talk page. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabriel601,

Do you mean "archive"? I just create a new page for my talk page, call it "Archive" add the month and year, and then cut and paste a month's worth of comments in one edit. But there are more sophisticated ways to archive your talk page, using bots to do this automatically. You can check out Help:Archiving (plain and simple) and Help:Archiving a talk page for more specific advice.

I just found that the bot didn't work well with the way my talk page archives were set up so I do it myself after I have more than about 3 months' worth of messages on my talk page. Some editors keep YEARS worth of messages on their talk page while others keep only a week's worth of comments. You know, questions like this one are great to bring to the the Teahouse...I don't mind answering them but at the Teahouse, there are a lot more editors who can share from their acquired knowledge of editing the project. Someone there might have an idea or method I've never heard of! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh great, thank you so much. I’m gonna check them out.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

... to my user page, or wherever articles go for rehabilitation? I'd like to take a look at its sourcing for clues as to establishing notability. Thanks much! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wikidemon,

As a contested PROD, I'm able to restore it upon request. However, if I were you, I'd move it to your User space, maybe a Sandbox page, and include the tag {{user sandbox}} on the page so that it won't be nominated for an AFD discussion. Good luck with it! At the time, I didn't think it had a great PROD deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'll move it to my user space. So I would have to do the move, after you restore it? I'm a little rusty on Wiki process because I haven't been editing much for a few years. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wikidemon,

Moving a page is pretty simple, just go to the Page tab at the top of the page and select Move in the Drop Down menu. Just be sure that you select the right namespace (User). Or if you give me a page title, I can move it for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, many thanks. The article is pretty weak, it does need some help. But the company is a significant if minor piece of internet startup history. It may be a while before I get around to it but Wikipedia has no deadline as they say. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There's the spirit, Wikidemon! As long as you don't add an AFC tag to the page, it can stay in User space until you are ready to work on it. User pages that have AFC tags are subject to G13 speedy deletion if you aren't actively editing them so don't add one unless you actually want to submit the article to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Good day Liz, I hope you feeling great? Sorry to bother you but I would be needing your review of the discussion on the page Draft:Speed Darlington. It’s really annoying when the Wikipedia policy states its fact about articles and reviewers ain’t sticking to it but that doesn’t still make me over react because have got other problems in real life to solve. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabriel601

There seems to be some confusion here. I do admin work, I'm not an AFC reviewer so I won't be reviewing your draft. I leave that process to the experts. That is not a skill I have, I focus on other activities of the project. I can tell you that AFC approval usually down whether the article is well-written and the quality of your sourcing. If you don't have good references to back up your claims, the draft is unlikely to be approved.

If you have comments or questions about the reviewers' comments, please visit their talk pages or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for help. Also, you might get some useful feedback if you visit the Teahouse and ask for help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You got me wrong Liz, I was talking about the discussion review not the page review but thanks for responding.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 01:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You G8 deleted Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6 in February. Template:Infobox actor was merged to Template:Infobox person, not deleted. The other archives are still at Special:PrefixIndex/Template talk:Infobox actor/ with an archive box at Template talk:Infobox person. I suggest undeleting. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PrimeHunter,

I saw your message this morning and restored this Template talk page. I'm not sure how I came to delete it, perhaps it was targeted as a redirect when I used Twinkle. Also orphaned talk pages can be subject to CSD G8 deletion so I created a blank Template page to accompany the talk page. Is there anything left to repair? I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you were right to delete Template:Infobox actor/Archive 6 in February. It was wrongly named with irrelevant content. I guess you checked a box in Twinkle to also delete the talk page but Template talk:Infobox actor/Archive 6 is an archived talk page of Template:Infobox actor. WP:G8 excludes talk page archives. We don't create non-talk pages for archived talk pages. It probably increases the risk that somebody deletes the archive again along with the non-talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed you've moved the draft List of DC Extended Universe films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to mainspace. It seems to have been submitted to AfC but, while on a vacuum the article seems to stand on its own, it's actually an outdated WP:CONTENTFORK of the more comprehensive DC Extended Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), made preemptively while there were discussions of splitting this original, larger article. I think that this recently moved article should be moved back to draftspace, until discussions resume and a consensus to split the original article is reached, after which the move to mainspace and the restructuring of the original article would be coordinated. —El Millo (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, El Millo,

I'm not adverse to reverting my page move but I'd like to know where this discussion will occur. I don't want to move a page back to Draft space when it might just be moved back to main space tomorrow. I'll ping Numberguy6 who is the editor who requested this page move to hear his rationale for this move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Numberguy6 proposed the draft to AfC without knowledge of this, given they've never edited either DC Extended Universe () or the draft (). As for when that discussion will happen, I don't know. There have been many discussion about it over the years, but none came to a consensus to actually split it (Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 3#Split in 2018, Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 5#Time to split? in 2019, and most recently Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 8#Length concerns in 2021). —El Millo (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like a move back is appropriate in this situation but first, I would like to hear from Numberguy6 before doing so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush. —El Millo (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can. Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Baffle☿gab 03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. I wish to inquire into your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Mysteries#Lost Mysteries. I'm a bit confused as to why you closed an AfD that had just been relisted, and should have been allowed to expire before closing the discussion. Also, WP:AFDFORMAT says that a vote does not constitute a discussion (2 + author, against 1). The two editors defending StarTrekker's article, offered very little justification in their vote, and you did not comment on the closing itself... but you did provide a recommendation (see below). Are you taking a neutral standpoint regarding the justifying citations being called into question? Was there an issue with the process?

The article could benefit from a lot more, but if noteworthy reliable sources are used to populate a § Reception, then I would agree that this would satisfy WP:GNG. But in short, I don't believe this process was given its due fairness because of the early closure sans brief explanation for the keep decision.
Thank you for your understanding. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CJDOS, Sheridan, OR,

First, it is very unusual for an AFD nominator to relist a discussion. It just looks like you relisted it because the consensus was going against your position. Please do not do this with future AFD nominations. There are plenty of editors and admins wandering around the AFD area and they can relist a discussion if they think it is warranted.

Despite the relisting, I thought there was a consensus among editors to Keep this article. You were definitely the only editor who wants the page deleted. However, I'm not adverse to letting a relist run its course so I have reverted my close and the AFD is back and open for input from other editors. But remember, an AFD discussion only has to last 7 days and even when relisted, it can be closed at any time. You might be having this same conversation with another AFD closer before the next week is over. I hope this satisfies your questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply—I'm sorry about the misunderstandings. Is there a page where I can read further about the relisting process? I'm suspicious that the votes were merely to prop up the author, but I feel that I've already done all I can. I was hoping broader community input would clarify things... but, if I took it further than only 1 relisting (i.e. directly soliciting users to view the AfD), it would give the impression that I was having to resort to vote-fishing. Expert analysis of the notability of the article and citations used to justify it, was what I was looking for. If that analysis demonstrates that the article is notable (albeit in need of repair), then I'm satisfied.
I see that while I was composing this reply, someone asked about "a source analysis from the nominator". I thought I was specific enough about the source materiel, having directly visited the websites in order to compose said rely; could you explain what they're wanting of me? the commenter has since replied to my inquiry with guidance. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 06:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC))

Hi Liz, I tagged this draft for G5 deletion and you rightfully declined it because there had be edits by other users. I know better but my brain was was operating in a fog at the time. I also noticed you filed an SPI, which is what I should have done. Thank you for going the extra mile. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, S0091,

I understand completely. When one has been working for a long time on Wikipedia, you can get into a "zone" of acting without taking the time to think things through thoroughly. It happens with me, it happens with any editor who puts in hours on the project. No editor is perfect and if you look at my talk page, you'll find instances where I've made mistakes. You just try your best, learn from your mistakes and become a better editor in the process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:2022 North American wildfires etc Hugo999 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz: There is, in the German encyclopedia, an article for a young vocal artist named Cat Burns. if you follow the wiki link just inserted, you'll see that it takes you to a single from this artist, rather than to an artist page per se (and so the links to the artist within that page are circular, returning one to the page for the single).

If you could create a workspace, with a link to it here, pasting in the content of the German article on this artist — I would enter that workspace, do the translation, check the sources, etc., making it ready for introduction as a new article. (I think her notability is clear, or I would not suggest this.)

I ask this collaborative venture because of my experience in seeing major, bold efforts from this IP being reversed without due consideration or discussion. That is, I'm willing to put in hours of work on major edits, but not alone, given the history of such work resulting in reversion and blocks.

Thanks in advance, if you can create that workspace and link to it here. If your time does not permit this, I would understand, and the English encyclopedia will have to do without an article on this English language artist, for the present.

Finally, in tracing you in anticipation of leaving this message — I'm on the road, traveling — I came across a mention of a diagnosis. I am both sad to have seen that, but very happy to see you here, and will remember you and yours in our prayers as we remember you, and think of this past, and possibly ongoing challenge.

With regard, I am

2600:1008:B064:D41:D998:5A4E:CD26:86A6 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to add more contexts to it. That's why it's moved to draft. What's the reason to delte a draft page? Ojvolleyball (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

== Deletion review for Draft:VC Nagano Trident ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:VC Nagano Trident. 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. Ojvolleyball (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ojvolleyball,

I didn't delete a draft article, I deleted a broken redirect to a deleted page. The article is still there in Draft space at Draft:VC Nagano Tridents. Check your contributions before panicking and if you look at the deletion tag on a deleted page, it will tell you why it was deleted. It's at the top of the page, in pink. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz. Since the article creator and nearly all of the "keep"s at WP:Articles for deletion/Caylee Cowan(actress) are now blocked in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Elbatli, is there some way to review the outcome of the AFD discussion? Or would I need to start another AFD? The most recent new SPA contributor to the article also has several similarities to the Elbatli accounts. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Storchy,

Well, this is a coincidence, I was looking at some old AFDs today and noticed a few where most of the participants are now blocked editors. They weren't all sockpuppets with the same sockmaster but we definitely have had a lot of sockpuppetry going on in deletion discussions over the past few months.

I don't really know of any circumstances that would allow me to reopen an AFD discussion a month after it has been closed, so I would just open a new AFD. I think it is fair in your nominating statement to report of the sockpuppetry going on in the first AFD so that participants would be alert in case it happens again. But just because there was bad behavior in the first AFD is not a good deletion rationale for this article in a second AFD. It's just a notice that AFDs can be a target for sockpuppetry, that is not a good reason why an article should be deleted right now. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

If the account you mentioned in your BN post is the one I think it is, the user behind it is in fact very active; they just normally edit using a non-administrative account. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Thanks for your message re the above. Having now reviewed the facts it appears, to my mortification, that you are correct. The deletions were in fact slightly ahead of the 7 day deadline, albeit by around 40 minutes or so. I have no real excuse for this, other than I'd had a long and quite stressful day. Not really good enough though, and I'll try to take more care in future, so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I think the likelihood of a last minute "rescue" for these articles was quite slim and I do try to check links before deletion and try to deal with those "of consequence" such as Wiki Projects or other articles etc. My apologies if I failed in this instance. I was originally an opposer of the PROD procedure but, given the appalling standard of some material that creeps into mainspace, I now support it. Thanks again for the notification.

Best wishes, -Cactus.man ✍ 14:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Random act of kindness from someone who's been through stuff.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LilianaUwU

Yes, women on Wikipedia are certainly getting their share of abuse this weekend. It doesn't last forever. But the trolls don't seem to go away completely, they just focus on other targets. What a sad, sad way to spend your time. Thanks for the cat! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the rollback, the watchlist on mobile sometimes "jumps" when I don´t expect it and then I misclick. Obviously I had no reason to rollback you. Fram (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Fram, your apology is lovely and appreciated but I don't really track my notifications so I was unaware of this. AGF and all of that. All editors make mistakes and I expect, going on straight percentages, the more active one is, the most mistakes one will make. All the best! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that the lesson learned is that New Page reviewers should be reminded to check the history of a page before draftifying it. Some reviewers always do this, some usually do this (including myself), and some don't seem to care about details like page history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon,

I agree with you but I think this was an unusual case. First the other editor unexpectedly moved a long-standing article to a new title. At that point, Wikipedia's bots should have changed all of the redirects to point to the new target but I think the other editor immediately created a new article at this title so the bots didn't take action. But they didn't act that fast. So, when you moved the article again, the redirects were broken. But I'm sure the page that you moved to Draft space didn't look like a 12 year old article. I think it's safe for patrollers to assume that brand new pages do not have redirects yet. But ones that have been around for a decade, especially on a popular topic like mobile phone models, is likely to have accumulated a lot of redirects over the years. So, it was a sequence of unlikely events that probably won't happen again on a regular basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved it to draft because whilst it charted there was no other supporting references, apart from Discogs (an unreliable source) - felt that it still needed work. I'm not certain what happened with the re-creation of the article in mainspace - clearly that wasn't my intention. Apologies if it cause extra work trying to merge the two histories. I still feel that it needs extra supporting references but the fact it charted in both the Netherlands and Belgium just gets it across the line. Dan arndt (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dan,

That's all I needed to hear. I was surprised to see this mixup happen because you work so hard and I never have to question your judgment. I'm sorry if I came across as harsh and didn't take into account the 99.99% of the time when everything goes according to policy. Thanks for your message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That's okay but I really have no idea how I re-created the original article. To make up for it I'm going to see if I can find some additional references to satisfy WP:NSONG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how that happened but I have seen something similar. It happens when an editor moves a page and either a) the Talk page isn't moved even though the box indicating this is checked off or b) the Talk page is copied to the new page title but also remains at the old page title. So, there are two identical Talk pages and the original Talk page has to be deleted. Maybe there is a bug with the page mover tools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz!

I see you've deleted Category:Apple Inc. articles needing attention only to referencing and citation. It's one of the cleanup categories we use at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Apple_Inc., and shouldn't be deleted even if empty; it's also used in the WikiProject template. I don't believe we had a disclaimer at the top of the page saying not to delete even if empty, so I'll go ahead and add it to our other categories. Could you undelete this one? Best, DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

To be more precise: it's an autopopulated category. DFlhb (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DFlhb,

 Done Some pages are difficult to restore and others, like empty categories, are easy. I believe there was a second Apple category like this one but it's getting late (or early) here. I'll look for it in the morning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Good memory! Checking the deletion log, I believe that was Category:Apple Inc. C and B Class articles with incomplete B-Class checklists but the autopopulate seems broken for that one, and I'm too much of a newbie to have the faintest idea how to fix it; it can stay deleted. Thanks, and good night! DFlhb (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggested G6 on the former since it is a duplicate of the latter and appeared to have been created in error. Your call. I'm content either way. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fiddle Faddle,

I appreciate your fuller explanation. CSD tags discourage any words beyond the criteria codes. Editors often keep a copy of a draft in a sandbox and so I'm going to move that page back to User space. Personally, I don't understand the frequent moving User pages into Draft space, especially because, unless the page is submitted to AFC, a User page is protected from CSD G13 deletion. I encourage editors to also tag their own User page drafts that have not been submitted for review with {{user sandbox}} so that they don't get deleted accidentally as stale drafts. But thanks for letting me know about the duplicated pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think they feel Draft: is some sort of promotion. I incubate the articles I write in my user space until I'm ready. I wish they would do the same. But people are people.

When I see a submitted userspace piece I often move it to Draft because that is grist to the mill. Usually but not always I review it upon arrival. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Good day Liz, I hope you good in health?. It looks like you a citizen of the United States. I would like to ask about the article New York Weekly. Is the New York weekly still a newspaper? Because the article said it was a story newspaper and never said what it was now. I hope you understand my point. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gabriel601,

First, I live several thousands of miles from the state of New York. But more importantly, the article states, twice, that the newspaper was published under a variety of titles until 1915 so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, NumFOCUS, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). Right now there is no in-depth coverage of this group from reliable, independent sourcs. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz, I Am Ayman from Iraq, I Would like to discuss the deletion of the Battle of Kut, the Battle of Kut was indeed somewhat misworded and maybe even under-sources, but it did happen, and you can even check the Arabic article to confirm so, which gives you 10 sources! During the Mahdist Revolution against American Occupation by Sayyid Al Qa'id Muqtada Al Sadr Many cities went into complete revolution, some harder then others, Al-Kut's Coalition headquarters was besieged and bombarded with Mortars by the Mahdi army, Ukrainian-American Joint Occupation of the City was ended soon after as Coalition forces ran out of ammo and had to retreat from the city, American forces would then launch harsh bombardment campaigns on the city which inflicted more casualties on Civilians then it did on Insurgents, the Killing of several schoolgirls in a bus the Coalition forces thought was an insurgent bus also occured, the mentioning of these events is important as to not underplay the suffering of the People of Kut under Coalition forces, and I Hope you understand that.

Sources: (Copied from the Arabic Article) You can try to translate them, if the links dont work for you let me know

Thank you and I Hope this reaches you Ayman the man (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation：In fact I'm really new to editing,just like English Wikipedia Teahouse One of the landlords posted in his page column a sentence “I don't usually edit Wikipedia、I love reading and learning new things”me either After this period of observation the price of freedom to give up his freedom of exercise To achieve the freedom of the comprehensive，““All are born equal、no class””*Citing international human rights conventionsActually, I'm busy sorting out (WMF)/Strategy 2030Compilation of investigation reports，I often drop by while reading articles bottom edit timestamp see your name often Seems to be in meta - Wikimedia.org It is more common to see you participate in discussions,or maintenance bulletin A cup of coffee for your hard work☕ It doesn't matter if that article can be deleted All titles and content are out of date I live in East Asia The time is now 10:30 in the morning I've been busy all night, it's time to rest, bye39.13.98.3 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)