Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Hi, Liz, esteemed colleague! I'm afraid I've declined your WP:A7 at that page, as there is some vestigial claim of significance there and I don't think it quite qualifies as G11. I agree it shouldn't be part of the encyclopaedia, leaving it to you to choose how best to bring that about. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Justlettersandnumbers,

Well, I thought it might be borderline. I'll admit to being skeptical of bios where an individual's notability primarily rests on being a student leader. I'll consider whether to send it to AFD. Thanks for letting me know your opinion on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

Hi Liz, and thanks for all the good work you do at AFD. I mean that sincerely, I appreciate the care you exhibit and your willingness to close more difficult odiscussions.

I was surprised to see you close the discussion after your involvement here and here. I recognise that the numbers are clearly on the same side as your comments on my talk page, but I think myself and one other provided a robust and careful policy-based argument against deletion.

I hope you will support this request to re-open and let someone else uninvolved close it, please? CT55555(talk) 23:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CT55555,

I don't think my comment in the AFD itself showed INVOLVE but I completely forgot about that talk page comment! I should not have closed this AFD. I'll revert myself. I appreciate you calling this to my attention rather than heading towards Deletion review. My bad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I took very seriously an earlier comment you made about how taking an admin to deletion review feels like ANI, so I'm keen to not make anyone's life more stressful than it should be.

You're comment on my talk page kinda hurt my feelings back then, so sadly it remains in my memory. Thanks for the agreeable reply and wishing you all the best. CT55555(talk) 00:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CT55555,

I certainly didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I think at the time, I thought that you are a gifted editor and this article subject didn't deserve your talent and attention. But I apologize if saying this sounded like a slight, I think highly of you and would never intentionally want to hurt your feelings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. And for everything in this thread. CT55555(talk) 13:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this article Jazz (Transformers) AFD has been relisted for 8 days now, so I think it's time to close it now. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Davidgoodheart,

I am just reading over this discussion now. I'm uncertain about it right now. I don't know whether I'll close it or let another admin close it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left you three pings but to no avail as yet. Could you please head over to that talk page and respond? Schwede66 23:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Schwede66,

I don't check "pings" so I was unaware of this. I'll check out the AFD now. Thanks for leaving a talk page notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done As I'm sure you know, I reverted my closure and relisted this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether you have been keeping an eye on this AfD but it's been closed as keep. And here is a confession: I hadn't even given the article an in-depth read, or looked at the refs in any detail, before I contacted you. I just know that when Paora puts effort into an article that's at AfD, it's going to be a keep 98% of the time. You couldn't have known that, of course. Schwede66 03:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

I see that you have deleted my draft of this article, in accordance with established Wikipedia guidelines, and I have no issue with you doing this. However I would like to please ask for your help. Unfortunately I kept coming up against what i though was extremely tight interpretation of Wikipedia policies and no matter what I did, it was never allowed to appear on Wikipedia. The main references were from BBC-provided programme schedules which is allied to, both slightly independent of, the BBC website, taken from a listings magazine which, at the time, was owned by the BBC. Other references were from recordings of the programme. These sources were seen as unacceptable and the article was draftified. Therefore, if you can give me any help with getting this article onto Wikipedia, it would be much appreciated. The article is about a shortish-lived 1990s radio programme on a station which was broadcast across all of the UK.

To my huge frustration I forgot to add the article to my Sandbox so I have requested that it be returned to draftspace so that I can copy and paste it into my sandbox.

Thank you in advance for any help you are able to provide. Rillington (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rillington,

While I was getting around to responding to you, I see that another admin has restored Draft:Morning Edition (BBC radio programme) which is what we do with G13 draft articles which are just deleted for being abandoned. So, you can continue to work on it.

Unfortunately, I'm not expert on content creation so I'm not going to be much help in getting this article in shape. It looks like you have more experience than I do in this part of the project. If there is a relevant WikiProject, you can go to the talk page and see if an editor would be willing to collaborate with you. And if you need a fresh set of eyes, you could put an appeal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help. I wish we had some central portal for editors to see help but you might look at similar articles and see if there are any editors who focus on this subject that you might appeal to. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi again and thank you for a most helpful reply. The main issue I have with these, and similar articles is that they are about programmes on a radio station which existed for less than four years in the pre-internet era. Whilst there is no issue with notability as they were broadcast on a national radio station, the issue is finding the references. I have followed your advice and mentioned this on the UK Radio WikiProject talk page and hopefully I will get some help from there.

I saw you deleted (moved to drafts) my article YΔ- and ΔY-transformations. The reason you give is "Userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user". But I am very much an existent user. I am new so there might be something I don't understand. I would appreciate if we could revert this step. MWinter4 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@MWinter4 (talk page watcher) I have left message on your draft for the way forward. This could not remain as an article. Draft space allows you to add the references necessary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not fully understand your reply. What do you mean "This could not remain as an article" and then what is it right now if not an article? I also saw your comment. This draft is nowhere near ready and I am fully aware of it. It would have gotten references in due time. Is there any reason to not revert the move? Note that it was a user draft before that. MWinter4 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@MWinter4 Apologies. I misread the logs. It was in user space previously. Now it is a draft. There is no real benefit either space has above the other. As a draft you have the same opportunities to work on it as you did in your user space. If you feel it to be important I am sure it can be returned to your user space.

I do see the problem. You had used a ":" not a "/" in the file name, thus it was misfiled as if it were a user with a long and complex name. What would you wish to happen? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and sorry for that mistake! I would prefer to have it as a subpage of User:MWinter4. MWinter4 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@MWinter4  Done with pleasure. More on your own talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MWinter4,

Thank you for replying, Timtrent. As stated, it was problem with the formatting in the page title. I moved it to Draft space so nothing was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Took me a couple of moments to figure it out. 👀😇 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello... I don't know if you got any of my replies yet!?!? I would tag you but that offends people... Sorry to disturb you by the way... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CPLANAS1985,

I don't notice "pings" so the best way to get my attention is to post on my talk page like you just did. I'll check out your replies today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect... Much easier said than done... I asked them what to do if a merge the material into the network's own article only to see it removed on a revert!?!? I've had too many edits reverted unjustly despite providing facts and sources... But out of everyone involved with the discussion, you seem to be the only person paying attention... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 23:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Also they get mad when I tag them... Again, not trying to be mean or rude but I don't know if they're receiving the replies or not... But they're not listening... They're not listening to anything... I just thought you should know that... You have to admit, I make a very valid point... Why try to help and volunteer and add new articles if someone's going to be quick to judgment and try to have it taken down almost as quickly as it went up!?!? Something is definitely wrong there... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 00:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm just a volunteer editor like you are. I've tried to give you the best advice that occurred to me on your User talk page. I can't control the behavior of other editors and just have a few tools at my disposal to address editor misconduct and it doesn't sound like that is happening here. I'll pay another visit to the AFD and make sure that is true. It might be time to allow the AFD to proceed and not respond any longer if you made your best argument there. If you find yourself repeating yourself, it's time to stop talking. Please reread what I wrote to you, that's all I can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Very well then... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 01:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The author of this article is running riot over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigrannies, indulging predominantly in personal attacks rather than making any kind of constructive contribution. I don't think engaging with them there will serve any useful purpose - however, they have picked up on your comment that the nomination was "silly" and I'd be quite interested to know why you thought it so. I obviously didn't think it was when I made it, but as I have long respected your opinion at AfD I'd be happy to put right and/or given the opportunity to discuss. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dorsetonian,

I'm sorry that my comment has led to any disruption of this AFD discussion. I thought the nomination was silly because I think this is a unique group of Wikipedia editors that is notable regardless of whether or not there are reliable sources verifying this. I thought it was an interesting article which, as you know, is not a valid rationale for Keeping it. It's a page that might be moved to Project space. But because I support the presence of articles like this, putting names and identities to groups of hard-working editors, I will not be closing this discussion myself as I have a bias. But I'll put in an appearance at this AFD and see if I can tamp down any inproper language or comments that are going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response, both here and at the AfD. Yes, I too think the group is important to Wikipedia and Wikipedians but, of course, that is precisely the point I was trying to make in the introduction in the nomination - we should evaluate the notability in the same way we'd dispassionately evaluate it for any other subject - and in general there are lots of notable products and publications but few articles about individual manufacturing sites or editorial offices. One concern of my own with making the nomination is that those other products and publications can still put what they like on their own websites if they want to - but where else is Wikipedia to go? Of course, Project space as you mentioned is the answer to that question and may indeed be the best outcome here - however, I'll let the AfD play out.

Just to address the "silliness" of the nomination, if I may: it was made after the article came up on Recent Changes patrol and purely because I thought the group did not meet the usual notability threshold. There is obviously some indication of notability meaning it is not clear-cut and the AfD will decide that. Just for the avoidance of doubt, what I did not do is bring an article to AfD that I believe obviously should not have come to AfD - that would indeed have been silly and a waste of everyone's time; nor did I bring it to AfD to make any kind of point. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dorsetonian,

Well, my choice of "silly" might have been a mistake but that's because I thought it was obviously notable. I usually do a pretty good job of staying neutral in my comments in AFDs but I might have slipped here. I surely didn't mean for it reflect on your competence as a nominator though. It was just a gut reaction at the time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You deleted both draft and test page. Please help me and don't do it, is important to be on this page. Danavirgiliu (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Danavirgiliu,

I see that the good folks at WP:REFUND already answered your request for help and restored Draft:Andrei Baciu for you. Are you also User:Ionicadrgs? Just wondering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You have put much information how to edit Wikipedia and the five pillars ... I am more of visual learner so ,would you please suggest me any videos that are live online if you know, for me to better understand Wikipedia's guidelines!? Worldviewfrom (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Worldviewfrom,

Oh, my, I don't know of any videos about editing Wikipedia although I'm sure that our parent organization WMF has probably created them. But that is an excellent question to ask at the Teahouse which is our forum for new editors to come to with their questions. I'm sure someone there can help you. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there Liz, if you have a minute, could you take a look at Gabe Amo along with the conversation on the talk page? The article was recently redirected as a result of a AfD and then almost immediately recreated on account of the circumstances surrounding the subject changing. Not sure what the correct/best/appropriate approach is in this situation. Thanks! - Skipple ☎ 04:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have new material and documentation that I recently found that I was planning to add this week. I believe that this additional information would make this proposed entry meet Wikipedia standards. — Carl n8vz (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, n8vz,

Can you give me a link to the deleted page? Then I can see why it was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Liz. The URL for the page I would like undeleted is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_W._McCarty

Thanks for your help!

Carl n8vz (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.).

We wanted to invite you to join the study because you are heavily active in the User Talk namespace and also participate in discussions as an admin; as such, your experience is highly relevant to our research and we would greatly value your participation.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP. Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I believe you probably delete more R2's than anyone, so I wonder if you have any thoughts on whether new-page reviewers should have suppressredirect in order to avoid leaving cross-namespace redirects when draftifying (either bundled in new-page reviewer or through requesting page-mover specifically for draftifying). See Primefac's proposal WP:VPR#Give NPR additional rights? SilverLocust 💬 17:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SilverLocust,

Actually, I think Fastily deletes a lot of CSD R2s as well. It might be helpful for editors to have this ability with cross-namespace redirects but actually I think many page movers don't leave redirects when they should which leaves admins with a lot of broken redirects to clean up. So, I don't know if this proposal is a great idea. But I'll look it over, thanks for telling me about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This was/is at afd. I was protecting to stop the creator form move warring. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Deepfriedokra,

I have restored this page. When I saw it, it was a broken redirect, which I see all day long, and I didn't think to look at its history. Editors are draftifying articles throughout the day. I saw I made a mistake and have restored it. I guess we were working on the page at the same time. Sorry to get my wires crossed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No prob. The editor that was warned by us both to stop moving pages moved it cause it's at AfD. Totally for blocking now per WP:CIR -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Greetings Liz, I was wondering why the two categories I recently created were nominated for SD and I somehow did not find the reason why, I was hoping to get a reason so that I can learn from my mistakes as I thought the categories were to be like Category:AKA (rapper), what is preventing those from being like that instead be nominated for SD? shelovesneo (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, shelovesneo,

I just tag categories that become empty. But I have a script that states which editor has added or removed pages from a category. It looks like User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars emptied both categories. I advise you to ask them why they decided to do this. Any way, an empty category sits for 7 days before it is deleted just in case it was inadvertently emptied so there is time to straighten out any misunderstandings. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

hi Liz, I am new to wikipedia.I would want to address any concerns that were raised that is making it marked as to be deleted.The page provides valuable information to readers and has got many references . Jjmgwiki (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, for Salaga Senior High School(SASS) you said [1] that WP:R3 doesn't apply to page move URLs but I had thought that redirect would probably be eligible under the "unless the moved page was also recently created" criteria since the article was only at that title from 00:44, 6 June 2023‎ to 04:35, 6 June 2023‎. Sounds that sound right, or is it because the redirect itself is reaching the end of that period, probably? Thanks! (Either way no worries just curious for any potential future nominations.) Skynxnex (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Skynxnex,

Well, that's my understanding of CSD R3 which I've gained, in part, from deleting redirects like this and having editors/admins come to my talk page and say that they weren't eligible for this criteria! I didn't think it was controversial to delete redirects that clearly seem like errors and mistakes but I've faced editors who frequent RFD discussions tell me that I made a mistake. So, I've become more cautious.

Redirects seem, at face value, to be very uncomplicated but those editors who discuss them are really the experts which is why I pointed you to nominate this one at RFD. It will either be a slam-dunk easy deletion or those editors will say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Keeping it. Sorry to ask you to jump through one more hoop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable :). Thanks for the added insight. Skynxnex (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Surat antcomp copied and pasted it from user:Ir. Indah Megahwati, MP I think they are the same person. I think the latter wanted to rename and did not know how. It's all very confusing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Were you moshing to Angry Samoans back in the day...?  ;)

Thanks for everything you do. Caro7200 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Caro7200,

Well, I'm originally from California and I'm old enough to have been working in college radio in the 1980s so while I wasn't a big fan of the group, I'm familiar with them. Seems like another lifetime ago though. I hadn't thought about them in decades until stumbling into that AFD and reading over the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, thank you so much for taking the time to reach out regarding my first article - Massimo Vidoni AKA The Truffleman. I'd really appreciate your insight into the re-written article Draft:Massimo Vidoni (AKA The Truffleman)

Best,

Nanwikieditor01 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Nanwikieditor01,

I don't think that I've ever been thanked by an article creator for tagging their article for deletion. This version is much less promotional but still a little much. Overly long articles tend to get more scrutiny because it looks like the author is trying to cram in every detail about them which is not encyclopedic writing which is more of a summary and highlights than a comprehensive overview. Remember, AFC reviewers want to see what other, reliable sources have said about a subject, not what the subject has said about themselves. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz

Haha, I'm still learning and the wiki on article creation is a lot to internalise so learning by doing is far more effective for me and I appreciate any and all advice and input I can get from folks who've bee doing this for a lot longer. I appreciate your feedback, I'll make sure to cite from more neutral third party sources and condense my writing. Hope you're having a great day!

Cheers

Nanwikieditor01 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have read that when there is an issue I should seek a recently active admin. Ive been offline for several days, but before, I removed a link to a pedophilia advocacy groups website, which got someone to start cussing me out. Can you check [2] and help me understand if this is acceptable? Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Underwoods Witch,

First, I do not condone the response you received from that editor which was very incivil. But more importantly, you were indefinitely blocked and just were unblocked through a discussion of admins to give you another chance. I don't think you realize how close you are getting to being blocked again and a second indefinite block will not be easily lifted.

You should stay very far away from contentious areas of the project or making accusations about other editors, this is where you get into trouble. If you don't change direction and start doing some constructive, non-controversial editing, I don't see you lasting much longer as an editor here. The editor you were talking with has years more experience than you have and if they took your exchange to ANI, I don't think you would fare very well there. Stay away from editing in areas that you are emotionally invested in, pick some neglected, boring work to do rather than going to go look for a confrontation. These remarks have nothing to do with whether or not your edit was appropriate, I'm just giving you my best advice at how to best work on a collaborative editing project with lots of editors you might have disagreements with. Admins don't like to see irresolvable conflict so don't give them a reason to reblock you. This has nothing to do with gender or the subject matter but with how you choose to interact with others which is an area where many editors get into trouble. Go write about movies, books, TV shows, historical figures, railroads, suffragettes, but stay away from pedophilia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I am not very vested in the subject, i had just had read a link here where 12 people were banned for adding similar content to that article, and two related articles about a month ago, so I figured I would inform them that this project is against linking to propedophilia organizations. I may have misread it, and will stick to articles about food so editors don't cuss me out again. Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you think I was wrong to tell them to discuss it on the talk page? Do you think that link should remain? I'm not sure how far out of bounds i may be, so I appreciate your uninvolved input. Thank you for this. Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 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 and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I indicated in my edit summary for the deletion of User:Fred Luciano that the user already had the same content in a sandbox of which he also has another. Now, that very-confused new user has a third copy at Draft:The Shrine of the Five Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ thanks to you, at least one of which you were supposed to delete. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Chris troutman,

How about I just ignore pages that you tag since you are so dissatisfied? I'll let another admin handle them since I'd rather not hear your complaints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Adminship is a toolset you utilize for everyone,. I left an edit summary to explicate my reasoning, to try to help you out. The best thing for you to do is simply apologize for an honest mistake and move on. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Liz, I hope you're doing well. Thanks for updating User:C1K98V/TestMove. Can you help me out with G6. I'm reaching out to you with lot of hope. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 09:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, C1K98V,

I'm not sure what you are seeking to do here. Sheezan Mohammed Khan was already moved to the Sheezan Khan page title a few days ago. If you want to do a page move, it's best to start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi i would like to request an undeletion of Article page @Qing madi into draft for further edits. Recent information has been discovered on account of this page as regards chart entries and Nominations.

Thank You

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qing Madi George Nyiam (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, George Nyiam,

Can you give me some indication what new information you have that that would help this article? Because there was a clear consensus to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Liz She few weeks earlier she maintained number 1 ( her single "Ole" Ft. bxnx) on apple music Uganda chart, and number 3 in Nigeria amongst other music charts including turntable charts etc.

https://kworb.net/itunes/artist/qingmadi.html , https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/qing-madi-ft-bnxn-ole/ https://www.turntablecharts.com/Charts/Top50 https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/top-100-uganda/pl.b9e553253ed24c2a829c9c08209e5f67 https://kworb.net/charts/apple_s/ug.html

If you need more please don't hesitate.

Warm regards!

I George Nyiam (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Liz, I removed the speedy tag suggesting this one go to AfD due to possible notability. Then I saw you had tagged it; I would have contacted you first before doing this. There are multiple gushy refs but my reasoning was that they are refs nonetheless even if marginal.

Honestly, sometimes I do this sort of thing based on my interpretation of Wikipedia’s guidelines, then look again at what I untagged and wonder why. I see I just untagged an article that fails my own non-binding, invalid, unpopular, personal guideline for many popular culture articles. (In a nutshell: “Why do we want these?)

You do what’s best. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, A. B.,

I have no problem with you untagging the article if you thought the criteria I selected was not appropriate. Editors are going to disagree. Use your best judgment. But I did think the article was unsuitable for the project and so I tagged it for being self-promotional and it was deleted. If there had been more than one sentence of content, I would have chosen AFD but speedy deletion seemed like the right form of deletion.

Now that I have time to think about it, I probably should have moved it to Draft space instead. And if this article gets recreated, that's what I'll choose to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I’m a secret popular culture deletionist at heart (except when it’s my popular culture.)

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you deleted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of Bath City F.C. seasons/archive1 per G6 but left Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of Bath City F.C. managers/archive1 alone. They were virtually identical: why one and not the other? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Redrose64,

I patrol CSD categories and this page was tagged for deletion by User:Buidhe. The other page was not. I do not know why one page was tagged for CSD and not the other. Maybe they will see this ping and respond to explain their tagging decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The FAC coordinators may optionally mark an FAC for deletion if it's ineligible. I did not notice the second one but I have tagged it now. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there's been some confusion with the naming. Right now we're trying to separate the actual video game character lists from articles in a list-format per a discussion here. That's why it was moved to the Characters title, because there's some dev/reception going on there instead of a straightfoward list like the Smash Bros. or Animal Crossing ones. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kung Fu Man,

Is there anything you need me to do? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah well see the thing is you ended up moving it from there to List of The King of Fighters characters, and I don't think I can move it back. It was also just the main article and not the talk page from the looks of it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kung Fu Man,

Thanks for telling me about the Talk page, that should have been moved when the article was moved. It was User:Tollens that requested this article move through CSD G6 Move. I have no opinion about it, maybe there should be a talk page discussion or a request at WP:RM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi - I requested the move after a discussion at User:Arjayay's talk page (though this should likely have been at the article's talk, my apologies - didn't see that the page was moved recently, let alone from the title it was moved to) - my concern was that the title after a recent move to "Characters of The King of Fighters series" contains no article (since "The" is part of the name of the series). Arjayay had moved the page from "Characters of the The King of Fighters series", which, while grammatically correct, looks and sounds silly. I suggested a pagemove to a less ambiguous title and proposed the current title, but I agree it isn't quite a list. If there is a title which is unambiguously grammatically correct, looks reasonable, and conforms to Wikipedia's naming standards, I would fully support a move there, but I'd rather avoid simply reverting the move to either of the two previous titles as (in my personal opinion) it's more important that the title make sense than it exactly conform to the naming standards. Tollens (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A talk page or RM discussion might also be helpful to get more brains thinking of a reasonable title - I've been thinking about it for quite a while and can't seem to figure one out. Tollens (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

If I might offer a suggestion, why not just Characters of the King of Fighters series, with the lowercase "the"? The series is often shortened in secondary reliable sources so it should satisfy all the issues. What do you think Arjayay and Tollens?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a consensus at Talk:The King of Fighters#Page name to use "The" in the series name, though it was quite small and 16 years ago - I think your suggested title is better than what we have now (and I'd be happy with a move there if we can't come up with something else) but I'd prefer if we managed to match the other articles about the series. Tollens (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised that you chose to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional) while commenting that the content appeared to be valid enough to continue work. I don't understand why the proper venue would be to push it into draft space; I understand the purpose of that is to be part of the AfC process to reduce creation of spam and other inappropriate content by anonymous users. I'm not sure what the benefit of requiring it to go through the clogged AfC process would be. My understanding of Wikipedia is mainspace is supposed to provide constant opportunity for revision and improvement. Regardless, I would very much like to resume providing editing the page to provide sourced material on the topic. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Darker Dreams,

I closed this AFD based on the consensus I saw in the participant's comments. I see a couple options available to you. I offered to Userfy this article, that's a possibility. Or, you could go to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want to appeal my AFD closure. Or you could start a new article from scratch that addresses the problems brought up in the AFD. Let me know how you would like to proceed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine, please let me know where to find the draft. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Just following up on this request. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Trying again to follow up on this request. I see you have taken action on other similar requests made since this conversation. Is there something additional that you need from me? Darker Dreams (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. A category was recently created to accomodate 100 Years (film). I think this category (and similar others) is of little encyclopedic use, given the utter uncertainty such a release going through (the copy could be damaged or destroyed, someone could steal the safe, the company could change their mind fifty years from now, etc.). While it could be argued that any category for an unreleased work is a crystal ball, something this far out is just too imprecise to serve as anything other than a curiosity. 2803:4600:1116:F44:88B1:E34E:B521:CBD6 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 2803:4600:1116:F44:88B1:E34E:B521:CBD6,

I can't delete a category because you don't like it. You need to make a nomination at WP:CFD put forth your argument and see if the other editors who work with categories agree with you. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:REFUND the deleted Sudden Death Seven-ball to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Sudden Death Seven-ball; a summarized version of it would make reasonable list content, if we do a list of cue-sports media (there are several prior deleted article that would also make good entries).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SMcCandlish,

 Done Sorry for the delay, I missed seeing your message and life off-line has been crazy this week. Good luck with the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and no hurry. It'll take a while to dig up additional material for such a list, if WikiProject Cue Sports is even interested in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education. 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. Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We need to get that template changed. All of those that you restored the template clearly said "on or after" today's date. Looking at the code, I see that the intent is 7x24 hours, but it is only displaying the date. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab at updating the template. This should help. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, UtherSRG,

All I know is that I've been tagging and later deleting empty categories since I became an admin 8 years ago and this is how we have always handle things. We've always deleted time-based tagged deletions at the time specified, in this case, 7 days after they have been tagged (literally). It just keeps things orderly. Same with PRODs and G13 expired drafts, we either use the time and date tagged or the time and date of the last edit to the page.

I'll look into the specific wording of the tags, probably with Pppery. Sorry, but I guess I'm just a creature of habit about time-based tagged page deletions especially when there is no reason to delete these pages early. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I'll look at the changes made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with that; I was simply following the instructions on the tag. My change makes it explicitly align with current practice. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We're revisiting the WP:1.0 process, including how it interacts w/ categories + templates vs potential wikidata properties (and other automated assessments now being done continuously by bots and models); and hoping to update the assessments again soon. Give a shout if you're interested in that discussion. – SJ + 16:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Liz.
How are you? I am unsatisfied for deletion of Ruslan Sabirly page and don’t agree with the result.
Unfortunately, i could not participate in discussion, as I knew about it after page deletion. And also page was deleted with only 3 delete comment. Also it seems Azerbaijani Togrul R. has its own conflict with Ruslan Sabirly as wants delete his page everywhere. This is not first time he does it.

Anyway Togrul R. says: “The fact that he is the first verified user in the region doesn't make them notable”. But this is not shown as a reason, this is just like title, because he got verified in 2014, when this was not available in Azerbaijan. He got it from Germany producers, while worked there on movie project. From another point why Togrul mention only this, but not Ruslan Sabirly’s career and activity?

He also mentioned that "Foreign tourism expert" isn't a notable role. But Ruslan Sabirly has played 9 leading roles on famous movies and TV series, which are mentioned in page.

Another Delete comment is: article's sourcing consists of promotional blurbs in clearly unreliable Azerbaijani websites, and passing mentions in slightly better but still probably unreliable Azerbaijani websites. That is not true, there are a lot of articles and interview about him and his career on Ministry of Culture of Azerbaijan Republic’s, governmental news agency AzerTag’s, and Azerbaijani leading news websites as 1news.az, trend.az, milli.az, day.az, azernews.az. these are alla reliable news portals and sources.
 If you Google his name Ruslan Sabirly (in English) and as Ruslan Sabirli (in Azerbaijani), you can see all this articles and Google Knowledge page. By the way i went through link in deletion discussion panel and it searched “Ruslan Sabirly” which make sense for search result and it brings not correct results.

So, Ruslan Sabirly is not the promo page. Also he was anchor on TV morning show. Also he was directed movie The Call. Also he is founder and producer of big festival which is held with support of government and other organizations for 5 year. This festival brings writers and cinematographers in together, helped them realize theirselves and make them popular to whole country. This project was a first time event in such theme.

All mentioned above makes him encyclopedic person. And that is why i am kindly asking yo to undelete this page, please. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russolini1979 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Russolini1979,

Could you provide me with a link to the deleted page? Then I can see why it was deleted and if anything can be done about it. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. Thank you for your reply.

Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruslan_Sabirly

Best regards. Russolini1979 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Russolini1979,

This article was deleted in a unanimous decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruslan Sabirly. I can't just revert consensus and restore this article to the main space as if the AFD didn't happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Liz.

Unanimous decision of 3 comment, which are not correct and not telling truth. And that was without my arguments. That is not right. I disagree with it. All that means if 3 person agree to delete any person’s page, they can move it to deletion discussion and result will be “delete”. But where is truth, justice? So, we can not trust and believe on Wikipedia.

What does AFD mean?

Best regards. Russolini1979 (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What to do know? Russolini1979 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Russolini1979: You can attempt to take this to WP:DRV, but I expect the deletion would be upheld there. You can read up on what constitutes reliability in sourcing as well as independence in sourcing to better understand why your claims that it should be restored will not work. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, request undelete the above page under Draft - G13 so I could work on it. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 03:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 03:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Please restore deleted page Kristiāna Zacmane - Latvian women's national team player. I will provide more sources. Thank you Renārs Krīgers (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@RenarsKrigers: I have restored it to Draft:Kristiāna Zacmane where you will have some time and space to work on it. Please submit it for review when you are ready. @GiantSnowman: You asked to be pinged on this at the AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Today was moving day for me and I'm just logging in now. I appreciate TPS! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You bet! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello this article created by same person with another name and change title just 25days after deletion by discussion to bypass wikipedia rules : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra_Rafee_Nia

The article deleted via discussion : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitra_Rafee Moaijf92 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It has now been deleted as G4. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Moaijf92, it looks like it's been taken care of. Thanks for the notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Liz, I have edited Wikipedia because it's fun and interesting. I get the feeling I'm doing something useful for society.

That feeling has been fading away since the start of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. I put in a lot of work with nothing to show for it but a lot of abuse (and your note).

This blatant abuse was tolerated by administrators at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Page blocked for following WP:DENY, without warning, in contentious DRV
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

And now today at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

I try scrupulously to follow the rules and keep my cool even as I'm goaded to try to force a misstep on my part. It's hard work but I think I do it pretty well.

In these discussions, I got attacked. If the abuser lost momentum, other related abusers magically appeared. Finally, some admin maybe stepped in and maybe waved their arms at the abusers - but nothing really changed.

Meanwhile, I get told by regular editors or admins I should maybe have done something differently:

• not posted on the AfD talk page [and with a note on the AfD to go to the talk page] instead of on the AfD page
• not reverted a prematurely closed DRV by an involved editor because "socks" (never mind what policy actually says about reversions)
• not told an IP that I would not give my contact data and only accept messages through the Wikipedia system, thereby encouraging them to contact me because, well, somehow something or the other…

So the abusers get off and I go away chastened, unvalidated and a bit less enthusiastic about helping here.

I think some admin(s) need to seriously put their feet down.

Or am I just a slow learner in the wrong environment? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, A. B.,

This is obviously very important and serious but it's Friday night where I'm at and this whole week I've been cleaning, packing and moving. I want to give this whole discussion the consideration it deserves but I'll have a fresher mind and more ideas in the morning. That's when I'm most alert. I just wanted you to know that I saw this and will review it all and give it the proper attention tomorrow. This is not a brush-off, I just am tired and know my limitations right now. When dealing with interpersonal issues, it doesn't help things to be at a low point in ones energy and patience. One makes carelesss statements. I hope this delay is okay. I also might choose to offer some of my response in an email if I think that it would be comments that would best not to air publicly like on this talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Go to bed. I hate all three of those things with a passion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, when I said I hate all three of those things, I meant “cleaning, packing and moving.”

not something else.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The above two places Tambaram and Avadi were considered suburban areas of Chennai City and are part of it's Metropolitan Area.Recently they were upgraded to Municipal Corporation status by merging adjoining suburbs and local bodies.In India,a Municipal Corporation is considered a City,not a suburb of another City.Please look into the same. Raghavan(Talk) 05:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Raghavan,

Very interesting but what are you asking me to do? I'm not sure what you want. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are familiar with Jersey City which evolved as a suburb of New York City and eventually became an Edge City you can relate to this.Jersey is considered a separate administrative unit and not a suburb now.Similarly in India we have cities like Gurgaon and Ghaziabad adjoining Delhi,Howrah adjoining Kolkata and Navi Mumbai and Thane adjoining Mumbai but all are considered separate administrative units.So why not Tambaram and Avadi? Raghavan(Talk) 06:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz! I noticed you deleted The Frog Princess (film) under CSD G8. I’m just leaving this message to request its undeletion, as - prior to this edit by the sockpuppet - it seems that it was a valid redirect to The Princess and the Frog. (I’m hoping that’s the right diff I’ve linked there — I got it from the contribs page that I had open before the deletion took place.)

All the best (also I love your editnotice!), ^user:A smart kitten_meow 15:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, A smart kitten,

I just deleted a broken redirect which is a page that has a link to a deleted article, in this case, to The Frog Princess (1954 film). If there is a valid target article, you can recreate the redirect. If you are interested in The Frog Princess (1954 film), please contact the admin who deleted that page. Since it was deleted as the work of a sockpuppet though, it's unlikely that it will be restored. But you can ask. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

To clarify, I’m not interested in The Frog Princess (1954 film) - I’ve been working through the sock’s contribs and so I think it was probably me who tagged it as G5.

The reason I was asking for the redirect to be undeleted (and then retargeted back to The Princess and the Frog), rather than just recreating the redirect, was because it seemed like it might have history from a fair bit of time ago, which would be lost if I just recreated it. However, if that’s what would be best, I can do that.

Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 06:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you rejected this draft here. I removed some unsourced content today, and I'm not sure the article is ready for prime-time. Do you feel it should move back to draft? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Magnolia677,

I didn't "reject" Draft:Paul Grima, it was deleted as an expired draft, CSD G13 which occurs if a draft article has gone at least 6 months without editing. It looks like Paul Grima isn't the strongest article but you can decide whether or not to draftify it. Since you have heavily edited the article already, you might reach out to the article creator with a talk page notice including your concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've never sent an article to draft. Do you I have ability? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I need to talk to you a lot. The topic is about Wikipedia. You give your whatsapp phone number. Then I will talk through whatsapp. Srabanta Deb (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Srabanta Deb,

There is no way I would give anyone on Wikipedia my personal information. And I don't use Whatsapp. You can post a message here or send me an email message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I created an English Wikipedia entry named Santa Das Kathiababa a few days ago. But after a few days the entry was deleted from Wikipedia. I seek your help with this registration you work to create Santa Das Kathiababa article again. Santa Das Kathiababa was the chief disciple of Ramdas Kathiyababa of the Nimbarka Sampradaya of Hinduism. Former president of Prayag Kumbh Mela, 18th century Indian Hindu leader and religious leader, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court and social worker. But because there is no detailed information about him on Google or online, he has been deleted from English Wikipedia. I have made Wikipedia entries about him twice before. But deleted both times. Now it is a request to you from the devotees and followers of Santa Das Kathiababa that you work to renew this register and make the new generation interested in knowing about him. Thank you. Srabanta Deb (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Srabanta Deb,

This article and draft has been deleted multiple times. You can read the reasons why in the AFD. Several administrators have deleted this article and made it clear that, as written, the content is not suitable for this project. Wikipedia doesn't exist for advertising a person or religious group and your writing is heavily promotional. You can start a new draft but if you move a similar article back into main space, it will be deleted again. Personal appeals to me are not effective, this is about the consensus of editors in an AFD deletion discussion and Wikipedia policy on notability and sources. I think it would be best if you moved on to write articles about other subjects. You've been given lots of messages that this article is not wanted on Wikipedia and if you keep ignoring these messages, you could end up losing your editing privileges.

Consider starting your own blog instead where you can write whatever you want and you don't have to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Santa Das Kathiababa entry should be on Wikipedia. Because he is an Indian 18th century spiritual guru of Hinduism. 18th century spiritual leaders like Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi, Ramdas Kathiababa, Swami Vivekananda, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Santa Das Kathiababa was like them. If the registration of all of them can be placed in Wikipedia, then why Santa Das Kathiababa's registration can not be placed in Wikipedia? A group of people or registrants on Wikipedia are doing this to insult the leader and guru of our Nimbarka Sampradaya community. So being a devotee and follower of Nimbarka Sampradaya community we want you to create Santa Das Kathiababa registration yourself. Then this registration will not be deleted from Wikipedia by any administrator or registrant. Srabanta Deb (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUT is not a valid argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Srabanta Deb, deleting an article is not an "insult". If the reliable sources aren't there, they aren't there. It might be too soon. If you find some stronger references, maybe there could be an article in the future. I'm sure that the articles have been evaluated according to Wikipedia policies and guidlines and not based on editors' opinion of Santa Das Kathiababa. And I'm not sure what you mean by "registration", that's not a term that's used on Wikipedia. Like I suggested, work on a draft that overcomes the problems that caused the previous versions of the article to be deleted. If you want a second opinion, please bring your concerns to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

UtherSRG He added the delete tag to all my registrations a while back. I deleted all his tags. Please see all the registrations I have made. And save my registrations from deletion. Srabanta Deb (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "registrations". I've been on Wikipedia for 10 years and I've never seen that word used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Deauthorized. ^(talk) 02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Look, I understand that the individual D.I.C.E. Awards may not be defining but I have to point that there are category pages for the British Academy Game Awards winners at Category:BAFTA winners (video games). In my opinion, the D.I.C.E. Awards are more defining than the British Academy Game Awards. There are also categories for Category:Game Developers Choice Award winners, Category:Golden Joystick Award winners, and even Category:New York Game Award winners. There also category GOTY winner categories for the Game Developers Choice Awards and Golden Joystick Awards. At the very least I will be recreating the categories for D.I.C.E. Award winners and D.I.C.E. Award for Game of the Year winners. MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Liz! I tagged the copyvio rewrite proposed at Talk:Mary Raine (football)/Temp for deletion as G6 as it could not be used to replace the copyvio article Mary Raine (football) because it was not copyvio–free (but was not bad enough to be eligible for deletion as G12). It's a mystery to me why you thought that moving an unrepaired copyvio to draft space was a good idea, but I've gone ahead and deleted it myself this time around. Just a note to remind you that pages with titles such as Talk:Foo/Temp and Draft talk:Bar/Temp are special copyvio rewrite pages. If they're usable they can be moved to replace the existing copyvio page; if they aren't, they should be deleted. I don't know what criterion other than G6 could apply in most such cases, so that's the criterion I use (it's also the criterion I use to delete copyvios that have been listed for over seven days at WP:CP without resolution). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Thank you for your query, there is a simple explanation. I had an old draft page for Alex Matos, but I became aware that a page on main space for that football player exists, so my draft had become superfluous. So I deleted the info and used the template to create a page Jefry Valverde, another football player on my to-do list. I appreciate if that’s lazy, I hadn’t done it before and I will happily not do it again, turns out it doesn’t actually save that much time anyway (I’m just meant to be on holiday, and not doing things like that)

best wishes G Hildreth gazzard (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Kia ora Liz,

I noticed that you recently deleted the above redirect, which was created following a page move of the article now at Charles Sound, stating that the redirect was "obviously an error". It's not actually an error, but rather the official name of the fiord and has been the article title multiple times in the past. I'm wondering whether it would be possible for you to undo the deletion? Ngā mihi, Turnagra (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Turnagra: I've restored the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

about the deletion discussion in jeremy wood, where's the actual discussion? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cog-san: There is none. There are three deletion processes: speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and deletion discussion. The article in question is using the middle of the three. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

i completely misread that lmao

but if that's the case, i'm in favor of deleting it

even after another quick look, i didn't find any confirmation that he wasn't just a collective hallucination cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did delete Gopalji Radhabihari Ashram (Santdham) from Wikipedia? All information in this register was reliable and accurate. Why did you delete this edit anyway? Why are you suggesting and deleting all the edits I wrote? You are insulting me and deleting all the edits without showing respect to any of my edits. Again now Nimbarka Ashram, Sylhet and Kathiababa Ka Sthan,Vrindavan and started proposing to delete. You will also delete them. I regret to inform you that I will not be making new edits and entries on Wikipedia. Because you are deleting all my edits. stay well I hope to get the correct answer to my question. Feel free to let me know any feedback you have. Srabanta Deb (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Srabanta Deb: I believe this is directed to me, not to Liz. I blocked you because after multiple warnings about removing AFD tags from articles, you continued to do so. I have placed all of the articles you've created up for deletion review. The community will decide if they stay or if they will be deleted. These discussions are based on our policies, and you have been informed of this previously and we have pointed you to those policies. Your inability to understand these policies does not excuse you from them. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Srabanta Deb,

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopalji Radhabihari Ashram (Santdham) as a Soft Deletion. It can be restored upon request. I'm not following what articles you edit, I just look at open AFDs every day and close the ones that are due to be close. This is not personal. If articles you create are nominated for deletion, you should read the critique of them and try to address what problems other editors are finding in these articles so they meet Wikipedia standards. I have tried to give you advice and feedback over and over again but you don't seem to be reading what I am saying and you are reacting emotionally. Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines, not by personal appeals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Modern_Muse. Sorry, but consensus schmonsensus. I doubt those people even looked. There aren't *any* reliable sources in the article, and given the UPE block of the original creator, the lack of any link to the proposed target, this just doesn't make any sense. If this had been created yesterday, it would have been a no-brainer G11. At least a relist might give a chance for a few more people to take a look and come to the only reasonable conclusion on this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 35.139.154.158,

No content was Merged and the page was turned into a Redirect. I guess the AFD didn't close the way you wanted but the situation is moot right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)≤≤≤

Hi Liz, I removed your speedy deletion request for Category:Category-Class Celts articles, because it appears to be a project category for Wikipedia:WikiProject Celts ...no, I'd never heard of the project before either, despite editing Wales articles for 10 years :) Sionk (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read the article twice and didn't seem to find anything wrong with it, what was the reason for the deletion? And, if it was bad, why wasn't it rewritten instead of removed? FandomCereal (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@FandomCereal: The article you are referring to was deleted in accordance with the community decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sematary, and for the reasons so listed. Looking at the deleted article, I do not find a single reference that satisfies the golden rule. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet again, I have asked Scope creep to leave me alone. I don't know what else can be done but I've had enough. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Knowing you often have words of wisdom for less experienced editors, and seeing that you have already posted some on the editor's talk page (below the item I am linking to), do you have anything you might suggest to them to allow them to remain enthusiastic, but to temper their knee jerk reactions, please?

The full link to the conversation is User talk:OlifanofmrTennant#About a draft you accepted 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent,

I've left them a message. I think they have to decide whether they want to learn and improve with AFC reviewing or move on to another task. It's not easy to hear criticism, and as you know, even very experienced editors receive criticism, but I appreciate the time you spent on their talk page going through different issues you had with their editing and reviewing processes. Leaving personal messages can be time-consuming and you might be surprised by the fact that the vast majority of editors, even ones that have been here a long time, do not leave anything other than template notices on User talk pages. But I think a personal note and gentle nudge can often steer an editor in the right direction and I'm grateful you do so. I wish more editors would communicate one-on-one with editors and not let problems build until they spill into noticeboards. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope your message will get though. I haven't read it yet!. I was wondering whether my best was good enough this time. I began to doubt it. I see huge enthusiasm and potential capability.

Receiving criticism is a decision. We can receive it well and accept or rejects it with a good heart, something I try hard to do, or we can throw a hissy fit! or, we can be somewhere im the middle!

I chose to ask you because you are one of the remarkably small pool of people who care about the people of the project. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've read it now. Good message, full of balance and caring. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

Hello there. Is this an abuse of the process, as I am sure it is? This article should have been automatically deleted long ago, right? — Smuckola(talk) 17:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Smuckola,

No, it's not an abuse. I sometimes make dummy edits to an expiring draft so that it is not deleted. It would be simpler if the editor just moved the page to User space but as long as someone is editing a draft, it's not deleted as a CSD G13. It can be irritating when an editor just goes through dozens and dozens of drafts, delaying their deletion (for unknown reasons) but technically, that's no violation either. If it was all the editing an editor did (and an IP editor did that once), it could verge on disruptive editing but I've never seen it result in a block or sanction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Yeah everybody should use a sandbox! What a magical gift of common sense the sandbox is. Of course, Wikipedia should have any real editor training and reputations, and usability engineering, whatsoever. I'm a newb at draft space, because I immediately committed to not make junk or to be a pest since I first started! I'm embarrassed if I make more than two consecutive edits in a main space article! So I was just checking. OK, curiosity answered, and I don't mean to jabber at ya. But you're a very nice person. — Smuckola(talk) 06:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you deleted "613 Torah Ave" because you couldn't find sources other than online stores. This isn't true. Apparently you don't seem to know "Orthodox Judaism". These are albums that every single kid grew up on. There are numerous articles written on it. Why don't you do more research before deleting it. Or at least give someone a chance to defend the claim. Thanks. BangKettle (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BangKettle,

Please provide me with a link to the delete page you are concerned about. Then I can see if anything can be done about it. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

613 Torah Avenue

Thank you BangKettle (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Any update? BangKettle (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@BangKettle: This was an expired WP:PROD. The rationale on the PROD was Unsourced article. Only found listings on online stores and trivial mentions in some books, lacks significant coverage or reviews to pass WP:MUSIC As an expired PROD, you can request its restoration at WP:RFU. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I tagged that page with WP:A3 because of the misspelled "Ussr", which means that it was technically in mainspace. However, I admit that a better approach would have been to simply move it to userspace and tag the resulting redirect with R2. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dsuke1998AEOS,

I didn't even notice that misspelling. Still, A3 wouldn't apply. I did delete it though as a CSD G6 error page. You've got a good eye, thanks for spotting it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Liz, can you reopen the WP:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as there has been a late comment at WP:Requests for undeletion#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Jay 💬 05:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

Well, just so I'm clear, is this a request to restore the deleted article? Or a request to revert my closure and relist the discussion? Because if the discussion is relisted, it can just be closed by another closer. But it seems like that is what you are asking for.

By the way, it's late here so I'll be heading to bed in a little bit but if I don't get to this tonight, I'll address it in the morning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to revert the close and relist the discussion, as it was closed only today. Older soft deletes would be restored at RfU. Jay 💬 06:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

 Done Sorry for the delay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the RfU was archived to WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 389#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Jay 💬 07:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after the latest incident. Do you think you could go ahead and revdel the stuff from Kianni from the other day as well? It's more of the same. Box of wolves (feed) 02:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Box of wolves,

 Done Thanks for pointing out those edits, I didn't notice them. I've protected the article for a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Box of wolves (feed) 02:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. This is definitely not a big deal, but I moved Wildwood Cemetery to Wildwood Cemetery (Winchester, Massachusetts) to make way for a dab page (thanks for moving that one, btw). Only problem is along the way I accidentally moved it to Wildwood Cemetery (Wincester, Massachusetts), a misspelling. I thought G7 would apply since I'm the one who created the misspelled redirect a few minutes earlier. It's only housekeeping, so we can just leave it as an R from misspelling, but just wanted to let you know my thinking. Station1 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahsan Khalil is Pakistani notable writer as you can check his google knowledge panel as well ([[3]]). Kindly restore it, so can wirk on it and replace it resources to independent and reliable resources. Skt34 (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would you do that? The whole point of removing backlinks is that the pages are not notable. G5 and some other speedy deletion is not followed by any notability discussion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

(Lire ce message en français); (Ver este mensaje en español); (Angalia ujumbe huu kwa Kiswahili); (إقرأ هذه الرسالة بالعربي) Please help translate to other languages. .

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation has some updates to share with you, which are:

We invite you to attend our upcoming community office hours to learn about organizer tools, including the Event registration tool (which has new and upcoming features). The office hours are on the following dates, and you can join one or both of them:

• Saturday, October 7 at 12:00 UTC (Register here)
  • Languages available: Arabic, English, French, Swahili
• Tuesday, October 10 at 18:00 UTC (Register here).
  • Languages available: Arabic, English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Swahili

We have launched a new project: Event Discovery. This project aims to make it easier for editors to learn about campaign events. We need your help to understand how you would like to discover events on the wikis, so that we can create a useful solution. Please share your feedback on our project talk page.

Thank you, and we hope to see you at the upcoming office hours!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you subscribed to this list

Hi Liz,

who has once created this? Thanks in advance.--U. M. Owen (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, U. M. Owen,

An editor named User:OfficiallyGoodenough created this draft in 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. Did this AfD close correctly? It doesn't seem so. -The Gnome (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. There's a new editor, Akaspo, that has a history of suspiciously sockpuppet-esque activity. The articles Battle of Chumb (1965) and Rajasthan Front were recently deleted, but they have since been recreated by this WP:SPA. Also created have been Draft:Battle of Batapur and Draft:First Battle Of Hilli. Additional actiivties by this user have been to change articles relating to Pakistani wars by spreading pro-Pakistani propaganda (e.g. "changed it to pakistani victory"; "Pkiatsni [sic] Victory, the other person did not put any source"; "There is nothing that implies 18 Pakistani soldiers were killed"; "Pakistani military victory, Diplomatic stalemate", "changed the claims"). All of the drafts and articles they create are riddled with pro-Pakistan propaganda using poor, pro-Pakistan sources. I believe both of these articlespace articles should be re-deleted until they can be reinstated by a neutral editor, as they are so thoroughly riddled with propaganda that they're beyond salvaging.

Additionally, they have attempted to externally network with blocked, known-sockpuppet accounts such as Altay74 and Pr0pulsion 123, learning Pr0pulsion's Facebook account and going so far as to confirm that they added Altay74 on their Instagram account ("I added you"). (Incidentally, Pr0pulsion 123 has gone on to throw a tantrum over their ban, which is how I found this in the first place). It is abundantly clear, therefore, that this band of users will continue to sockpuppet, and thus I believe these articles should also be WP:SALTed for extended-confirmed protection under WP:CT/IPA.

Although their edits on existing articles have been reverted, I feel like these users are knowingly employing a Gish gallop-style exploitation of Wikipedia's ease of article creation, wherein it takes considerably more effort both to get an article deleted than it does to revert an edit and to even find the article in the first place.

This has all been done in the span of under two weeks and is very clearly an instance of Pakistani nationalism, WP:NOTHERE, and extraordinarily likely sockpuppetry being coordinated outside of Wikipedia. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my muck-up at Template talk:John Cain Jr sidebar. Sorry: thought I knew what I was doing and got carried away. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for your time. It looks like you are the editor that reviewed an article I recently just tried to publish. On the Redirect to deleted page "User:Aidan Park")  Tag: Twinkle (thank). May I please get more clarification on what this means exactly so I can make the changes necessary and know what to do moving forward?

Thank you, have a great evening! Nscheuerman95 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, and hope you're well. Based on the edit history, you moved the draft to the wrong place, so Liz just moved it to the right place. As for the draft itself, you can consider some feedback Anachronist left at Draft:Aidan Park (beginning This draft isn't written in a neutral tone...). After you address it, you can click the button that say Submit the draft for review!. After that, prepare to wait for a while; it may take a while for a reviewer to get to your draft. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

this was very helpful! thank you so much. :) cheers, have a great evening! Nscheuerman95 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of George Andrews Reserve. 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. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Govvy,

Thank you, I appreciate you informing me about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Randal Alexander McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim. 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. Pilaz (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Pilaz,

Thank you for the notification. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you delete this article? A founding member of the IOC, he was an important and notable sports administrator internationally. Norden1990 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Norden1990,

The deletion rationale is included at the top of every deleted page, in pink. This article was created by a very prolific sockpuppet. Feel free to write a new article that doesn't have this problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, it was an excellent article with proper sources and references. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It wasn't. The vast majority of the article was unsourced. I do hope you'll create a new one. I'll paste the couple sources used at your user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw that you deleted the 2023-24 North Dakota State Bison men's basketball team page on September 26th, due to the reason of "Relying on a non-existent page". I was curious of the exact page that it relied on, as typically sports team pages will reference a couple different pages that will be created later on in the season due to the lack of relevance on those pages at the present moment. No harm, no foul of course, I just was curious why this page got deleted versus the other pages created for the 2023-24 NCAA Division I men's basketball season that do the same thing and didn't get deleted. I am requesting either an exact page that caused the deletion and/or the undeletion of the article or at least moving it to draft space so I able to remedy the reason for deletion.

Thanks, natethegreat4226 natethegreat4226 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, natethegreat4226,

I'm not sure what happened here. I restored 2023–24 North Dakota State Bison men's basketball team and it showed the page as a broken redirect to Template:2023–24 Summit League men's basketball standings with a bright red/pink box from a bot saying the page was eligible for speedy deletion. Then I refreshed the page and everything looks okay now. I think when the template that was trancluded was tagged for speedy deletion several days ago, it indicated that this page should be deleted as well. Now that you recreated the template, everything is okay. Tricky things can happen with templates when they are tagged for speedy deletion. For example, if a userbox gets tagged for CSD deletion, every user page that it's on gets tagged for deletion at the same time.

Thanks for following up on this and asking for the article to be restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me out with this! I found out that the template was deleted because a banned user created it, so like you mentioned I recreated it after talking with the user that deleted it. Thank you again for your help with this! natethegreat4226 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Liz, you were pinged at User talk:Jayneelyn#Paid editing. Jay 💬 17:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jay,

I responded to you there. Basically, they used their User page not only as a site for COI disclosure but also to house a draft that reached its 6 month mark. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

You recently restored the following page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination), in addition to the Israeli casualty page, and the master second intifada page.

Revisions were commenced on all three pages, but an editor just swooped in and deleted the Palestinian Civilian casualties page while there still was a discussion going on as to the proper future to the page (this has now hobbled the master article, and other editors are now pushing again for the deletion of all three under the justification that one of the articles was already deleted).

Looking to have the page restored per the last undelete so revisions may continue. And if deletion is ultimately necessary, given that this is an ARBPIA topic, isn’t it in accordance with contentious topics guidelines that more discussion and consensus seeking is warranted before things as severe as deletion occurs? Mistamystery (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mistamystery,

You're concerned about List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, right? I didn't delete this article. The first step is to go to the administrator who closed this AFD discussion and make your case to them. It's best for you if you know what you are asking for, in this case, you might be asking for the discussion to be relisted for another week. If you think the admin made an incorrect assessment of editor consensus in the discussion, then you should appeal the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You need to present a good argument there. But as I see it, those are your options. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi friend. Hope you're having a good weekend. Normally I'd restore a G13 with just a ping, but wanted to ask if I was missing anything here since it didn't seem stale. It's not enough to go to mainspace, but I think there may be enough sourcing. Any red flags I should know about? Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 01:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Oy! This was my mistake. Here's how we handle CSD G13s. We work with a list generated a week previously by SDZeroBot. For example, today's list is here. As you can see, it was generated a week ago. Then on the day of expiration, we review drafts according to the time signature. Before any draft/User page is deleted, it must be checked to see if there have been edits in the intervening 7 days. I guess I didn't check this one closely enough. The last "human edit" was March 7th, I thought, so it was deleted 6 months later, on September 7th. But an editor had edited the page on August 30. I hope you will believe me when I tell you how rare I think this is. I check every single draft before it is deleted but I guess I was in a hurry or distracted. I've restored the draft. I hope this explains things. Thanks for checking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all, it happens especially the volume of articles you process and I never have a reason not to believe you. Fun to see the report, I never had before and kind of wondered how that worked. Good to see you have an aide. I can't keep track of my own drafts. Have a good evening/rest of the weekend. Star Mississippi 01:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, To respond to your comment of " bludgeoning" in this discussion. I am not trying to persuade others to my point of view but to participate in the discussion. What I find challenging during an AfD is when an editor casts a KEEP vote claiming that "lots of supporting sources exist" without providing them, and then other editors (often from the same WP) start showing up to also vote KEEP per that editor’s “findings”. I must admit that I get frustrated by this, as I have seen it happen before and it can be a pretty effective way (when combined with votestacking, stealth canvassing..etc) to rig the system. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz Happen to come across Special:Contributions/Hussain5121472 seems has spammed some number and info in multiple articles, most still not reverted. Idk if a case of doxing or just spamming.

Approached you since you seem to be last active admin on ANI. Bookku (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks! I've reverted everything and reported to WP:AIV —siroχo 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Calv. The nomination also included Route 4/Thorn and Roots, and that article is now also CSD A9 eligible. Would you be able to take care of that one as well? Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it! Dorsetonian (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to make an article about Raditya Adi Mars1117 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mars1117,

If so, then you are a sockpuppet and will soon be blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

the article for my band (wristmeetrazor) has been repeatedly edited to remove my legal name, as i am in the process of scrubbing in from the internet. someone has made it a point to replace my name and harass me about how i “shouldn’t be in a band” if i don’t want my name online. i’m trying to either gain admin access to the article, or have it completely removed, so that i can fully remove the sensitive info from the edit history. the article is also abandoned and not being kept up to date, and i would like to have full control over it myself to be able to run it properlyUserelaine (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Userelaine: Firstly, Wikipedia articles (not "pages") are not under any individual's control; they can be edited by any member of the community. There is no article-based admin privileges. As for removing the article, it can not just be removed because it contains sensitive info and is also abandoned and not being kept up to date. See our deletion policies to see if there are any legitimate reasons that fit your needs. While Liz may have some additional thoughts on the matter, you may be better off asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk to receive a broader answer to whether or not your concerns merit removing the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

someone using an article to harass me and dox me, on an article that is under the name of a band/LLC that the original writer did not own the rights to, is not grounds for deletion? am i going to have to file some sort of DMCA complaint about this for any action to be taken? i’m not understanding how sensitive info is not grounds for something to be done, at the very least for the person who keeps adding it to be prevented from continuing to do it. Userelaine (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no harassment or doxing. But like I said, please consult the Teahouse or the Help Desk. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

i will do that, but “putting of personal information including full legal name” is listed under wp:harassment as harassment. Userelaine (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That portion of the policy specifically limits it to an editor's personal informaiton. The next section is on what to do: If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to your being outed, ... it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted. Do not otherwise draw attention to the information. I now suggest Oversight as your next step; though the only outing of your connection to that name was called out by you. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I would like File:Catalan Girl wearing Estelada as Cape.jpeg to be deleted please! I was the person who uploaded the file, but now I would like it to be deleted please and thank you! 😅 — SnowieLuna1212 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SnowieLuna1212,

It looks like this file has been deleted. You can thank User:Whpq. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Good morning, please can you help me to access or check my drafts I made yesterday. It was two drafts here are they Draft:Caroline A. Wanga and Draft:Nicolas M. Chaillan Wappa PZ (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

I suppose you receive a lot of these, but I wanted to show my appreciation for all that you do regarding deletion. After being active in speedy deletion for some months now, I can see the incredible amount of effort you put into this side of the project. Please accept a heartfelt thank you for your tireless work; I don't know where we would be without you. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's taken long but I wish to revive now the article about Minus one (music) which I orphaned back in 2022, for the dearth of effective (non-blog) citations. I would like to give it another try. May I respectfully request for its undeletion, if still possible? Help, please.
Truly yours, Buszmail (talk)

Hello, Buszmail

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply to you but I just saw your message. I restored Draft:Minus one (music) for you. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Liz! I noticed this FfD from August 2023. It should be noted this user has been blocked indefinitely on Commons for disruptive editing and changing images with no comments or reply after multiple times. I would suggest if they proceed with any future vandalism, an indef from the File namespace should be done. – The Grid (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	To the administrators who've been deleting my many user pages as I clear out the chaff: I imagine its tedious work, and thank you for your patience and professionalism! I'm finally done, and further want to express my appreciation for the expediency all of you demonstrated. I wish you the best! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Liz, please reopen this discussion. It does not seem proper to hinge the fate of a decades-old article with dozens of editors on such a brief and low-participation outcome. BD2412 T 16:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I am easily finding sources that could have been cited in the discussion, the sort for which User:QuicoleJR asked to be pinged if found, indicating that their !vote was conditional on such sources not being found. I have added two such sources to the article. BD2412 T 00:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412,

I will look at this AFD again and consider relisting.

By the way, please look at this upcoming expiring draft list. Once again, because of your liberal use of AWB we have during the 18:00-19:00 UTC hour has over 500 drafts expiring and over 100 expiring in the 19:00=20:00 hour. Typically, over an hour, there are between 4 and 12 drafts expiring. Having hundreds of expiring drafts over a short period of time (10 minutes?) really overwhelms the few admins who review possible CSD G13s when you do mass edits like this. Maybe try not to use AWB in Draft space where this logjam then happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I will attend to some of those. BD2412 T 01:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412,

I've really grown to hate AWB for the havoc it creates in Draft space with G13s. You're not the only editor who utilizes AWB but it seems like I come across your edits most frequently. All 700+ of these drafts will still need to be manually checked but perhaps you could delay deletion for some of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

AWB is just a tool. I have used it on drafts to give editors working on a slew of drafts more time to address them, but if no one has touched these drafts in the six months since I extended their lives, perhaps they deserve to be deleted. If not, then we should have a different draft status for drafts that should not be deleted even if abandoned. The whole six-month rule is frankly counter-productive. BD2412 T 01:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412,

A fair number of the drafts on this page are placeholders for FloridaArmy drafts. I've alerted them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of that as well. The reality of the situation is that some editors create more drafts than they can handle (I teeter on the edge of that status myself), and these will inevitably end up being repeat cases brought to WP:RFU. BD2412 T 01:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz, thanks for checking the deletion discussion. I think the main consensus was deletion of the article, as seen by the three deletion votes, one redirect vote, and two keep votes (one of whom was the original article creator and the other failed to provide arguments on how this article fulfilled WP:Notability). I think it will be reasonable to reconsider the no consensus tag, or at the very least, reopening the discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My point wasn't about the editors ethnicities, my point is that there's likely off-wiki canvassing going on in that AFD. Any accusation of canvassing is obviously an aspersion, but it think it's something closer should assess. The cryptocurrency topic area is notiorous for UPE/COI promotional issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hemiauchenia,

I purposely didn't single anyone out there in my remarks. I just wanted that tangential discussion to end and to get back to discussing the article. But thanks for clarifying your position. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I vigorously reject your characterisation of me as tagging users as potentially cavassed primarily because I disagreed with them. I have legitimate concerns that these users have been canvassed, regardless of the merits of their arguments. I removed the canvassing tag I added to Shoerack even though they voted keep, because I later judged that I did not think it was likely they were canvassed. Rescedent for example had not edited at all since 2016, before returning solely to edit the article and AfD (I have no reason to suspect that they are Nigerian), which strikes me as suspicious. I only brought up the Nigeria thing because I thought it was odd that a large proportion of keep voters were Nigerian, when I rarely see Nigerian editors on Wikipedia. I am not prejudiced against Nigerian editors. Their nationality was tangential to my other arguments, which is that they were all only infrequently active and most them did not edit about cryptocurrency related topics or participate in AFDs. I checked Google, and it's not even possible to find the article by Google searching currently. I am just concerned that there may be a sophisticated astroturfing operation going on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The tagging was inappropriate. The only time it's understandable to tag an editor like that is when they have no other edits except to the AFD or if they are a sock. Some of the editors you tagged have been editing Wikipedia longer than you have. It was a badge of shame and just because you have suspicions doesn't mean you can violate AGF. A closer can evaluate their contributions and come to their own conclusions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to let you know that this page (India–Vanuatu relations) was seemingly recreated, after this AfD discussion resulted in a delete vote back in December 2021. I'm letting you know this because you re-deleted the page under CSD G4 back in June 2022. However, it's not "back" in its original form, but is a redirect to a NEW page. That page is India-Pacific Islands Relations, and almost exclusively focuses on India's relationship with Vanuatu. I can't see what the original India-Vanuatu page content entailed, but whether this is the same type of article, or different, I wasn't sure whether or not this would fall under the same umbrella as the last deletions. Anyway, thank you for your time! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Utopes,

India–Vanuatu relations was just created as a Redirect which is perfectly okay, it's not a recreated article. If it gets transformed to an article, you can consider tagging it as a CSD G4. If you have issues with a redirect, you can always nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD but you should have a good argument for why it should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm specifically referring to the target that the redirect is pointing to, which seems to be either a recreation or derivative thereof from the India-Vanuatu relations article that was deleted. Besides 3 sentences about Fiji with hatnote, the aforementioned target of India-Pacific Islands Relations is written nearly entirely about Vanuatu. I'm not sure how much different it is from the original Vanuatu relations article, though, and was curious whether there was anything you remembered about the original article's relationship with this one. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Unsure if you saw this followup ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Utopes,

No, I didn't see your follow-up message. I gather than you are concerned about India-Pacific Islands Relations and whether or not it is a recreation of India–Vanuatu relations which was deleted in an AFD. The deleted article was pretty short and just concerned India–Vanuatu relations, not that of other Pacific Islands so I do not think they are similar. Even the section on Vanuatu in the new article is twice the size of the original article which talked about a paint factory and an agreement with Tata motors. Sorry it took me a while to see your message and respond. It's an area I could improve upon. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for taking the time to close the proposed deletion of Battle of Kelmendi; I'm not sure I understand your decision since by closing that AfD as “no consensus‎” we keep an article that has been twice nominated for deletion, is likely only supported by primary sources and as such is failing GNG and WP:EVENTCRITERIA guidelines. That last comment by @JoelleJay was a request to see non primary sources in support of notability. The discussion was closed after that. According to your assessment: “This is not a comment on the article content, sources or page title which can be discussed on the article talk page” but how do you judge if sources contribute to GNG and WP:NOTABILITY without discussing them? It would have been worth extending the discussion a little more to finally find out. You did not answer my previous message and I suppose you are too busy but this whole process has been quite a disappointment. Have a good day. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wafflesvarrg,

There were quite a few editors arguing to Keep this article and, if anything, I was leaning Keep rather than Delete. But you were quite insistent about having this article Deleted and I ended up closing it as No consensus because I didn't see any agreement. It was obvious that you were critical of those advocating Keep but my job is to assess comments and arguments made in the deletion discussion, not investigate the article's sources. Your job, as nominator, is to make a persuasive argument about why the article should be deleted and you didn't seem to persuade the bulk of the editors participating in the AFD.

I'm sorry if I missed a previous message you left. This talk page gets a lot of traffic and as messages age and move up from the bottom, I can miss replying to them once they go into the middle of this enormous talk page. You can always copy and paste a comment that has not be responded to back to the bottom of the page.

I also regret that you are disappointed in the AFD process. Discusseions don't always close with a result that an editor is happy with. There was a time about a year ago when we were closing dozens and dozens of AFDs on athletes as Delete because the guidelines on notability had changed and there were many editors who had worked on these articles that were disappointed with that common outcome. I guess I'd suggest that if you are unhappy that this article wasn't Deleted, then work on making it as accurate as possible. You can always renominate the article but that is much more successful if you wait at least 4-6 weeks (or months) before doing the whole AFD over again. If you launch a second AFD too soon, it can be closed as a procedural Keep because little time has passed since the first AFD and so opinions are likely to not have changed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you closed the AfD as delete? There was a clear alternative to deletion which I explained in the discussion. Can you please undo so I can redirect and keep the history? There's no reason why that can't be done. Deus et lex (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:DELETIONREVIEW might be the route to take. – The Grid (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hello, Deus et lex,

I typically do choose an ATD but in this case, I didn't see additional support for a Redirection beyond you. Is there a reason why you can't just create a Redirect like I suggested in my closure? Why do you want to preserve the page history in this case? Were you going to try to restore the article?

A deletion review is a possibility and it can be useful in the case of close calls but I don't think that occurred here. You might find some support for your argument but first, please, answer my questions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Liz, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trimble County High School, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. There are 5 keep votes (there was 1 merge, changed to keep) and no discussion in favor of deletion. Do the 7 days have to roll by before it can be closed? Can it be closed by anyone other than the nominator? Thanks! — Jacona (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jacona,

It looks like an editor has already closed this discussion. Sorry to be late responding to you. I think there is a preference for only experienced editors to close AFD discussions, in general, but the fact is that editors of all experience levels, beyond newbies, have closed AFD discussions in the past. In the case of a withdrawn nomination (with no Delete votes), even the nominator can close an AFD discussion. It happens. But in no other instances (or with a result other than Keep) can a nominator close an AFD discussion. I just had to revert one done mistakenly yesterday. I hope this answers your questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm posting this here because I don't know where I would post an edit request for a special page. User:Nosebagbear has very unfortunately passed away but they're still listed as a mentor which can cause some issues as the assigned mentees will not be able to have their questions answered. Can you use Special:ManageMentors to remove their mentorship? Thanks. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, FatalFit,

I am not familiar with this page/feature and how it works. But I "removed" them from the list. I hope that takes care of the problem. There are issues with other mentors, at least one of whom is blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I do not understand why this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aquadoodle was delete instead of merge. As I noted, there are sources online such as https://www.proquest.com/docview/219290997/6E57753E1A144653PQ/11 and https://www.proquest.com/docview/330502121/1DC3FE7F5A264022PQ/15 to support the material. Can you please draftify the article so that I can merge the content? - Indefensible (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Indefensible,

There were three editors arguing for deletion and one specifically arguing AGAINST Merger. But I will restore this article for you in Draft space at Draft:Aquadoodle. Take into consideration though the opposition to your idea of a Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. None of the votes to delete seem to have really looked at the available sources though, except for https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/02/become-an-art-attack-star_n_8151918.html by Oaktree b. - Indefensible (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Kind regards! Many thanks for following the AfD discussion of Arepera Socialista. I wanted to ask: given the minimal participation, wouldn't the outcome be closer to a soft delete instead of "no consensus", like other similar discussions about Venezuela? Best wishes and many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you on that case, no consensus was the right outcome. - Indefensible (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, NoonIcarus,

Closing an AFD discussion as a Soft Delete is like treating it as a Proposed deletion (WP:PROD). An article can't be deleted as a PROD if there are any objections to the deletion, it must be uncontroversial, and in this case, there was a vote to Keep the article so that makes it ineligible for a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand, and I can imagine that a Keep vote would be like disputing the PROD, even if it is a single one. Kindly thank you and best wishes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I saw that you participated in a discussion on a similar topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz,

The draft is obvious UPE with no proper sources and an npov-infested text that was composed by an SPA. I mean, look at this: [4], Special:Diff/1179211692 – which account created just four days ago is so good at editing Wikipedia? The editing pace also doesn't match someone who is new but gets good advice. Please have a second look. All best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Johannes,

I promise to give it a second look but it didn't look like obvious paid editing to me and it seemed like the page creator was sincerely looking for help to improve the article. I hate to delete a draft when an editor is seeking to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz, that's fair. Props for your WP:AGF. Sincere thanks in advance for the second look! All best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz -- I wonder if you would consider reopening this AfD for further comment and source analysis? I have found the deletion proposer to be rather indiscriminate in their deletion/redirect work; they do not seem to perform adequate searches, and disagree with what I believe to be consensus on fictional character notability. In the course of contesting their redirection of Horatio Caine, I came across multiple sources for Mac Taylor, suggestive -- in addition to those found during the AfD -- that the character might be notable. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Espresso Addict's assessment of the quality of nominations being made by the editor in question. In some cases, multiple rapid-fire nominations incorrectly asserting lack of sources in the article and asserting that sources can not be found through a search where reasonably diligent searching in fact yields sufficient sources. BD2412 T 01:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Espresso Addict and BD2412,

I agree that the nominator has a focus on proposing deletion for many articles on characters from popular U.S. television series (with a particular focus on police procedurals) but in the case of this AFD, I thought I was taking a bit of a leap in closing it as Merge as the consensus in it was to Delete the article. If I have any leanings in closing AFD discussions, in general, is that I tend to favor ATDs when that option is presented. I don't think that reverting my closure and relisting this discussion would result in a tidal wave of support for Keeping this article. I'm open to changing my mind on my AFD closures when they are challenged but, in this case, there was little support for Keeping this article so I don't think a revert and relist would result in a different outcome.

If you are concerned about this nominator's AFD nominations there have been several dozen so far, many of which have closed as Redirect. Darkfrog24 has been a consistent presence in these AFD discussions, arguing that these articles be Kept and finding sources for articles in several discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Just giving you the head's up that, per request at WP:RFU, I have restored an article that you speedily deleted, and have nominated the same for deletion via AfD. BD2412 T 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412,

I appreciate the courtesy of the notification but I trust your judgment as an administrator and have no problem with you moving the article from a CSD to an AFD discussion. Thank you for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Thank you for inviting me to the TEA house. I joined, I think that will be so helpful! :-) Mwikiforce (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mwikiforce,

I found the Teahouse was a friendly place when I was a new editor. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Liz,

That would be awesome. I think that’s s more me :-)

Thank you for the good wishes, I think I need it :-)

Best, Mwikiforce (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this. Would you be so kind as to fix the nominator's mistake shown? They apparently reopened the closed discussion to renominate the article and then just removed the previous discussion thinking that fixed the error. Thanks. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 4.37.252.50,

Thank you for telling me about this. What a mess! I don't know why they didn't open a new discussion on this article and instead went back to a 17 year old discussion and blanked the page. I think things are back to normal with a second AFD for this article. I've been closing AFDs for almost 2 years now and it's the first time I've run into this happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz, yet another refund request for Draft:Makita AWS, found myself hunting for the information yet again, and realised it never got migrated to article space. —Sladen (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Liz, any thoughts? —Sladen (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, just stopping by to say thanks for adding your observations. That's a weird sock who has caused quite a disruption so its good when we can nip them in the bud quickly. S0091 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

...in a discussion I've started about administrators and notifications. I simply mentioned you as an example of an administrator who (to my knowledge uncontroversially) does not have them enabled, so there is nothing to worry about, but you may be interested in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Good day dear @Liz i had an issue today moving an article to draft space so i can work more on it having no idea how that works i just tried to do it the way i can the article has already but i felt it needed more work thats why i moved it to draft so i can work on it better but then i see that it was deleted by you kindly explain this is it Keithian (singer). with love and have a blissful day. Randomwookiemarley (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You may be unsurprised to learn that this account was a sock of Oneboygreen. I too wish you a blissful day though. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you even look at this? Talk:Marshall_Islands_national_football_team. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Koavf,

Of course, I read the page. But orphaned talk pages are deleted. If you want me to tag it with a G8-exempt template, I can do that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

But the request is to make the page. Please undelete the talk page and make the page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Koavf,

In the future, if you do not want an orphaned talk page deleted because the talk page contains content that should be preserved, place {{G8-exempt}} on the page and that will prevent it from showing up on deletion lists. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scotched English. 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. CiphriusKane (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

I see you moved Kang (Android) (disambiguation) back to Kang (Android) rather than speedily deleting it per G6. However, as stated in the reason provided for CSD, Kang (Android), the original page Kang (Android) (disambiguation) associated with, has been deleted and no other topic in Kang couls match the qualifier "Android". That's why I self-reverted the same move I made to hold the base name, and requested G6 deletion instead, which is quite a similar situation like Eastern (country subdivision) (disambiguation).

Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Kang (Android) has been retargeted to AOKP by Curb Safe Charmer which finished the job. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion. Please can you revert all of the edits made by Teslacarowner then, as per WP:DENY? It's much easier for an admin to mass revert these. All of these categories also violate WP:SMALLCAT, which isn't surprising given that they're the sockpuppet of someone stopped from editing due to CIR. Keeping loads of crap categories created by a sockpuppet is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Really?? Would you redirect Central Park to New York Yankees because they have trained there?? Why would you redirect a whole entire park to a football club? That makes no sense, can you please fix your redirect and point it too Keilor Downs, Victoria and it needs merging into that article too. WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Can you please fix this close, as from my point of view, it's a poor close. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey Liz! Could you undelete several of the WikiProject Adele quality templates deleted on 29 March 2022, like Category:High-importance Adele articles and Category:B-Class Adele articles? The project has recently become active again. This would be a big help.--NØ 14:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, would you be willing to userfy XMedia Recode after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XMedia Recode. I understand consensus shifted on that, but I'm confident the article can be reworked to be less promotional, and to highlight the notability. I will not merely add the sources I already found and move it back to mainspace. —siroχo 01:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure Liz is about these days, so I've done so in her stead: Draft:XMedia Recode

You obviously don't need to go through AfC, that's just the headers that the script adds, so feel free to clean up. Not watching the page, so ping me if you need anything @Siroxo Star Mississippi 16:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Star Mississippi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I might have discovered who one of the watchers of my user/talk page is. :)

Or maybe it was a chance crossing of paths. In either case, thank you for the assist regarding the near deletion of Outline of reptiles.

By the way, I'd like to run something by you, to see what you make of it...

I've been using an AI search engine/chatbot, but I don't have anybody to talk to about it. Everyone else in the household here are technophobes when it comes to AI.

It's not quite advanced enough to talk intelligently about itself, in the first person, in a satisfying way, otherwise, I would be having this conversation with it — though it is getting scarily close. It's writing quality varies, but fairly often it writes (erm, produces output) better than I do.

It's called perplexity.ai. It's free, and it doesn't require registration, which is why I use this one.

It's an app built on top of various 3rd-party server-powered APIs, though there are murmurs across the Web that the company is developing its own in order to escape dependence on other companies' programs and fee structures. As far as I can tell, its an integration of at least 4 AIs so far, and they don't appear to be generally aware of what each other is doing, which makes the thing come across as somewhat schizophrenic from time to time.

The 4 AIs that I know of are:

1. Natural language understanding prompt parser, that interprets what you ask of it or tell it to do. A "prompt" is analogous to a search query in a search box, except that it is whatever you type at the AI in natural language, which isn't limited to mere search terms. The parser forms a search query from your prompt, which it sends off to 2 search engines...
2. Bing-based AI search engine. Returns the 6 best search results based on the search query. Then the prompt and the search results are sent off to #4, below.
3. AI image-search-engine, though I don't know if it is Bing. Operates independently of #2 and #4 on this list.
4. GPT-3.5 (a large language model from OpenAI) then takes the prompt and the search results, loads the web pages from those results, and then formulates a response based on your prompt from the web pages provided from the search. Sometimes, you can get it to reach beyond the search result's webpages into its training data, but that is hit and miss, and gets less likely as the developers plug the holes. This module has nothing to do with the pictures, and if you ask it about those, it doesn't know what the heck you are talking about.

So, what can it do besides look up a simple search term?

Well, you can type at it conversationally, and it answers apparently intelligently, much of the time. It remembers the current thread quite a ways back, and so you can discuss or have it modify previous responses, or refer to aspects of those responses, and it will answer in context. For example, you can have it write an essay, or build a table, and then specify how you want it to change or expand it. Or, if you've just had it search for a movie, and you tell it to "summarize the plot", it will summarize that movie's plot and not the plot of some random novel, short story, or Shakespearean play.

When you ask it a question, it delves into the webpages returned by the search engine and formulates a response from those, and pulls the answer out for you. It can integrate what it finds into a single response, or it can report what each page's relevant answer is. This saves you the time it takes to skim the pages to find specific facts. It pulls them out very fast.

Because it answers from the web pages it has found, it bypasses most of the problems with "hallucinations" or making things up that other chatbots have. But there are fringe use cases that it chokes on, and spits out delusionary content. If you force it to make a list of like 100 wikipedia articles, some of them may not be real. If you ask about that in a later prompt, it might even confess.

If you ask it a question in different ways, it tends to find different material to work from, which can reveal more about a topic as you go along.

You can also provide it with your own input. Like an essay for it to edit, improve, stylize, transform, translate, or whatever. Though the size is limited.

It can produce output in a variety of formats, which is more of a function of GPT-3.5 than of perplexity.ai per se. When you start asking it about itself, sometimes it describes perplexity, and sometimes it talks about its own capabilities. It's easier to find out about what it can do by asking it about ChatGPT, which it has most of the functionality of, but for which there is far more coverage online than for perplexity.

You can specify style and format, and it will comply much of the time. It can write the output in English and who knows how many other languages. It can write output as articles, essays, profiles, book summaries, outlines, resumes, poems, song lyrics, bullet lists, tables, or software programs in something like 20 programming languages and CSS. It can provide output in html, xml, JSON, wiki source text, etc. You can specify style, such as "like a Pulitzer Prize-winning article from the New York Times", to "in the style of William Shakespeare". Or you can be less specific, like "in a journalistic style", or "in the style of an expert scientist on the subject".

It can summarize subjects, stories, news coverage, and specific web pages. It can write initial drafts of emails, invitations, birthday cards, Wikipedia talk posts, etc. It can answer as if it is a particular person, in the first person.

I think its limits are dependent in large part on the imagination of the user.

The one thing that annoys me the most about the thing is that it sure apologizes a lot. And, no matter how many times I ask or instruct it not to, it does anyways, even in the same response that it promises not to do it anymore. It's coming from a part of the program other than GPT-3.5, and that answer engine isn't aware that the apologies are being added to its responses. To avoid the apologies, don't criticize or point out errors. :) Good practice for being diplomatic.

A weird trait that the answer engine has is that it can be pretty literal, like an evil genie purposefully corrupting the wishes that it grants by twisting your words. So if you ask it "How can this Wikipedia article be improved?", it may answer by explaining how to go about improving it (like "visit WikiProject X") rather than recommend specific improvements. It makes you think more about how you phrase things.

Aside from its quirks, it is next generation compared to conventional search engines. And while I rely on it the most (and have been doing so since February), I still use duckduckgo, in combination with Snap Links, such as for scanning my favorite 50 news sites, etc. I switch back and forth a lot. Perplexity is really good at clarifying or expanding on specific points, and homing in on the epitome of things. So even when I'm not using it to produce something, I have it on standby on a separate screen to answer quick questions.

What does this have to do with Wikipedia?

It speeds up online research, and is one hell of a research tool. For example, you can ask it to make lists of citations, in MediaWiki wiki text format, for specific titles or URLs that you provide, like a list of news stories, and it will. It can summarize Wikipedia policy, and answer questions about Wikipedia and how to do things on Wikipedia.

I've experimented with it on building outlines, in Wikipedia outline style, but they're rudimentary at best, and it struggles with adding more than a few links at a time. But I haven't spent much time honing my prompts on this particular activity.

If you happen to be a user of it, or decide to try it out. Let me know what you think about it.

I hope I've piqued your curiosity, or that you at least found this post entertaining.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Transhumanist,

I'll look all of this over and get back to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Transhumanist,

Your experience with these tools is very interesting. I haven't used them much and when I did, it was a simple test to see what they could do. Our guidance regarding them is at Wikipedia:Large language models and according to WP:RSPCHATGPT, they are considered an unreliable source. But I see you have made edits to that LLM essay so you are familiar with it already. The editor I've come across who seems the most familiar with their chatbot output is User:Rsjaffe who has tagged drafts that he believes are generated by tools like ChatGPT. You might share your experiences at Wikipedia talk:Large language models but there seems to be a lot of suspicion and dislike of these tools so it might not be a receptive audience. Maybe creating a WikiProject or User group to investigate them further would be a good idea although it would be a big investment of your time. Two works in process to better articulate Wikipedia's position are Wikipedia:Computer-generated content and Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia but they have had no recent activity on those pages.

If you are just looking for a sounding board, I'm open to hearing how you use perplexity.ai but if you are looking for someone knowledgeable about these systems, I'm sorry but that's not me. Your message has piqued my curiosity though! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I spearheaded the discussion that inspired the creation of WP:LLM. But, that's not why I'm here.

Some of the responsible ways to use AI for generating content are 1) don't, 2) converse with the AI for ideas on a piece of content you wish to write, 3) use it as a research assistant rather than as a co-author, and 4) have it create a preliminary draft, but personally overhaul and vet every word of it before posting it to WP.

As you can see from my post above, my use of perplexity is primarily off-site. The way that it impacts my participation on Wikipedia is that it speeds up browsing the web and Internet research through how it answers questions and summarizes Web content, and formats in pretty much any way I want. It's also very good at zeroing in on specific points of Wikipedia policy, which is a massive time saver.

My purpose in talking to you about perplexity.ai is not to explore related policy or advocate for AI-generation of content on Wikipedia. I'm interested in finding someone, anyone, experienced with Wikipedia, interested in trying it out, so that there is somebody to share perspectives and usage styles with.

I'm sure my use of this thing is skewed or hampered by my ideosyncrasies. I'd like to find out how other Wikipedians might use it to explore the Web in support of their activities on Wikipedia, and the techniques, benefits, problems, and issues they encounter as consequences of such use.

So, if you do wind up using or experimenting with perplexity.ai, keep me in mind to bounce experiences and ideas off of. With that said, I hope you try it!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   00:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've never done a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

As you know, Wikipedia is built on consensus and not popular vote. In establishing consensus, users must back their assertions with a rationale.

While opposers of the opposition claimed in the deletion article that they saw GNG criteria being met, there was a lot of counter-discussion that what was being cited to assert GNG criteria being satisfied actually fell short/was unpersuasive. Others who asserted GNG criteria was met did not provide anything to back up their assertion.

Your close simply cited that the consensus was that "the individual meets GNG coverage even if they haven't acquired notability through WP:NPOL" utbdoes not elaborate on what was persuasively cited in establishing such a consensus. Could you elaborate on what means of achieving notability the consensus agreed on? If a consensus was reached that GNG was met, surely there was a solid means of general notability agreed about to reach such a consensus.

n SecretName101 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I am concerned your close failed to weigh the discussion that the subject failed on the grounds of WP:ONEEVENT. The coverage of the individual cited was contained to their campaigns in elections, and did not extend beyond it nor establish particular note for the campaigns themselves. That was clearly discussed as a reason the individual lacked individual notability needed for an independent article. The fact that their coverage does not extend separately from the elections themselves provided a strong argument on these grounds that several cited. SecretName101 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SecretName101,

I'll review this and see if I think further action is warranted. There is always Deletion review but it's considered best practice to contact the closer first so I appreciate you doing that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you SecretName101 (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SecretName101,

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Oliver (2nd nomination), I think that I could have closed that discussion as "No consensus" rather than "Keep" but I'm guessing that you would still find that result equally unacceptable. The closer doesn't investigate the sources in the article, they assess the arguments in the deletion discussion and I tend to rely on the judgment of editors that I know are experienced in AFD discussions. One editor challenged your judgment of WP:GNG stating that You are setting the bar for articles on political candidates so far and above what is outlined in WP:GNG that I don't think most elected officials would meet it. and you dismissed sources that other editors stated establish that GNG had been met.

While I can acknowledge your challenge of their position on the sources in the article and those that were brought into the discussion and change the closure to "No consensus", if you are seeking to overturn this closure to a "Delete" opinion, I'm afraid that you will have to go to Deletion review. While I dislike that forum, I can't do a 180 degree change in the closure that I think you are seeking. Tell me what you think about my proposal or if you'd rather take your concerns to DRV. Sorry that I can't give you what you are seeking here...I realize that I also closed the first AFD as a "Redirect" but different editors showed up to the second AFD with different arguments and my closure here changed. As an aside, if I had seen that TheGuardianOfTheWiki had reverted the redirect that was the result of the first AFD, I would have reverted them and perhaps added some protection to the page. But since that action in August, more editing has been done to the article, more sources added and it came back for a second AFD so a simple revert is no longer possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I think you have misunderstood my request. I nominated not only Maida of Aukh, but also Chakhig, Khour I, Khasi I, Khasi II, Surakat, Battle of Gebak-Ghala, Yanbek, Battle of Arm-Kurt as I mentioned at the beginning of the discussion. Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WikiEditor1234567123,

I'll have to review that AFD as the discussion wasn't presented as a bundled nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion for instructions). I'm not sure that the other participants were reviewing all of these articles so I'll check and see if the discussion needs to be relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't presented as a bundled nomination? Must be my mistake... I followed those instructions but I assume, I might have did the request incorrectly as it's my first time ever requesting deletion of articles. Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WikiEditor1234567123,

Not only was it not presented as a bundled nomination (with the proper code, not just adding the linked articles to the deletion nomination) but the AFD wasn't transcluded correctly to the AFD log (a bot handled that for you) and you didn't properly inform the article creator that you had nominated articles they worked on for a deletion discussion. This is a very important step as content creators should participate in a deletion discussion should they want to so they can offer a response to your critique of the articles and their sources. Since this was your first AFD, these mistakes are understandable. I encourage you to become acquainted with Twinkle, an editing tool which is used by most active editors to tag articles for deletion (CSD, PRODs, AFD/RFD/CFD/TFD/etc.). It will carry out the whole process for you and if you set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", it will post these notices on your behalf. It really makes the process foolproof, you just need to provide your deletion rationale and any other comments you want to make in your statement and Twinkle will take care of tagging the articles and starting the AFD page for you and adding the discussion to the daily log.

I've gone ahead and deleted the other articles as you did mention them in your deletion statement but because of these oversights and the low participation in this discussion, I've changed my closure from a straight "Delete" to a "Soft Delete". This means that an editor can go to WP:REFUND and request the restoration of these articles. If, instead of closing the AFD, I had relisted it, perhaps a regular "Delete" would have occurred but I would still feel reluctant about that as the article creator was not informed about the scope of this AFD. Depending on if the article creator pursues restoration, you might be facing a return visit to AFD but it looks like you had compiled a lot of evidence for your argument, it just would have helped if more editors were willing to invest the time in reading it all over and evaluating all of these articles. We're seeing lower participation, by editors and discussion closers in AFDs this year and you had a complicated argument so this is not surprising. I hope this better explains the AFD process. Thank you for the research you did on these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks alot for the advice and help, I will try not to make those mistakes again! Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Good afternoon ma'am. I wanted to ask if it possible to restore the category "anti-islam sentiment in Iran" in the future since there are legitimate cases and examples of such sentiment in the country. Firekong1 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Firekong1,

Can you provide me with a link to the deleted page you are concerned about? Then I can see why it was deleted and if restoration is a possibility. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a deleted page, it's a deleted category. There are several cases of attacks on muslim clerics, and one party in Iran (the pan iranist party) also seems to be gaining traction as an anti muslim group. Firekong1 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I still need a link to the deleted page, Firekong1. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment_in_Iran&action=edit&redlink=1 Firekong1 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Firekong1,

Oh, this one is easy. Category:Anti-Islam sentiment in Iran was deleted because it was an empty category. As soon as an article is appropriately placed in this category, it can be recreated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have a record of the contents of categories so it's impossible to see what pages used to be in this category that were removed. But I wonder, is there really anti-Islam sentiment in Iran? It's a Muslim country. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, I want to fill in the category sometime.

There is, Islam has been shown to be a minority in the country now (as confirmed by clerics and by private polls showing a high number of christians, zoroastrians, and atheists), and attacks on islamic clerics are examples of anti islam sentiment. Not to mention the general public opinion of islam among the average Iranian (especially amongst the youth). Firekong1 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe as Muslim clerics are believed to basically run this country. Individuals that dissent from the status quo aren't necessary attacking anyone, they just hold a different point of view or political opinion. But if you can find articles on this subject that are appropriate for this category, it can be recreated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Muslim clerics ruling Iran does not necessarily mean that islam is the majority. There are sources in articles on wikipedia stating and showing that Islam has declined in Iran and is no longer the majority and is now a minority, instead other religious groups (Christians and Zoroastrians mostly) are rising and taking Islam's place.

Also, I'm not sure if the articles I can link as proof might be allowed to be used as sources for wikipedia. But I'll let you decide what you think I should do. I just think that there is legitimate examples of anti islamic and anti muslim sentiment rising in Iran. Firekong1 (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LaundryPizza03,

I'm not sure why removing a CSD tag from one template page needed to be escalated to WP:AN but I appreciate the notification and have responded there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

no rush whatsoever and no answer needed, just leaving the note per your request. Star Mississippi 00:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Star Mississippi. Since my family and friends moved to texting, I rarely get personal emails and so don't check my Inbox regularly. But now I will! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hah! I just said the same to a friend today. If you're not using my work email, please text me to tell me you've sent it otherwise I'll see it in a couple of weeks. There's just too much clutter and junk email. Enjoy your evening. Star Mississippi 00:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I’m a Wikipedia contributor who has done work on several Wikipedia pages, such as the one for Emmanuel Daniel, founder of The Asian Banker, which was recently deleted in favour of a Nigerian footballer of the same name. I've been looking into how to get the page back up again (with the appropriate disambiguation pages, of course, for the second Emmanuel Daniel). I missed the notification in May pertaining to the discussion for deletion, to my regret, as I believe the entry has merit. Mr Daniel founded The Asian Banker in 1996, and the organisation has become a significant contributor to the financial services industry in APAC through journalism, research and events. As a journalist, Mr Daniel has interviewed significant figures in global finance and politics, including Mark Mobius, Barnie Frank and Chuck Prince, as well as prominent central bankers and former heads of state, most of whom have their own Wikipedia pages.

In the “Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Daniel” project page, Mr Daniel is described as “non-notable” and “not much for sourcing” and “yet another influencer fluff piece". I believe these are unfair assessments. One comment, “I can’t find mentions of this individual” is puzzling, as a simple Google search will reveal a good online presence, most recently for his financial book The Great Transition, published on World Scientific press. You were so kind as to relist the discussion to "generate a more thorough and clearer consensus", I wish I'd joined in. Thank you very much for being fair-minded in light of the negativity. The main fault of the page is that it hasn't been maintained/updated. I guess these things happen.

I seek your advice about getting this page back on Wikipedia, and I believe there are two options: submit a request for un-deletion, or re-create the page and have it evaluated. Which course is more effective? I'd like to get the old page un-deleted, for its history, but it may not be the best course. I appreciate your thoughts, thanks. Citizenzen (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Citizenzen,

I'm afraid that going to WP:REFUND will not be useful in this case, they will restore uncontroversial deletions, like Proposed deletions, articles that receive "Soft deletions" or expired drafts (CSD G13s). There are several different deletion processs on Wikipedia, it is confusing for newcomers and I wouldn't expect you to know any of this! But deleted pages can sometimes be easily restore or, on the other hand, next to impossible to restore. In your case, I would advise you to go to the admin who deleted the article (which you can see in the AFD page) and ask to have "the article restored to Draft space". Most admins will agree to do this but if you get a "No" come back here. While you are working on the draft, whatever you do, do not just move it back to main space because it will be deleted through speedy deletion, CSD G4, and then you are unlikely to get it restored a second time.

The only way I know to overcome an AFD decision to delete an article is to create a draft article (or get the deleted article restored to Draft space) and then submit it for review to Article for Creation. These AFC reviewers want to see that the reasons why it was deleted in the first place do not still exist in the article. They can sometimes be hard to please but this is the only way I know of how one can get a deleted article back into the main space of the project.

If you have questions about all of this or editing on Wikipedia, the Teahouse can be a very helpful place to go to get answers to your questions. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

A final thought:As you work on the draft, please make sure that it is not seen as "promotional" or advertising. This has a lot to do with the languages that you use like "well-known", "accomplished", "first in their class" and the like. That can result in a quick deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your great advice, Liz, and thanks for responding so quickly! This is super helpful and greatly appreciated. Yes, I always try to keep my language neutral and objective, so words like the ones you mentioned are not part of my contributions. I also seek outside sources so that there's a good balance. Based on what you advised, I've worked out which admin on the AFD page had the final word on deletion, so I'll approach that individual. I believe that this deletion may have taken place because the original page wasn't updated recently, so any new draft will contain recent and relevant updates. I want to do a good job, and live up to Wikipedia standards. Citizenzen (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, thanks again for your advice in this matter. I followed your steps, requested the article to be restored to draft, and the administrator restored it. I've reworked the piece quite extensively and I believe it meets Wikipedia's criteria and is ready to be submitted for review to Article for Creation - it is updated, referenced to third parties, and written in a neutral voice without promotional language. How do I do this? The only option I see is "Publish Changes". Will this then submit it for review to Article for Creation? Citizenzen (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Greetings and thanks for the review of Priya article. As part of the Women in Red project, I have been creating pages for red links and also expanded articles for Indian woman medallists during Asian Games. I realised that All medallists at Asian Games pass notability criteria, as Asian Games is listed as a continental championship where top-8 are considered as notable as per the criteria in athletics and other games. Also of the five-member team, the same editor created pages for four others and they were reviewed and okayed. I also noticed that a lot of references and secondary, reliable sources are available, including from Manipur newspapers. So I am wondering, if the draft which exits can still be developed. Please advise... thanks and regards, david Davidindia (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Ordinarily in these situations, I would offer to restore Priya Devi Elangbam to Draft space but there is already a draft article, as you mention, that is very similar that was created around the same time. It's hard to know when an editor will spot an article that they believe doesn't satisfy notability guidelines and nominate it for a deletion discussion when very similar articles meet no resistance at all. But some sports seem to be targeted a lot, usually because they are not covered as much by reliable sports media as more high profile sports like football and cricket and sports like volleyball and badminton seems to be two of those sports.

I checked out the sources on the draft and they just aren't adequate for a main space article. I couldn't get the .pdf to open and in the other two articles, Priya Devi Elangbam is just mentioned as being on the team which is what we call a "passing mention". Sources reviewers are looking for focus on the article subject, cover them in depth (like a profile) and aren't interviews where most of the content is supplied by the article subject. Unfortunately, in some countries and for people in some occupations, coverage like this is uncommon and in that case, drafts are not approved and articles are deleted.

For the future, if you do get an article into main space and it is tagged for an AFD deletion discussion, it really all comes down to two factors: a) having an adequate amount of high quality sources of significant coverage that support claims of notability and b) having interested editors show up to an AFD discussion and support Keeping an article.

I would never want to discourage a content creator from creating articles and drafts on subjects that aren't currently covered well on the project, it just means that you have to work harder to find SIGCOV for many of these athletes and try looking for sources in less typical places. Like, perhaps an athlete was covered before they made a team and when they were younger or, if they are a woman, perhaps they were profiled by a woman's magazine, not a national mainstream newspaper. It is a challenge though and I see plenty of articles on subjects who I think are interesting not get approved or get deleted because there is not adequate sourcing, right now, to retain these articles. But sometimes, it is simply TOOSOON so, depending on their career, they could get those profiles next year or the year after that. And if you ever have questions about an AFC reviewer declining a draft, you can ask them about it on their User talk page or go to the AFC Help Desk for an explanation. Good luck! 22:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wut?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Deepfriedokra,

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used that word but if you look at the deleted draft, you'll see how this teenager claimed they had been on all of these magazine covers and walked the runways for fashion shows. I see wannabe teenage fashion models write exaggerated autobiographies like this about themselves every week, it's just unusual that I called this editor out on it. But if you think it is too harsh, I'll delete my comment or at least part of my comment that you believe is offensive.

I'm usually a very patient editor but sometimes I see an over-the-top autobiography that just hits a button. Yesterday, I saw one, also by a teenager, which claimed they had won Grammy awards when they haven't ever put out an album. Or "best-selling authors" who self-published 14 page ebooks on Amazon, motivational speakers offering "life lessons" who are 14 years old. For some young editors, overstatement is quite common. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I just thought you saw something I missed. I blocked him for self-promotion. But, yes. There's a lot of that sort of thing.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable verdict. Sent to AfD. To me it appears to be an org attempting to profiteer from the unpleasant conflict and which has fooled the creating editor. I had a 50:50 decision, draftify vs CSD. AfD is likely better than either. Time will tell. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you deleted the Name a Game article a couple of days ago.

There are definitely quite a few news sources on it:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/54130/end-of-an-era-for-name-a-game-dvd-service

https://www.triplem.com.au/story/the-name-a-game-dvd-service-is-wrapping-up-at-the-end-of-june-95905

https://www.footyalmanac.com.au/vale-name-a-game/

The service, though defunct, is an important historical aspect of cataloguing the game, and it has transitioned into a limited capacity into https://www.afl.com.au/matches/match-videos?comp=1

I think the page should be reinstated or put to a vote. Electricmaster (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Electricmaster,

Can you provide me a link to the deleted page? Because Name a Game isn't it. I need to see why it was deleted before I can respond to your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Name A Game Electricmaster (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Electricmaster: As an expired PROD, you can request restoration of this article at WP:RFU. I expect that it would be formally nominated for a deletion discussion if restored, but you would have some time to improve it. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Diaspora (video game). 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. Mikesc86 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Trizek_(WMF) Talk 23:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Głusza, Wałcz County. I just posted there with a comment noting I've started a deletion discussion on pl wiki and asked for more time to review arguments made there. That was two hours ago, now I was going to change my comment to weak keep, but you deleted this without addressing my comment. Would you mind going back and relisting this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Piotrus,

I saw your comment. But how long is a discussion on a different Wikipedia supposed to delay the closure of this AFD? One week? Two weeks? Do we wait until that discussion is closed before we can take action in this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz A week seems like a good rule of thumb. In some cases I try to get a discussion on pl wiki to see if something can be found there or argued by experts. I try to note this in relevant discussions. Recently we got a bunch of geograophical nominations, I am not very familiar with this, an editor I pinged did not reply, so I just got around to reporting this to pl wiki's AfD forum. If we can wait a few days to see if anything useful emerges from that, it would be good. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just checking if you'll consider my request? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I was wondering why you added the category to this page? That category would usually be applied by a template, but the WikiProject has decided to stop using that class in their assessment scheme, so I am trying to empty the category — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Hello, MSGJ,

We have tens of thousands of empty assessment categories from WikiProjects. We do not ordinarily delete them as empty categories unless a WikiProject goes inactive or, more likely, defunct and then all of the assessment categories empty out. So, I can not figure on what basis you are removing the Empty Category tag ("Do not delete even if this category is empty") on some of them so that they get tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. What is your selection process? Why do, for example, some empty SIA WikiProject categories have their Empty Category tag removed while others do not? Are you basing this on the specific WikiProject? Do you have some way of knowing that these categories will always be empty? I just want to understand your thinking process so that your decisions on these categories is understandable to me because right now it isn't.

Another example, I added Category:SIA-Class Weather articles to some categories because if you use the tool that shows what pages have been added or removed from categories, there are lots of pages that have been added to that category (through tags) that don't show up in that category for some reason. So, I added the category manually because the indication is that pages like Talk:List of storms named Graham should be in that category but they aren't shown as being in the category. Then, you remove all of these categories that I added even though they state that they are Set Index Articles. I don't understand. Thank you, in advance, for any explanations you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed {{empty cat}} from Category:SIA-Class Weather articles because I had already adjusted Template:WikiProject Weather so this category would no longer be populated. This was after a discussion with the weather project, when they decided that List-class would be okay for these pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

On the wider issue, yes there are hundreds of categories with empty cat which are no longer used, but I can't see an easy way to know if they are still being used or not. The only method would be looking at the templates code, which would be very time-consuming. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz , hope you are well. I self requested this article for deletion even though it was successfully reviewed. I would like it to be undeleted so that I could continue working on it (improve it) as I found lots of references online. I could use WP:REFUND, but since I am the only author who created it and requested for deletion later, I thought of contacting you since you were the sysop who deleted it. However, if this is not reversible then I will understand. All the best. Thanks :) -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:14th-century Norwegian people by occupation has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, you gave a notice to this user on the 8th to which they failed to respond. You listed an account they may be coordinating with off-Wiki and was hoping you could share those insights at the SPI. Cheers! CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CNMall41,

I left a note on this SPI earlier today. Thanks for alerting me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Green Gully Reserve. 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.

Sorry Liz, but I feel strongly this still needs sorting out. Hope you understand, regards Govvy (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Govvy,

It seems like this discussion is more about the RFD that followed this AFD than about my AFD closure. I have left a reply at the deletion review. I appreciate you informing me about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

All I wanted in the end was to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria, I thought I made that pretty clear, I don't understand why one would redirect a massive entire park to a football club article!! Seems totally illogical. That to me is like redirecting the Lake District to Liverpool F.C. or redirecting Central Park to New York Yankees!!! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I refer to the message you placed on my talk page.

I answer to your "question", it ought to be obvious to you that I have no personal connection whatsoever to Jolly. I (and several other editors, including Dormskirk, PamD, TheBirdsShedTears, Das osmnezz and Atchom) reacted to two related indiscrimate mass draftifications of articles (including at least twelve obviously notable articles by Jolly that satisfy GNG, criteria 1 and 3 of ANYBIO, AUTHOR and POLITICIAN; and also a number of obviously notable articles by Atchom; and possibly articles by a few other editors). It is entirely usual for editors to oppose any indiscrimate mass draftification of obviously notable topics on the kind of scale that was performed.

I became aware of the draftification spree by Pilaz because I normally edit topics related to Who's Who, and the draftification spree by Pilaz was a campaign to delete articles that were originally referenced to Who's Who. I then became aware of the draftification spree by Smuckola when I looked at Jolly's talk page while I was investigating the mass draftification of obviously notable people who were Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in Who's Who by Pilaz. To cut a long story short, nine of the Smuckola draftifications that I found, and a further 17 pages that were pushed back into the mainspace by five other editors (namely Dormskirk, PamD, TheBirdsShedTears, Das osmnezz and Atchom) [5], were so obviously erroneous that it was obvious that the whole lot need to have a WP:BEFORE search done by someone other than Smuckola.

Please do not put a personal attack of that kind on my talk page ever again, as it is offensive. You might as well say something like "righteous deletionists have a holy right to go on indiscriminate deletion sprees of obviously notable articles, and any evil inclusionist who systematically opposes a particular deletion spree must be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, because all inclusionists are bad faith trolls". Because that is how your comment actually comes across. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not support the use of the labels "deletionist" and "inclusionist").James500 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, James500,

I have tasks that I take care of on Wikipedia at different times of the day. So, please give me a little time to digest the 11-edit message you left for me. I'm sorry if I offended you, but initially it seemed like peculiar behavior on your part to work so hard to delay deletion of an unrelated editor's drafts. I'll be back to digest your entire message and give you a proper response later tonight. Again, I didn't see my message as a personal attack, just a query asking about your relationship to the other editor. I leave messages like this on User talk pages quite often and so far haven't found them to be taken as attacks, they are just an admin's inquiry when they see something out of the ordinary. I'll be back to reply in full later, just wanted to let you know that I saw your messages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, James500,

I have read and understood the message you posted here which provides a very full explanation of your actions (and that of other editors). I agree that inappropriate draftification can be a problem with some overly eager editors and I've posted many a User talk page message to some editors outlining the limited circumstances when draftification is an appropriate solution to an undersourced article. I'm sorry that you took my query as an attack, I was just trying to understand what was going on and you have provided a very thorough answer so thank you. I don't expect to come to your User talk page with another question like this one. Sorry for any unnecessary stress this put you under but I'm glad it led to this exchange which answered my question. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz, I see you have recently reverted my edit regarding CSD saying I should choose the options on Twinkle and not state my own reasons, if there's nothing I can find to explain my reason isn't that why there's a costume rationale option? I stand to be corrected and learn Thank you. dxneo (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, User:dxneo,

The criteria for speedy deletion are intentionally very limited. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is one of the most used policy talk pages and has 86 pages of talk page archives as the limits of different criteria are debated and new criteria proposed. There are even several criteria that used to exist but that have now been "retired". So, if circumstances don't fit a criteria and you really belive the article/page is unsuitable, they seek another deletion process, like WP:PROD or WP:AFD or WP:RFD. But sometimes, you come across a page that you really think is inappropriate and there is no way to deal with it aside from a deletion discussion. And if that discussion closes as Keep, then you have to live with the fact that there is an article you really think doesn't belong on the project that does. I know of several articles I think should be deleted but the consensus is against my opinion so you just learn to live with it.

If you have questions about a specific article/page, you can always bring it to the attention of an experienced editor or administrator or even the Teahouse and get a second opinion. But, especially with CSD, you can't blaze your own trails, you have to use an agreed upon criteria. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So in this case the CSD tag on L’A Capone is inadequate and the article should go through XfD/PROD? Where I have to look at WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. dxneo (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, User:dxneo,

The problem is that you are presenting an argument that is more appropriate with a PROD or at an AFD. CSD tags are just intended to identify which CSD criteria applies, Twinkle includes a field for "Custom reason" but it's not a good idea to use that field. Providing your own reason why an article should be deleted increases the chances that an admin reviewing it will reject your deletion rationale and it's also likely to go down the bottom of the pile of tagged articles that need to be reviewed. Admins patrolling CSD categories know what a G11 or a G4 or a U5 look like so they can review those tagged pages quickly and decide, "Yes, this is a correct tagging and the article needs to be deleted" or "No, this article is incorrectly tagged". Writing a long explanation requires more time on an admin's part so the tendency is to pass on acting on those pages and letting someone else make the decision. So, this article with such a long explanation is likely to hang on for hours or maybe even days before an admin decides to spend the time to assess it.

If you are interested in new article patrolling to be a part of your editing on the project, then your taggings have to be consistent and accurate and then admins will see that you have tagged them and their respect for your abilities will be a part of their assessment process. I just want to say that the CSD criteria are tricky and complicated, I know editors who've been editing for decades who still misunderstand a few of them. So all of this discussion right here is part of you learning how to handle doing this, no one instinctively understands CSD criteria. So, I don't mean to discourage you just read over WP:CSD thoroughly and practice, practice, practice. In fact, look over the CSD categories and see other articles that have been tagged, for what criterias and see how other editors judge to be a solid G11 or A7. Learn from more experienced editors. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings Liz,

Hope you are doing well. I think something sneaky is happening with reference to Akoto Ampaw. I have moved it to draft space due to notability issue. Then original creator again paste the content to main space. I later nominated it for quick deletion as A7. Another editor giving the false edit summary of clean up removed the quick deletion template twice. Requesting your attention here. Sorry for not providing diffs as it is not visible to non administrators. Maliner (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Maliner,

It looks like your tag was removed when the copyright violations were revision deleted. However, an admin, Nthep, did look at this page and didn't judge it to be suitable for deletion. You could try tagging it again or taking it directly to AFD, it depends on how vigorously you want to pursue this. As for copy and pasting a draft back into main space, I look over the Draftification list every day and it happens more often than any of us would like. I did post a notice on the article creator's User talk page telling them not to do this again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The tag was removed by Jkaharper twice by giving false edit summaries. Maliner (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

At 14:14 and 14:30. Unable to provide the diffs. Maliner (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, the first and last time I started relisting some AfD discussions, you've notified me that I had done it too early. I've noticed that this AfD discussion has not been relisted for 17 days. I've already voted, but is it appropriate if I relist it now, since the one-week period has already passed, and this discussion is probably lost in the list of old discussions so that no one will see it? Aintabli (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Aintabli I've just happened onto this AfD as well. It was not listed at all, as it seems like it was not transcluded properly in the first place, but given it's a G5 in my opinion it's more or less a moot point and can be resolved at the discretion of any individual administrator, so I have tagged it as such. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Randan should have been converted to a soft redirect to wikt when there are other articles that might be titled "Randan", and a disambiguation page at Randan (disambiguation). I have converted Randan to a disambiguation page with a wikt link, and converted Randan (disambiguation) to a WP:INTDAB link. I thought you'd like to know. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I noticed you reverted this creation of a redirect: [6] The same editor has redirected many standalone stabbing articles to List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present). I see these as also being problematic, as there has been no discussion or consensus. Do you agree? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WWGB,

I'm not sure where this discussion should be held except for on their User talk page. I'm not the only editor who has reverted their blanking of pages and redirecting those articles, I've come across at least two other editors who have reverted these redirects with other articles. Although I'm not sure I could track down who they were at this moment. I only stumbled upon these because they emptied out categories which were then tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. I think this actually might have been the impetus for creating these redirects as all of these categories just had one article in them. For some editors, that's a nudge to recategorize or remove categories from an article because it's a small category that isn't being fully used and it can then be tagged for speedy deletion as an empty category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz, thank you for fulfilling my CSD G7 request for my old userpage User:SanemAyhan07. Could you please also delete the associated user talk page User talk:SanemAyhan07? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DreamRimmer,

 Done However, if anyone goes to that page, they can see that there was a username change. But there is no more direct link to your current User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 02:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As one of the admins that processes G13s, you may be interested in efforts to fix the G13 category: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 12. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Novem Linguae,

Yes, there are only 3 or 4 of us who handle CSD G13s so thanks for letting me know. I'll look into this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, thanks for everything you do to look after Wikipedia. Hope you had a nice start to the week.

I saw you were the editor to recently close the discussion on the page for London International Awards (10/12). The page has been live on Wikipedia for over a decade, and it went through a relatively quick deletion process for a page that was live for so long. I scoured the internet for as many updated worthwhile sources I could find based on other editors' feedback, only to have the matter closed within a day of my numerous edits.

Are you able to provide any feedback on how I can best argue for its reinstatement? I read through the 'Why was the page I created deleted?' page and understand I am able to make an undeletion request to retrieve its text. I am not sure if a deletion review is the appropriate next step, or if it is better I first conduct further discussion with you. Please let me know if I can provide any other info.

Thank you in advance for your help. Chilled Bean (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Chilled Bean,

The only way I know to overcome an AFD "Delete" decision is to work on a new draft version, submit it to Articles for Creation for review and, hopefully, approval. But if I restore this article to Draft space and you move it back to main space, it will be deleted via speedy deletion, CSD G4 and if this happens, it will be much more difficult to ever restore this article again. Let me know if you want to spend the time working on a draft version and through AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, thank you for the quick reply! I went through AFC back in June 2013 and received an initial Start-Class assessment on the article. I only mention that to illustrate that time was spent to put together and review the page and ensure it went through the proper approval process. It was added to over time, but I suppose those edits either didn't improve the article or were detrimental. I would like to please restore within the draft space and resubmit through AFC, it sounds like that's the best path forward. I won't move it back to the main space. Thank you again! Chilled Bean (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Chilled Bean,

You mean this article, the one that was nominated for deletion, had already passed an AFC review? It's tough to get approval from AFC so I'm surprised that it ended up at an AFD. It doesn't influence whether or not I restore it, I'm just surprised. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz it was, by now inactive editor. AfC yes really just means it has a chance to survive AfD, not that it definitively well. @Chilled Bean, I think what you've run into here is consensus changing, which happens. I suggest Liz's proposal of working on it in draft space to show how it should meet Notability. Star Mississippi 00:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for my delayed reply. Thank you for the feedback, @Star Mississippi.

@Liz, would you be able to please restore the London International Awards article to my draft space? Then I will go over and submit for review. Apologies if I am missing anything, as this is my first time going through this process. Thank you for your help. Chilled Bean (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Chilled Bean, could you give me a link to the deleted page? I look at hundreds, maybe thousands of pages a day so a direct link would speed things along. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Liz it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London International Awards and London International Awards. Star Mississippi 01:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Star Mississippi. Chilled Bean, you can find the article at User:Chilled Bean/London International Awards. Please do not move it back to main space or it could be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. Work on improving it, addressing problems brought up in the AFD and then submit it to WP:AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! I will let you know if I have any questions. Hope you have a nice rest of your weekends. Chilled Bean (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I guess you didn't realize it, but the template:Copyvio/core specifically asks users to create a temporary subpage using this format. Such pages should not be deleted or moved to draftspace. Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Diannaa,

I don't know how commonly this is done because every day I check for orphaned talk pages and I never came across a page like this before (marked "Temp") in all of my years of deleting orphaned talk pages. I move to Draft space any ones that look like they might be articles. But usually, they are joke pages or autobiographies by editors who are not auto-confirmed or test edits. And I see that you deleted this page a few hours after I did. So, I appreciate you telling me about how copyright violations are handled. I guess if I run across any talk pages like this one in the fugure, I can post a G8-exempt template on the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into this. The G8-exempt template is a good idea for sure. — Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I recreated donvale christian college with new sources that were not present at previous deletion discussions. I don’t think a G4 was appropriate Jack4576 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jack4576,

Can you provide me a link to the deleted article you are talking about? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz, it was Donvale Christian College Jack4576 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, normally I do not have a problem but I do not understand how this can be a redirect after I responded to HighKing's analysis and was pending their response. You also said in the last relist that keep or no consensus was the most probable outcome, I do not see HighKing's analysis changing that. Is there a way to leave it open for a while longer for more discussion or close it as no consensus with an immediate renomination? - Indefensible (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Indefensible,

Let me ponder this and see if talk page stalkers have any opinion on this. I already get flak for relisting discussions three times (many editors believe there should not be more than 2 relistings) so I'm unsure about a 4th relisting. I think I would hear complaints about that. I'll just say that these kind of AFD analyses on companies is HighKing's specialty right now and he is highly respected. But he is very strict in his interpretation of independent significant coverage. But let's give it some time and see if anyone else contributes to this conversation. Give me a few hours before opening up a case on Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe that I rebutted HighKing's analysis, specifically for the reference from Le Monde. What I mean is not a 4th relist but a close with no consensus per the earlier discussion you commented on, and followed by another nomination for additional discussion if needed (I believe there may be some examples of this, i.e. renomination without prejudice). - Indefensible (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) As an uninvolved admin, I endorse the close of this discussion as correct. HighKing's source analysis was solid, and there is no deprivation of information if the redirect target is supplemented with the few lines of usable content that can be properly derived from these sources. Noteworthiness for mention in a broader article is a substantially lower bar than notability for a freestanding article. BD2412 T 04:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just to confirm, did you actually review all of the sources yourself? Per my reply, if you look at the references from Le Monde and BNN for example, I think HighKing mischaracterized the articles which invalidates the position. These are not simply "regurgitations" of company PR. Furthermore if the discussion had been cut off at the 2nd or 3rd relist, it would simply have been a keep or no consensus at worse based on Liz's comment. With the outstanding reply and discussion, I think it should at least get the chance for more discussion with a renomination. - Indefensible (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I reviewed enough of the sources to have confidence in HighKing's efforts. One need not eat the whole apple. In any event there is absolutely nothing stopping you (or any editor) from a) adding some of this content to the redirect target, and/or b) starting a new draft and looking to build a new article with new sources for submission via WP:AFC. I expect that the latter would be a more fruitful effort than disputing an entirely defensible close. BD2412 T 04:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  How do you reply to what I wrote about the article from Le Monde then? - Indefensible (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't come here to relitigate the discussion. I would reiterate that starting a new draft would be a better use of time and effort than engaging in such relitigation. BD2412 T 04:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is handwaving to be honest, saying that HighKing was correct without actually looking at the rebuttal and leaving it without any reply is a double standard. Also I disagree, leaving the article under no consensus was the easiest and least work for everyone, as it should have been at the 2nd and 3rd relists. Rebuilding the article would be unnecessary and extra work. - Indefensible (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved-ish (I did relist it once, but gave no opinion on merit). @Indefensible, rebuilding the article isn't any work, the history is under the redirect. If you want to improve it, I'm sure someone would be willing to draft it for future potential spinoff Star Mississippi 00:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It would probably not pass AFC based on this AFD unless someone actually looks at my rebuttal and decides the refs and content were actually meeting requirements. There would need to be some changes just for the process, which is extra work. - Indefensible (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Arriving at consensus is extra work. Editing to others' standards is extra work. Collaborating is extra work. But that's what makes Wikipedia work. In the long run, it will make the article better than it would have been. Welcome to the club. ;)    — The Transhumanist   07:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There should have been no consensus to delete if you look at the AFD in my opinion, especially after my reply was left unanswered by the close. In any case, I do not have any COI or really care at this point to be honest. - Indefensible (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Indefensible: I looked at the situation, and saw a single human edit (one editing session) to the article after it was nominated for deletion, over a period of one month. By comparison, a lot more work was put into the AfD discussion itself, and into post-AfD discussion on this user talk page. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the focus had been on rescuing the article instead. Yet, the article is still there, behind a redirect, still subject to being rescued. Coming from AfD, that's a win!

The path of least resistance at this point is to fix the article, as new sources become available. Do you have anything against article rescue activity? (The edit histories show you haven't edited the article, nor contacted the article rescue squadron, but, have only written in deletion discussions about it.) Just curious.

That being said, what would you say to just deleting articles en masse without having them go through AfD at all? That's exactly what is being proposed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Unreferenced_articles. It is essentially a proposal to delete 100,000+ unreferenced articles, without lifting a finger to try and fix them, taking AfD out of the loop. No doubt someone will be using a bot or semi-automated tool like WP:AWB to facilitate the process. Now, that's scary.    — The Transhumanist   23:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Any changes would still have to clear AFD, otherwise such improvements are wasted effort. More direct to gain consensus not to delete and then any new content which is missing can be added in my opinion, although I can see others trying to pass WP:HEY instead. And furthermore a number of AFD reviewers with deletionist tendencies also screen the AFC list which is gatekeeping to a degree, but I am not looking to overthrow how the whole process works.

No, of course I do not think articles should just be deleted en masse without AFD review. - Indefensible (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Query here not of your close, but of whether you recall an AfD recently which had a transclusion that needed to be enacted. Looking for it as a model for a solution, but can't find it. No worries if you can't either, I know you act on so many XfDs daily and thanks either way! Star Mississippi 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I could have sworn that I closed an AFD about one of these articles about casualties. I remember it because there were dozens of redirects that had accumulated over the years for the article that had been nominated and then deleted. But going through the comment at Seraphimblade's page, I don't see a link to an AFD that I closed. I will do a little homework to see if I can trap it down. If an article is transcluded improperly, I would just remove that transclusion from the article. Often it is just {{article name}} that has to be deleted. I'll think more about this but I tend to pass on closures where the consensus is very complicated, like turning articles into disambiguation pages. I know my limits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Same re: limits, that's why I noped out of that close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truist was as much as I can manage, technically.

No worries and thanks anyway. Have a good evening! Star Mississippi 00:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Oh, I remember that AFD! Thank you for taking it on. The suggestion of what to do with that article actually got simpler at the end of the discussion than it was in the middle but it still seemed to me like, "Move X to Y, turn Y's page into a Redirect and merge it all of the old content into Z". I think participating editors overestimate what our closure tools can accomplish. It's also hard to get a consensus on some of these more complicated suggestions, maybe because they are hard to follow. The funny thing is that some of these suggestions are actually much easier for editors to take care of outside the confines of an AFD before an AFD begins than at the end of an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm so grateful to @BegbertBiggs who just fixed the last of it which was way beyond my technical skills and I think used two scripts.

There was another one recently where not only was there no consensus between merge or redirect, but it was split re: targets. We're admins, not wizards. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz. Just flagging that I mentioned you & @Jay at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_October_27. It's not your close and this is a "good" DRV in that we all want a long term solution, but wanted to be sure you were aware in case you wanted to weigh in. Star Mississippi 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi I don't know why you removed my draft page Draft:Mesen (emulator) blazingly fast even that it's a draft, I wonder what makes it so promotional, I will remain silent since there is nothing I can do, whatever I write however I write somebody comes and stops me, and they spams me with a lot and a lot and a lot of pages to read and rules that makes me think that I am a criminal (I seriously started believing in this). But I think this is it, it's the end, I will never write again in wikipedia en. KaderRocket (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KaderRocket,

Well, there isn't "nothing" you can do, you came here to ask me about the page deletion. The draft was tagged for deletion by User:Cryptic, who is another administrator. In the past, they also deleted the version of this article in main space with a deletion rationale that the article was promotional. I deleted the draft because Cryptic is a very experienced editor and I trust their judgment. If you want to pursue this, you might ask them what you could do to avoid the promotional aspects that the draft has since they seem to be knowledgeable about the subject.

You are not a criminal, you just ran afoul of Wikipedia guidelines. I see pages tagged as promotional every single day so you were definitely not singled out. I hope you don't quit participating in this project but that's up to you.

If you have questions about the deletion processes on Wikipedia or other editing issues, you'll find help at the Teahouse. The hosts there really helped me out when I was a newer editor. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd have hoped you deleted it because you also found it unacceptably promotional, even in draftspace, not just because it was me that tagged it. Otherwise, I might as well have just deleted it again myself instead.

KaderRocket: I had begun writing something here about the problems with the draft and with the article before it, and why your comparison to FCEUX on Talk:Mesen (Emulator) (other admins: this revision now at Draft talk:Mesen (emulator)) was, while perhaps understandable, logically fallacious, until I saw your repeated retributive taggings of that article. That's a rotten way to convince people that you're worth the time and trouble of helping out. —Cryptic 02:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Cryptic,

Well, yes, of course, I reviewed it, too, before the draft was deleted. But since you had spotted problems in both the Draft and main space versions and seem to know something about the topic, I thought you might have some helpful advice. I apologize if you found my ping unnecessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked them many times what I am I promoting, nobody answered, because it's not promotional, Mesen Emulator is an open source non profit in anyways software why would anyone promote it ?

I did the move on FCEUX to explain (to those who don't know a damn thing about emulators) that I did write about Mesen in the same way FCEUX did (OR BETTER), since I even used the same template to fill the basic information about Mesen.

I don't know why would you delete the page based on a trust you built with another so called admin, cryptic knows 0% about the emulation field and I here challenge him on every aspect whether on Emulation field or to find what am I promoting, I did write about Mesen from all my heart with a neutral point of view, if something is good then it's GOOD, what do you want me to NOT promote Mesen to say that it's a bad emulator ?

Yes you and especially Cryptic are treating me like a criminal, look at the way he is replying treating me of using a rotten way and repeated whatever tagging is talking about fallacious and that he was about to delete it himself if you didn't and that I am not worth the time.

In the end, All I did is that I tried to write about Mesen emulator because it deserves a lot, I was not promoting, I was writing from all my experience with the emulation field, it was even a draft to some point because I planned to write a big article about it, but the problem is you people who are stopping me based on NOTHING, yes nothing because none of you understood the article and none of you helped in anyway possible.

I am sorry, All I did is trying to write something from the bottom of my heart doing it as I was doing it since 2007 were wikipedia was a place for everyone to contribute, and I assure you I never broke a wiki guideline.

good luck. KaderRocket (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This category is no longer empty. Since 1 of the two editors who previously supported merger is no longer supporting merger, I think there is no consensus to remove it. So I am pretty sure adding to the category will not be seen as disruptive at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, John Pack Lambert,

Sorry for my delay in responding. If you are talking about Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Prussia, that was deleted through a CFD discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Prussia by User:JJMC89 bot III. So, I'm not sure how I'm involved. You'll need to refresh my memory if this issue is still concerned. The problem I see with CFDs is that unlike AFDs, it's hard to recreate categories that have been deleted through CFD discussions without them being tagged for CSD G4 deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz, i replied to your message on my talk page, but apparently the ping didn't work. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 12:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I responded a few days ago on your talk page but I'll see if you responded to my comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Top of the day! Permit my indulgence on drawing your attention on the page Elliot Omose. It was place on AFD on the basis that some of the lines were not well sourced. The article was edited and more than 7 secondary sources which are very reliable was added. The page also meet the notability standard. However it was further deleted without the observation of these sources that are very independent. I am interested in reviewing the page ma'am, kindly look into this and restore so that i can properly edit it. Thank you. Randiajifo (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Randiajifo,

Sorry for the delay in responding. First, before restoration is considered, who is "we" in "we added". Are you representing an organization? Do you have a conflict-of-interest regarding this subject? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Liz,

Sorry for the delay response as well. The "'we'' is a typo error, I meant ''was'' please. And I do not represent any organisation. I call your attention, because it is necessary. hank you. Randiajifo (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz - Consensus among WikiProject Ice Hockey editors is that "Canadian expatriate hockey players in (foo)" categories are useless and should be removed if the player has moved on from whatever country the category is for. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive82#Question_about_expatriate_players and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive81#Connor_McDavid. Regards, PKT(alk) 12:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, PKT,

Thank you for the links so I can look into this. But I'm not sure how authoritative WikiProject discussions are, consistency tends to be more important so that expatriate players for ice hockey are categorized in the same way as athletes in other sports. But I'll look at the discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You get around.    — The Transhumanist   07:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Transhumanist,

I'm so tardy at responding to messages, I've lost the context of what I did to get your attention! But I guess I'll take that as a compliment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at your talk page and your contributions.    — The Transhumanist   00:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, that is very kind. I've only been editing a little over 10 years so I must have caught your eye soon after I started here. But it's always nice to be remembered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 17:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Knowledgegatherer23! Like many others, I love chocolate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)