User talk:Liz

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

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

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

3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

It's Summer!

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

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

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year, Liz!

Happy New Year!

Liz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deleted prods

Hi Liz -- Thanks for your message on my talk, and for suggesting looking at recently deleted prods, I hadn't realised there was a report. I see what you mean about there being a lot! Do you mind if I just undelete those I would definitely have deprodded if I'd seen them, without consulting you as the deleting admin? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Espresso Addict,

No, I have no problems with PROD restorations. You don't have to make a request but do include an edit summary. Unlike articles nominated for AFD discussions, PROD'd articles get little attention. Here are a few lists that can be helpful that you may or may not know about:

User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary (this week's PRODs, chronologically)
User:SDZeroBot/PROD sorting (current PRODs organized by subject area)
User:SDZeroBot/PROD Watch/last week (last week's PRODs and whether or not they were deleted, de-PROD'd or redirected)
User:SDZeroBot/PROD Watch/last fortnight (same but for the past two weeks)
User:SDZeroBot/PROD Watch/last month (same but for the past four weeks)

The first two reports are updated throughout the day, the latter three reports are only updated once a week. They were last updated 12/31/24.

Have a happy New Year's Day! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will just add that some editors can be a little touchy about an article they have PROD'd being de-PROD'd or restored. You might see some of those articles later sent to AFD for full discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I've been using the first two lists, but the SDZeroBot/PROD Watch set are new to me; I'll make a note of them.

I undeleted a handful of yours, but managed to click undelete on one before I'd provided a summary, sorry -- blame it on the New Year's mulled wine! (Not to mention the cat walking all over the table.) Have a great New Year's Day yourself -- Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

Hello Liz, How are you doing? Sorry I was busy yesterday. The latest vote on the deletion page got me thinking: was I supposed to post relevant links on this page? I thought I was just supposed to modify the article, which I did for several days. Also, I'm not sure that I understood your decision. Here are what seem to probably be the most relevant sources to give some info about him. Although many articles, mostly academic, and two large international child genital cutting experts statements, mention his work. I hope that voters have taken the time to read them and/or find them before voting (almost all these links were already in the article)?

Glick, Leonard (2005). Marked in Your Flesh. Oxford University Press. p. 384. ISBN 9780198039259. (Preface ix)
Hebblethwaite, Cordelia (21 August 2012). "Circumcision, the ultimate parenting dilemma". BBC News.
Liptak, Adam (23 January 2003). "Opponents of Circumcision Use the Legal System and Legislatures to Combat It". New York Times.
Sánchez, María Viola (2023). "Circumcision and Regrets from the Mother of Three Sons". Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics. 13 (2): E1 – E2. doi:10.1353/nib.2023.a909675. PMID 38661948. ProQuest 2884505090.
Samuels, Shimon (31 May 2020). "Does an international campaign to ban brit mila contribute to antisemitism?". The Jerusalem Post.
"Wiesenthal Centre Slams International Campaign to Ban "Brith Mila" circumcision". Simon Wiesenthal Center. 2 May 2020.
Yanover, Yori (19 March 2013). "Human Rights Lawyer Challenging AAP Pro-Circumcision Stance". The Jewish Press. Brooklyn. Retrieved 31 December 2024.
O'Connor, Cillian (16 July 2024). "Do Men's Rights Groups Have A Point?". FashionBeans.
Brayton, Jerry K. (2008). "My Circumcision Story As Told to J. Steven Svoboda". Matatu (journal). 37 (1): 211–217. doi:10.1163/9789042030619_011.
Hutson, Matthew (1 May 2008). "Head 2 Head: Making The Cut". Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, LLC. Retrieved 29 December 2024.
Lothian, Tracey (28 May 2019). "Is There Any Legitimate Benefit to Newborn Circumcision?". EcoParent Magazine. EcoParent.
Bansal, Sarika (15 August 2012). "Bumpy ride towards reducing HIV in Zambia through male circumcision". The Guardian.
Gran, Even (9 April 2015). "– Hva, har omskjæring noe med religion å gjøre?!". Fri tanke. Human-Etisk Forbunds.
Earp, Brian (19 March 2013). "Journal of Medical Ethics – Special Issue on Circumcision". Journal of Medical Ethics Forum. Journal of Medical Ethics.
Reeves, Karli M.; Mishtal, Joanna (21 July 2022). "Situating parents' circumcision decision-making within health research, knowledge, and experience" (PDF). SSM - Qualitative Research in Health. 2: 12. doi:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100132.^: 2
Svoboda, J. Steven (Summer 2023). "When the Political Becomes Personal: Circumcision as a Cause and as a Parental Decision". Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics. 13 (2): 73–76. doi:10.1353/nib.2023.a909659. PMID 38661954.^: 73

Please maybe more time and efforts should have been given, particularly because Svoboda writes on a very sensitive topic and I'm not used to biographical articles? Maybe I should have gotten AI help for the article and deletion page, also to avoid the copyright concern? It seems to know well the author, which likely makes sense because he's a recognized expert in his field, and apparently in children's rights in general. Should I ask for a deletion review? Thank you Chrono1084 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrono1084,

I assume you are contesting the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Steven Svoboda? This discussion was relisted once and I didn't see sufficient support for Keeping this article on the project and most of the arguments from longtime editors were for Deletion. Yes, it would have been worthwhile to post your newly found sources to the discussion so that other editors could evaluate them and see if they would have persuaded them to change their argument but I'm not going to revert my closure and reopen this discussion. At this point, if you want to have an article on this subject in the main space, I see two options for you:

1) If you believe that I misinterpreted the consensus of the participating editors in this AFD discussion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DRV is not AFD2.0, it's not a place to re-argue the AFD. It's solely focused on my action as a discussion closer and if you believe I didn't interpret consensus correctly.
2) You can try to overcome the problems in the deleted article by writing a new draft. For this, I can restore the deleted article to Draft space or, what is probably a better idea, start a new article from scratch using these new sources. Please know that you can not simply move an article deleted through an AFD discussion back to main space as it will be tagged for speedy deletion CSD G4. You'll need to submit your draft article to AFC so that an experienced editor can review it and make sure than the new article has overcome the problems the caused the original article to be deleted.

So, the next step is up to you and how much work you want to put into having an article on this subject on the project. I do not recommend using AI to write articles on Wikipedia, that is likely to lead to more problems among editors that assess new articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Liz,

Thank you for your answer.

Ok, then I choose option 2.Chrono1084 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laugh

can you tell me what this redirected to before you deleted it? Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It was a redirect to a now deleted user subpage; the only content on that page was a smiley. Since it seems like it was in use on multiple talk pages, I've recreated {{laugh}}, not as a redirect, but as a smiley. I'm not emotionally invested in this solution if there's a better one. Hopefully not stepping on your toes, Liz. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that works! thank you! Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frietjes,

I'm sorry if this page deletion caused problems. The template was a broken redirect to User:VS6507/Laugh and the editor did a courtesy vanishing and in those cases, typically all User pages are deleted. I'm not sure why the template was redirected to a User page, I just saw it listed as a broken redirect that needed to be deleted.

Thank you to Floquenbeam for fixing the problem post-deletion by recreating the template. I should know in the future to keep a wide distance from template issues as there can be unforeseen problems from transclusions that might not be apparent. I'll stick with article, draft, talk, user and category broken redirects and leave the file and template ones to admins who understand those namespaces better than I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, it was just a few broken talk pages and was quickly resolved. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uwappa

I see that my ANI report has been archived without any response, which really doesn't surprise me. I'm not convinced by the "I don't have time right now", as they have been editing quite a bit since they urged me to "go for it" – including even leaving 'normal' comments at my talk page as though the episode never happened. I suspect that they have realised that the evidence is just too damning: in the same circumstances I would just push my king over as there really is no credible defence. I suspect that they expected an adjudication on the content dispute, even though I told them that ANI does accept such pleas. It's a real pity that they declined to climb down the ladder when I offered. I can appreciate how they managed to paint themselves into a corner as I came very close to doing the same thing myself many years ago.

So now what? I have no demand for my pound of flesh. I don't want an apology. I just want to know that they have made a clear statement they now understand, accept and commit henceforth to comply with WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN. I don't really see any alternative to a block on further editing in the meantime, that responding to the ANI should be their first and only priority now.

I'm sorry to dump this on you. If it is of any consolation, I think that this is my first or maybe second referral to ANI in best part of 20 years. (And I've also been the accused just once, due to an astounding coincidence.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 𝕁𝕄𝔽,

Yes, it looks like your complaint has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1175#user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation. If you wish, you can "unarchive" it and repost it at ANI (put it at the bottom of the page) but I don't think that doing this will prompt Uwappa to participate. It might get some more attention from other editors though. I would recommend you only doing this once though.

What I often see happening on ANI is there can be little or no response to the first complaint about an editor. Any subsequent complaints that happen months or years later will refer to the first complaint and some editors will consider that a lost opportunity to act. Or it could be that there aren't any future incidents about this editor, it's hard to predict. But it's not uncommon for complaints posted at ANI to result in no action, especially if the complaint is very complicated. I know this can be discouraging if you spent a lot of time crafting a cogent complaint but for action to be taken, it often has to be the right time and this might not have been it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. No, I have no desire to pursue this to the bitter end, so I won't resubmit. My only concern really is that they may consider that there was no case to answer and that they can just do as they please without consequences. Is there any such thing as an "Administrator caution" (like a police caution albeit without requiring the admission of guilt)? Something along the lines of "Due to other priorities, no further action is being taken at this time but this incident is likely to be taken into account if there is any repetition. Please ensure that you understand WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMF (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Just a sig, not a nag. No need to reply or even acknowledge. If the process doesn't already exist, an isolated incident such as this [is] doesn't generate a pressing case to create one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, 𝕁𝕄𝔽, did you repost this discussion from the noticeboard archives? Because it looks like it just needed more visibility to find an acceptable closure. I think editors go way too caught up in whether or not Uwappa was making a legal threat because it seemed like they were making a joke to me but other editors took their words very seriously. Are you satisfied with how the problem was resolved? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was he who did it. His choice. The whole episode is rather odd. First, he urged me to escalate to ANI – and then declares himself too busy to respond when I did so. Next, he declares himself ready to rumble again: now a sensible person would only repost if they had their response prepared and would include it the same posting. And they certainly wouldn't (and had no need to) include "my legal team" nonsense with it – so we have to assume that it was deliberate. If it was a joke, why did he decline The Bushranger's invitation to confirm or deny? And then why did he respond to Malcolmxl5 by doubling down? All that said, I would be astounded it "our legal team" is anyone but himself.

It wasn't quite the closure I wanted (because it got side tracked by the legal threat and only marginally referred to the behaviour issue that underlay the report) but I'm content to leave it at that. My only concern is that he may appeal the block on the grounds that he never intended that the "threat" be taken seriously. I would hope that whoever evaluates the appeal will take into account the overall behaviour that led to it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and thank you for the follow-up. I can see that you have plenty of better things to do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 𝕁𝕄𝔽,

I wouldn't say better things to do, I just have a lot of things to do! It's all admin-related responsibilities. I can get discouraged when editors put together well-written reports for ANI and they just get archived with no action taken. I felt I might have dropped the ball here myself but I wasn't confident of what action was called for and I wanted to hear from other admins. And since I suggested you repost the complaint, it caught my eye when it turned up again. Why the editor chose to repost it themself when no action had been taken is a mystery. It's almost like they wanted to get blocked if you just look at their recent actions. As for if they appeal the block, they were acting rather sockish/trollish so I think it is more likely that they create a new account. Let me know if you spot a new account acting similarly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, his "fist" will be easy to spot. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects Skidibi toilet, Blugray et al

The redirects that have been targetting Skibidi Toilet was retargetted to the vandalised title by a double redirect correcting bot. The pagemove vandalism has been reverted, while the vandalised title was deleted, leading the redirects to target a deleted page, which you deleted(or at least some of them; I am not sure).

I am not sure how much or which redirects used to exist, but those two are the ones I was able to identify.

Can you restore the deleted redirects? (assuming you deleted the rest of the redirects as well)

Thanks! Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ca,

You can see the broken redirects at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. Sure, I can restore them and then I guess I'll undo the edits that caused them to become broken. It wouldn't have happened if the page mover who corrected the bad page move had left behind a redirect. Are they all worth restoring? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ca,

I expected to hear back from you before starting this process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--I was away from my devices. I'd say they are all plausible search terms. However, I wouldnt reintroduce the Biser King and Paryss Bryanne due to WP:RETURNTORED concerns. The article has little information about those two figures. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Apostl

I have a concern about the deletion as i feel the nominater is biased towards pages like that as he has nominated severeal pages for afd based on his opinion which goes against years of precdence as survivor winners have almost always had pages for years all to be destroyed by one editor Wwew345t (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wwew345t,

Please provide me with a link to the deleted page so I can see the reason why it was deleted. Thank you and have a happy new year! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyson_Apostol&redirect=no ajd I would like to mention the nominater nominated almost every survivor winner for deletion despite them having been longstanding articles I feel it's not fair to leave it up to someone who displays hostility towards the topic he's deleting it's almost like an attempted cleansing Wwew345t (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it was important to reach out to you because you closed most of thoae afds which also seem to be genreally not attended sometimes it was only the nominator who attended Wwew345t (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wwew345t,

It seems like what you are actually upset about is my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol (2nd nomination) which wasn't a deletion but a redirection. We can talk about that but please do not cast aspersions against other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well mynpoint was the mass deleltion in content as a result of the nominater i feel like there is bias there Wwew345t (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He had severel soruces stating his notability per notability guidelines doesnt it mention that people with significant roles in shows get pages? Not only did he win he played 4 times Wwew345t (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alfred Edgar Smith

Hi Liz. Could you please restore this page for me? I would like to work on it. Thanks. Happy New Year. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I'm reluctant to restore Draft:Alfred Edgar Smith as it is essentially a blank page with just the page title on it. But you are a regular content creator so assuming that this article will become more than a blank page, I'm restoring it upon your request. I know that you have many editors and allies who support all of the work that you do but I'd put in a little time on this draft in the near future as it could be tagged again as a test page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make test edits, and I am unable to see what was in an entry once deleted. I went to work on it and found a kind editor had already written up the subject. Thank you for restoring. I think the subject is worthwhile and worth including. I hope polite requests can be honored and that it's not too much trouble to restore deleted material. I am very limited on what I can publish to mainspace or more of these subjects would be added. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to AFD request

Hello,

I noticed that you said something about expanding on AFD requests. I am sorry for not expanding on what each article said on AFD, due to the lack of WP:GNG. I'll try not to do it again.

Thanks

BryceM2001 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BryceM2001,

Okay, after doing some research, I think you are referring to a relisting comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cydoor where I critizes your deletion rationale which was simply "Fails WP:GNG". This was an inadequate explanation for why an article should be deleted which should be an adequate explanation made up on complete sentence, not just an abbreviation, that references that a WP:BEFORE has been done which should be done before nominating any article for an AFD discussion. These two word deletion nominations just give the appearance that you spent about a minute on this AFD and are putting all of the responsibility for doing background research on the participants of the AFD discussion. Unfortunately, deletion rationale like yours are not uncommon but that doesn't make them any more acceptable.

If you want to see a well put-together AFD nomination, you can see one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Beasnael (2nd nomination) or even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Rutter which is brief but discusses the article in a way that an editor knows it's been assessed. I hope this makes my comment more clear. And just know that no editor is perfect, we all have room for improvement. Thank you. 01:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

CheckUser changes

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Congratulations on ArbCom!!

Tantomile (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed! I have every confidence in you, Liz. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tantomile and Fayenatic london for your good wishes. I have yet to plunge into my arbitration committee duties, another lapse on my part over this first week of January. It's so easy to get caught up with ones regular responsibilities on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Maliner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Milot Avdyli

Liz, can you undo Draft:Milot Avdyli because the player is expected to debut (after being transferred in this transfer window) at Vorskla Poltava in the Ukrainian Premier League which according to Wikipedia is a fully professional league, and I believe that the draft can serve as a kind of starting point for the development of the article before its debut, which after its debut will be concretized into a full article. BalkanianActuality (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've done several of these for BA. While the original articles were created by a sockpuppet, BA's taken the articles in hand and developed them appropriately. Acroterion (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

This was a G13, so it's an easy restore even without @Acroterion's helpful context. @BalkanianActuality: I'm not watching the draft so please let me or @Liz know if you need anything further. Star Mississippi 00:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BalkanianActuality,

I'm sorry for the delay in responding, I've gotten behind in replying to messages on my user talk page. Thanks to Acroterion and Star Mississippi for stepping up while I was busy doing other tasks. It looks like your request has been addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for returning the draft article! BalkanianActuality (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

thank you for all your edits :D

Metonymm (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SHERIF BISHARA

Dear Liz,

I have updated Draft:SHERIF BISHARA article with the relevant information. Please review and help me to move live space

Thank you very much. Aliyamanas (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aliyamanas,

I just moved your draft to the correct name space, I don't review draft articles. But, on your behalf, I submitted it for review by an AFC reviewer who will give you feedback on your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Undetectable.ai

Dear Liz, I wanted to bring your attention to a fraudulent company at the deletion discussion. I nominated it, because this is a fraudulent company I read about. None of the articles there are reliable. They added a bunch or irrelevant paid "research", not covered by any media. I erected a threat on my talk page, from the author of the page. The the criminal history of all the "founders" was removed by the same editor, who has been blocked 7 times.They left the same threat on the page of a wikipedia who added that section in April 2024 or so.

Chargers include drugs, attempted murder. I had no idea my nomination is going to trigger this form of threats. This needs to be addressed. Please, take a look at the sources, when you will be closing the discussion.

There is one article they paid for themselves with BBC. Simple Google search reveals it all. I did some research. The other so-called co-founder is in the section "Fraud · Tax · Liquidations & Insolvencies · Investment · Listed Securities · Money Laundering · Bribery & Corruption · Government & Politicians"- https://www.offshorealert.com/tag/benjamin-miller/?srsltid=AfmBOoqKsOR3yQuOIaGUZeG_PFUv2QEp3YNPXuXvOxmitAhsvl_Gov9Q Moondust534 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moondust534,

It's best to present your argument including reliable sources, not just accusations, at the AFD discussion where it can be considered by other editors. Because this message could be seen as a form of canvassing (see Wikipedia:Canvassing), I won't be closing this AFD discussion. I've posted a message on your User talk page to the anonymous IP editor who was asking you to withdraw the deletion nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the March 2024 AfD on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sunnya343,

I haven't looked at this RFC yet but I'd be surprised if any airline destination articles are still present on the project. Most were deleted through AFD discussions from 2023-2024. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Manaud

Would it be possible to re-open this article, which was a PROD you deleted? (PS. It wasn’t one of my PRODs. 😉) Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bgsu98,

Done Just a note that this was a BLPPROD, not a regular PROD, so it needs to have a citation soon or it will likely be tagged for deletion again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I'll take a look at it and it's not workable, I'll tag it myself. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, the article had nothing useful, and I wasn’t able to find any sourcing beyond the fact that he’s now a skating official. I’ve tagged it for BLPPROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Just realized you may not have pings enabled, so putting this here. I responded to the message you left on my talk. I won't process ACC requests pending your response. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mdaniels5757,

Thanks for this notice, I don't watch pings but after seeing this notice, I'm responded on your User talk page. Please do not stop with your ACC work, I obviously stumbled upon an unusual case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

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

MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Discworld Convention

Hi Liz, how can I get the info from the old, The North American Discworld Convention article folded into the International Discworld Convention article?Halbared (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, it has been a week. I went to the 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The North American Discworld Convention' page, and then to the WP:refund page. The opening paragraph is,

I went to the  Are you in the right place?
If your article was deleted through the articles for deletion process, then a request here is not the way to seek restoration.  If you believe that the   deletion was handled improperly or that circumstances have changed, please contact the administrator who deleted it.  If such concerns are not addressed  by the deleting administrator, you may seek redress at deletion review.

Can you assist here please? I think the info at The North American Discworld Convention should be folded into the International Discworld Convention.Halbared (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Primefac (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figure Skating FYI

Hi! Just mentioned you here and suggested that MC might contact you for the draft so wanted to give you the heads up. (The deletion is fine, no issue with that at all). Have a great day Star Mississippi 14:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a page I wrote

I just got a notification of deletion of a page I wrote by yourself citing some sort of reason I don't understand. The article is in reference to a defined standard and as such is self sustaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDX_(IPC-257X)&action=edit&redlink=1 I may not be the best at writing original articles and I really don't recall or can see what I wrote, but given my passion for detail and accuracy together with extensive domain knowledge I expect it was as accurate as possible. JayMoog (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Liz, following on from our recent exchange at ANI I just wanted to acknowledge the accuracy of what you said and my appreciation to you for having said it. You were correct in relation to the type of user that I had become over the course of recent months.

Nonetheless, with regard to it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be I just wanted to reiterate that everything I said in that thread was entirely genuine.

I have acknowledged and apologised for my errors in great detail and have offered to moderate my future conduct in ways that far exceed even the requests of my greatest critics. For further evidence of self reflection please see my recent comment to Timtrent, here [1].

My only wish now is to be allowed to move on and to put these events behind me. Earlier today I overhauled my userpage [2] from the recent version displaying my COI-related barnstars to a rather older version setting out my previous rather modest activities in content improvement. Hopefully this gives further indication of my intentions going forward.

Thank you again for your very perceptive input. Axad12 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this barnstar was made for you

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Lately I've seen your comments around in several discussions, and I realized that they always seem to contribute insight and understanding, and to relieve some tension in the discussion. I think I have some pages to take from you in learning how to conduct myself in heated exchanges. Best wishes. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Photos of Japan,

Thank you for the barnstar. I have some links to some articles/essays at the top of my user talk page that have guided some of the work I do. I just try to remember that every account is a person who might be having a really bad day. I think we can be quick to just want to block editors that might cause occasional disruption when they really need is some education. But they have to be open to it and for some editors, realizing you don't know it all can be the hardest step.

But I think you'd be surprised if you looked into the early editing histories of editors who have been here for a long time and see that they didn't "get" all of our policies immediately when they first started editing. Heck, I was part of an SPI case in my first months here because a longtime editor thought I "knew too much" so I must be a sockpuppet. So, we need to realize that a) everyone makes mistakes, b) a actual human comment usually works better than a template and c) don't assume bad motivations when the truth actually lies in ignorance of specific policies. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

Les Jours and East View Press join the library
Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-jae

Liz, I'm sorry to bother you as I know you are busy. When you have a minute, could you close this AFD as Speedy Keep, per a discussion that took place there. Thank you so much. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bgsu98,

Done I don't watch pings so thanks for posting a note here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, at the very least, you receive lots of messages, so I'm sure it's easy to miss one. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Advice

Hi, As you’ve noticed, in the ANI titled Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ;:User:DarwIn. It has become a colossal mess and it’s all over the place with the community heavily divided as to the full ramifications. I would like to request if you in your capacity as an arbitrator could bring this up to the Committee because I think the community is so divided on this issue that it’s not gonna end well. I think the community deserves to have a final answer to this because of the crazy nature of this post and I believe if the committee was to get involved. It would resolve things. I was considering filing a request but since I’m not party to the case and I am merely an outsider I believe I have no grounds for this.

What are your thoughts on this? You mentioned I am inexperienced and I admit I am as I am wet behind the ears so to speak so I’d like advice from you as an arbitrator and experienced editor. Reader of Information (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Reader of Information,

First, always provide a link to the article or discussion you are referring to. Otherwise, the other editor has to go searching for it which is likely to decrease the possibility that they will respond.

Secondly, I have become an arbitrator a week ago and have not done any official arbitration committee work yet. So, I don't think I have any more standing than you would. If you would like ARBCOM to consider a case, it would be more effective for you to open a case request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case or email the committee <arbcom-en@wikimedia.org>. I don't mean to dismiss your request but this dispute seems much more important to you than it is to me. But once you provide me with a link, I'll give it a look. But just know that many complaints posted to ANI or AN never receive official closure, especially when opinion is divided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents?markasread=333495959&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Emm90-20250111125800-InvictumAlways-20241231043900

Sure thing. Here it is. Reader of Information (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents?markasread=333495959&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Cross-wiki_harassment_and_transphobia_from_User:DarwIn

Actually this might work better Reader of Information (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't work just go to the section that mentions darwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Reader of Information (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traveen Mathew

Good morning, afternoon or evening (whichever is correct for you). As you are the closing admin for the Traveen Mathew articles for deleting page I would like to raise your awareness of the fact that, despite what an as I write unsigned user has suggested, I am neither the original editor of this man's page nor am I paid to edit on this website or any other for that matter. I don't really see why I have to point this out but as I have been accused I thought I'd reply. The user who accused me (Cameremote) has had numerous warnings about conflict of interest and other such matters. Cheers. Lookslikely (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lookslikely,

Can you provide a link to the article or to an AFD if that is what occurring? Then I can look into your concerns once I can easily check the page you are referring to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FTraveen_Mathew Lookslikely (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lookslikely,

Thank you for the link. I've made additional comments on this AFD about this editor casting aspersions. I should also point out that they are a new editor which doesn't absolve the editor from acting poorly but they are likely unfamiliar with discussion norms on this platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Lookslikely (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrected page

Hi Liz, I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could help me understand how this page failed to pass muster at an AfD and yet somehow still lives. I'm asking you as the closer, since you might have a better idea if what's going on here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Iskandar323: This looks like a failure of the closure/delete tool. I have manually deleted it. You may want to change all of the links to the now deleted article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up/resolving it. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iskandar323 and UtherSRG,

These look like two different article pages. You were concerned with List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023 but the AFD was for Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. I don't think that List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2023 should have been deleted as we have other years' articles listed at Category:Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and now the 2023 article is missing. If you wanted to do a bundled AFD nomination, I think that is where you'd start. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. I have restored the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess this diff bamboozled me. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for mopping up old unreferenced pages. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bearian,

I'm not sure which page you are referring to but I try to help where I can. We have tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) pf old user space drafts I wish we had a way to clean up but so far they have been off-limits for decades. Some are rather promotional but so far I haven't tagged any as CSD G11s yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to your work at CAT:PROD. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from JJPMaster

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at JJPMaster's talk page.
Message added 04:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 04:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DreamRimmer

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at User talk:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts.
Message added 07:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello @Liz Thank you for your messages on my talk page. I have replied there but thought I would post my reply here also so as to be sure you saw it. I hope that is ok?

I read each article and each attached reference, if they open as some do not. I do a Google search for each subject matter and look at each result that comes up. I then write my response. I accept my responses are brief but I did not know they had to be any certain length. I can assure you I do not just vote without trying my best to be fully informed. I know Moscow Connection says otherwise but that is untrue and I am saddened that you have decided to take their word as fact. I have had several articles deleted and know how upsetting that is and therefore would never vote to delete something which I did not truly believe should be removed and had looked into. As you will see I often vote to keep articles or redirect. I also usually do my research on several articles then post my responses in one go which will explain why my replies often come in batches. Since my efforts are obviously not wanted and I am now receiving this thinly veiled threat from an admin, I will cease participating in AFDs other than ones involving any articles which I have started or been heavily involved in. As for blanking my talk page, I did not know there were any rules against doing so and you can check the logs to see what has previously been written. Once again thank you for your messages Shrug02 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz In fact on further reflection, after more than 12,000 edits (93% in the main space) and 55 articles created (excluding about 10 which were deleted), I will (with great sadness as I have enjoyed editing and as a disabled person have limited other activities I can do), quit Wikipedia and leave it to you, Moscow Connection and JTtheOG. I don't want to be under constant monitoring and threats. Shrug02 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz You know what, on further, further reflection, I am not going to let you force me to give up one of the few things that I enjoy doing in life. I have done nothing wrong. I have always acted in good faith and I believe I have added a great deal to Wikipedia. If you want to force me to quit then go through the proper channels where at least I can defend myself publicly. I would be interested to know if you have sent similar messages to the many other people who write brief responses to AFDs? I could provide a list but I do not want to be seen as casting aspirations against anyone else in the way you have me. Shrug02 (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reissues

Hello mate, there's an ongoing discussion about album reissues and remixes at WikiProject Music. Please do stop by and leave your suggestion Thank you. dxneo (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Retention of the Article on Khaleedthefirst and Commitment to Improvement

Hello @Liz,

I understand that the article about "Khaleedthefirst" has been nominated for speedy deletion, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I know I still have much to learn, but I am very passionate about contributing and improving my editing skills. Writing articles has always been a dream of mine, and I’m committed to making sure the information I contribute is accurate, reliable, and properly sourced.

Regarding the article on "Khaleedthefirst," I am actively working to gather better sources and factual information about the subject. I realize that more verifiable references are needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards, and I’m focused on finding high-quality, independent sources to support the content. I want to ensure the article is both neutral and comprehensive, and I plan to revise it accordingly.

I’m aware that the subject may not yet meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, but I ask for your understanding and support as I continue working on improving the article. It’s important to me that I contribute to Wikipedia in a meaningful way, and I’m eager to learn from experienced editors like yourself to ensure the content is up to standard.

I sincerely hope that you will allow me the opportunity to improve the article, and I am more than willing to collaborate with others to make sure it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

@Kyledave2025 Kyledave2025 (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kyledave2025,

I didn't think Khaleedthefirst demonstrated what we look for, which is notability so I tagged it for WP:CSD which is called "speedy deletion" here, but since you are new to Wikipedia I'll let you know that every page that is tagged for deletion is reviewed a) either by another administrator or b) discussed in an AFD deletion discussion. In this case, an administrator disagreed with my evaluation and untagged the article. I think you would benefit from looking at their edit in the page history to see why they thought the article might demostrate notability.

If you have questions about notability and editing on Wikipedia, I recommend you bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand and thanks so much for your Advice @Liz Kyledave2025 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback at FFD

I've always gotten the impression you have either pings disabled or too many pings to keep track of, so here's small no-pressure to do anything notice to say I responded [3]. Also, omg your edit notice has a kitten in it - I love it so much and I love the anti-vandal kitten. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian,

Your impression is correct. I guess there is a Wikipedia grapevine. In the past, the issue was that the majority of my edits are to User talk pages and the majority of those edits are to User talk pages for very new editors. So, I was getting a lot of pings with questions about general editing on this project, more questions than I could respond to.

But after a few years of not paying attention to pings, I should probably try again to see if I can respond to the ones that I get. Not being responsive to pings does irritate some longtime editors who don't know to come to my own User talk page.

I very rarely participate in FFD discussions so I'm not familiar with the norms of that deletion forum. I just happen to come across this image in an ANI discussion on the same day as you nomiated it so I thought I'd post a comment, not a vote. I will readily admit that after editing on this project for 11 1/2 years, my weakest areas of knowledge are files and templates so I usually don't butt regarding these pages. But I'll check in and see how you responded to my comment and, you know, I'll probably learn something new! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

From the editors: Looking back, looking forward

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024

In the media: Will you be targeted?

Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last

Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia

Opinion: Reflections one score hence

News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free

Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next

Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia

In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take?

Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics

Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Murder in YYYY

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Murder in YYYY on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry from Germany

Dear Liz, I am a member of the German Wikipedia. A friend of mine, an investigative journalist from Germany, asked me to contact you. He has some questions regarding YoungHoon Kim's attempt to add an article to the American Wikipedia. How can he get in touch with you? I'm not able to send you an email here. In any case, I can't find the function for this. The interface of the German Wikipedia is structured differently. Maybe you would respond to my request here? Thank you very much and kind regards... NellsPort (in GER-Wiki) NellsPort (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're mentioned in this article in one of the most frequented news websites in Germany. --NellsPort (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC) https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/gesellschaft/id_100575514/alice-weidel-und-die-afd-fallen-auf-hochstapler-rein.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawH2JexleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWRerQmH2ww0B3crgEj2jN24W0diprMYXUVWPfcEhMy1Ob5GYRdTJ6kZ3w_aem_UsdXjtri2_mvLY6_lT8SPA[reply]

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

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Ballet premieres by date

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Ballet premieres by date on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for advice about recent AN/I closure

Hi Liz! I recently raised an ANI filing that you commented on, and I just wanted a piece of third party advice about its closure, and what (if anything) I should do about it. I'm coming to you rather than the closing admin as, based on their last comment, I'm worried that if I attempt to discuss the closure with them directly they will interpret it as a personal attack on another user, which isn't my intentions.

I personally think the last comment and closing statement is incorrect, that Sro23 did not say what they are being claimed to have said at SPI (comment in question - they say Note: StrexcorpEmployee behaves differently from previous sockpuppets, which I'm sure is just Sro23 saying the SPI pages got incorrectly merged the day prior; not a response to the IP user's comment giving evidence linking the two accounts). The closing admin closed the AN/I topic and gave me a formal warning based on this. I feel a bit powerless here and I feel like this warning was unfairly applied and based on a misreading, especially when no other admin weighed in on Sro23's comment, and I don't feel able to go to the closing admin directly. I'm mainly asking for admin input - is this a clear cut case of me just being in the wrong? If so I'll just take it on the chin and move on. But really I think this formal warning is overly harsh, and (if appropriate) would like it struck, but I don't know how to pursue that without causing a scene. Any advice (including simply saying "Bugghost, you're in the wrong, just drop it"), would be appreciated. Thanks! BugGhost 🦗👻 05:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sapo.pt

Hi Liz, could you undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Election categories

No worries. The trick that was complicating it for you is that the categories weren't straight declarations, but were using complex switch coding to factor for the variables in each category name (like the year, the federal, provincial or territorial distinction, etc.) — and what made it a pain for me was that because it was done the way it was done, there was no way to fix the federal categories without breaking the provincial and territorial categories at the same time.

But since the provincial and territorial categories were eventually going to get moved anyway on the same grounds, it would have made no sense to either revert all the category moves or try to get a half-measure added to the template that only fixed the federal categories only to have to undo it again a few days or weeks later — so I just went for the whole enchilada, and then buckled down and dealt with moving the provincial and territorial categories right away.

I'm not always an expert in template coding either, especially when I come across redlinks created because the category generation is sequestered off in a module I can't edit at all, but luckily this one fell inside what I knew how to fix. But thanks for the props! Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create an article for Allicia Juarrero, noted theorist and philosopher

However, a previous draft was deleted due to inactivity:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

20:03, July 29, 2024 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Alicia Juarrero (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) Tag: Twinkle (thank)

Extracosmonaut (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Extracosmonaut You can recreate the page, please just know that you are not allowed to recreate pages with the same content that have been deleted per a discussion. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! The message was a little unclear because I will create a page that is similar (contact the user) although it will have new content (please continue).

Thank you for your response and your welcome. Extracosmonaut (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Myth

Hello, and a question. I've been taken to task for commenting too much in the AfD, although I feel I'm just correcting basic mistakes in editor's comments. Now another 'merge' comment also misses the point of a museum source being counted towards GNG. Can I comment again, or does being accused of bludgeoning by those who want to delete an article carry some kind of actual weight of "don't comment again or else". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Seems I don't have to comment again as someone has come along with several additional good sources. Just not understanding why correcting misinformation in such a discussion can be considered bludgeoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki version history

Hi Liz,

Thanks for closing the AfD for this article :)

As you mentioned in your close that it would be a possibility, I’ve recreated the title as a redirect. Would you be opposed to undeleting its history for posterity & access by non-administrators?

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 16:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Per your request for more details about Outting. TiggerJay (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Raegan Revord (2nd nomination) close

About trouting @PrimeHunter.

The afd was, briefly, closed as keep between here and here, there was a DRV.

PrimeHunter's move occured here which is within that c. 35h timespan. Basically because I asked him.

Per this, I see nothing troutable about PrimeHunter's draft move. Also, all comments after the first relist (which also was the DRV-reopening) is referring to the current (mostly) article-version, which is more substantial than the keep version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline is too confusing to follow. An article shouldn't be moved in the midst of an AFD discussion. If it was moved during some weird time zone when the AFD was temporarily chosed, that should have been mentioned prominently in the AFD and the AFD should have been closed at that time. There was no "right" closure with this AFD since the article changed midway through the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't moved in the midst of an AFD discussion (it's not that confusing, is it? DRV:s happen). The afd was closed keep, and there was no reason at the time to think that was temporarily. It was noted in the afd that there had been a DRV, though arguably not prominently (the re-opener did state "Reverting non-admin close and relisting as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity."). Ping @OwenX and @Pppery if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence of events:

The AfD was closed as keep.[4] There was no indication it would be temporary.
On a request I moved a better version of the article whose inferior version had already been kept.[5]
Somebody opened a DRV.[6]
The AfD was reopened.[7]

I could not predict 3 and 4. The closed AfD page [8] said as usual

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I posted what I did to the article's talk page.[9] There was no deletion review at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with the logic that rewriting an article during the AFD invalidates the AFD. Notability is usually independent of the state or quality of the article.

That was a weird afd because it was an nactor and gng fail, but experienced editors really wanted to keep it.

I wouldn't have minded a keep outcome for that afd. The article is useful and encyclopedic. It doesn't hurt anything by having it. Just my two cents. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors also wanted to delete. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS please consider archiving your user talk page. My phone is lagging really hard trying to do anything on this page. Thank you –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the draft had been around quite awhile, submitted several times [10] and was waiting for review (again) when someone put the version that was taken to afd in mainspace, so the afd was going on at the same time as the old draft was waiting for assessment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 19. —Cryptic 21:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"2025 TikTok refugee crisis" page move

You may have forgotten to revert the talk page move for the article 2025 TikTok refugee crisis.
Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reverts by User:FlightTime

Hello Liz,

with respect to your comment to FlightTime, also note this revert of four edits in one go and this revert of 17 edits in one go which I brought up for discussion. The latter remains unresolved. I have requested independent peer review, but I'm unsure if I will get a response.

@FlightTime:

@Mjdestroyerofworlds: Apologies for the summoning, but this might get side-tracked if I don't.

Regards,

2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Thank you. I'm still concerned that you seem to be treating these as isolated incidents, just to be reverted, with no adjustments to be made to future behaviour. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, can you please look into this user's CONTINUING reverts of my actions? This is a completely unreasonable level of preoccupation with my edits. 04:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted all my edits on the Fender article, however this edit is not how to improve the article, article talk pages are not a forum and that is my rational for the removal. Do what you want to the article, if your edits are an issue going forward, then other page watcher's will handle them. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 06:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: The edit you refer to is not the one in question (I was not involved in that edit). The edit in question is this where it is my assessment a rule was made up just to be able to revert the edit in bad faith. As someone who believes that Wikipedia should be open to all, and someone who has consistently adhered to editing standards, I will pursue this until I can be sure that you have ceased your WP:BITEy behaviour, because I see it in your other edits as well, and so has Liz. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:F9AC:44A9:54D4:299B (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untrout please

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination), you trouted a user for having moved an article in the midst of an AFD discussion. However, that's not actually what happened. What went down is:

AFD discussion was closed, and included in that AFD discussion was talk about how the draft version should be used instead, with general concurrence there and elsewhere.
The move was done
The AFD was reopened due to having been closed improperly. after that being requested (by me) at deletion review.

(An in any case, it shouldn't matter, since the discussion was over the notability of the topic, and both versions of the article were on the same topic.) I suggest that you at the very least undo the trouting, and consider undoing the closure altogether. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the trouting, yes. Undo the closing, no. Marbe166 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page has become very long

Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page, Liz. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, please help

Hey, @Liz I hope your are well, a group of editors overreacted and reverted my edits aggressively. While i was trying to improve the SIF article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, Because i was reading similar article, Minjung theology before and the criticism section make it easy to understand.

Theology and criticism are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense. I even tried to discuss it with them but they are threatening on my talk page, may be they think they have some sort of ownership of the article. One of them has been blocked before for such behavior.

I only made these edits in last A and B , but they reverted them also, repeatedly!! Sokoreq (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

Re: User:102.220.210.123, to clarify I wasn't requesting an indef block, only providing commentary for context. Predominantly to dissuade an admin from a worthless 48-72 hour block, given the IP appears appears to have remained static for past 9 days already, thus gone beyond the usual DHCP average lease times. I was hoping an admin would read between the lines as occured. CNC (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz

Strange but true, I come home to link to my article and you have deleted it: "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 05:54, 16 January 2025 Liz talk contribs deleted page Michael Boyer (Expired PROD, concern was: Only one properly cited source. No indication that this would pass WP:GNG. It seems like this article is a relic of 2007 Wikipedia that has never had a proper review since then. It seems like a major reason why this article has been kept around is because the subject of the article semi-regularly edits it.) Tag: Twinkle (thank) " Please set me back up. What kind of reference to my existence is necessary? https://www.imdb.com/de/name/nm2255123/?ref_=fn_all_nme_10 https://www.hameln.de/de/tourismus/service/hmt-und-stadtmarketing-verein Will a reinstatement relink me to "People born in Harrisburg" etc. ? Thank you in advance! ~~ Michael. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepiedpiper (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please (when you have time, and no longer feel stressed) delete Easher Austin? Thanks! See also Special:Contributions/89.243.214.113. Polygnotus (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't this wait for 7 day period to be up? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That "stressed" edit notice is from this summer after my mom died, I really have to remove that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, my condolences. It is not time-sensitive at all. I just figured I'd mention it here because you do a lot of cleanup work. It looks like user TheTechie added that template in this edit. Polygnotus (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus Yeah, I did that after they mentioned it casually and I got permission to add it. Please ping me next time, though. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: Why? I am not saying you did something wrong, I asssumed it was upon request, otherwise Liz would've removed it a long time ago. Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a courtesy, I asked. I didn't assume you accused me. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: Sorry, I am basically a goldfish suffering from memory loss, although I am worse at soccer/football and driving. Polygnotus (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

@Liz, its Nelson. I would want to thank you for the matter. I am glad that you and the others helped out in this case; the matter had been affecting me personally. Still, I have a concern that he might retaliate again despite the block and might go further on.

I had not responded to him directly because I do not wish to make enemies or increase the conflict, and even gave him chances. I am shocked and saddened that he would be going after me for the photo issue when it could be easily resolved in another, perhaps an even better way and somehow, I was singled out. It was my interest in crime that made me come here years ago and he said a lot of things, whether indirect or direct, and yeah it affected me for the week throughout. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1487 in Spain has been nominated for merging

Category:1487 in Spain has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Beland (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19 § Natural disasters by year

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19 § Natural disasters by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord and XFD banners

Have you ever noticed the difference between the banner on an article that has been nominated for deletion and the banner on a draft that has been nominated for deletion? An article says not to remove the notice until the AFD is closed. A draft or essay or whatever says not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice until the AFD is closed. I have said, for several years, that the AFD banner should contain the same notice. What happened with Raegan Revord is that an editor moved the page by replacing it with another page, gumming up the AFD. A notice not to move the page would have been useful.

This was a misguided good-faith move that was not a good idea. What I have seen more times is a bad-faith move. An author, maybe a conflict of interest editor, or maybe just an ultra, creates an article. A reviewer draftifies it. The author moves it back to article space. A reviewer then writes an AFD and nominates the article. The author then moves the article back to draft space, to stop the AFD, preventing the community from reaching consensus.

This mess would have been avoided if there were a Do Not Move notice, and if it were heeded. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The afd notice used to say exactly that - see for example this old version. It seems to have gone missing during the cut and paste to what's now at Template:Afd in 2006, and the deletion of the old history conveniently covers it up. —Cryptic 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue at Village Pump - Proposals. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon This subject has been in a kind of "development hell" for quite awhile. The draft was pending for review (again), and someone decided during that pending to make a new version and put it in main-space, and that version was taken to afd. Then the afd closed keep, the "swapping" happened, there was a DRV, and the afd was reopened, then closed by Liz. And now there is a new DRV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rouge admin

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear, Deepfriedokra,

Do you realize that the whole notion of "rogue admins" has been around for 18 years, back when admins would occasionally actually go rogue? Look at old ARBCOM cases and noticeboard discussions and it wasn't that uncommon for rogue admins back then to just act without any attempt to justify their actions by referring to policies. It was a wilder time but there are some longtimers who miss those days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was long ago. But the misspelling of rogue is still with us. One admin deleted AfD (or was it VfD then?) and then there was the Userbox wheel war. And more. Amazing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I recently discovered this. Polygnotus (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How delightful -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that certain someone would learn ho to spell "rogue" r-o-g-u-e and not r-o-u-g-e. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about AfD

Hello, I am messaging you because I have seen you close multiple AfD's I have started, and no doubt countless more. I started a new AfD a couple days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Hildebrandt, and there is a brand new account that has never edited before voting in it. I wanted to know who they were after they voted to keep it without citing any specific notability guidelines the article passed or guidelines more generally that would support keeping the article, and I came to find out they were a brand new user whose account was registered six hours ago, as of writing this. I am not contacting you as an administrator to get this user in trouble, I just don't quite know how to take this, since in the interest of not casting aspersions, I don't want to accuse them of sockpuppetry. But at the same time, I don't know why a brand new account would be voting in an AfD. I do want to assume good faith, but I find it kind of strange myself.

But that's just me. Do you have any thoughts on how this situation can be handled in the context of determining consensus for this discussion? JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of help with ArbCom

Hi Liz. As we head into week four of the year, I have noticed that you had been inactive all year so far with ArbCom. Coming here I see you've made a couple of comments [11] [12] suggesting that you might be having trouble getting started. I'm sure that your colleagues are ready to be of help but sometimes it's easier to get help from someone a little removed. If I can be that person to you please don't hesitate to reach out - here or via email. Given your overwhelming trust by the community - 1100 votes! (real votes too not !votes) and 80% support! - I can't be the only one eager to see your work on the committee. But I could also see how that election result could put a lot of pressure on someone. So if it's that or anything else that I could be of assistance with, please do let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barkeep49,

Thank you for reaching out in such a polite, gentle way. I'll just say that the biggest concern I saw in the questions I faced during the pre-election process was the high level of activity I spend on this project already. It was a valid concern and it's been a challenge for me to cut back my busy admin activities to make space for arbitration work. I also have a separate email account for arbitration work that I need to start checking more regularly. And all of the arbitration wiki pages that I don't seem to be able to find links for.

So, I think my biggest problem is not scheduling in ARBCOM work into my daily routine of tasks. I do feel a great deal of pressure though and dismay that I haven't made that job a priority in my on-wiki time. I'll try to make a fresh start tomorrow morning and if I have questions, I'll reach out to you. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you'll reach out. I hope you'll forgive a couple of follow-up comments. As for And all of the arbitration wiki pages that I don't seem to be able to find links for. the best place to start might be {{ArbComOpenTasks}} which lists all the open onwiki buisness of ArbCom and can be found on each of the three work pages (Requests, Motions, Amendments). Diving into PIA at this point might be hard. But there is an open request for amending the scope of the American Poliltics contentious topic open at WP:ARCA that might be up your ally? As for the email checking, having just started my own separate email for the U4C, I've been forwarding to my main wiki account. That way I know when there's something in there to check. This might be helpful as you establish habits and then you can easily turn it off? But so much of the important work happens in email and yes figuring out how ArbCom fits into the flow of your life and wiki work is a challenge for every new arb. Given your experience (and perhaps a little trial and error) I'm sure you'll figure it out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I hope neither you nor Barkeep minds me sticking my nose in. I would suggest making emails part of your daily routine; the way I do it is I check all my notifications (work, social, Wikimedia) first thing in the morning and then every few hours as I get chance, usually on my phone just to keep abreast of anything urgent but find a workflow that works for you. Anything older than a day or two can probably safely be archived unless it's of special interest or you want to plough through. Then you can just watchlist the relevant pages on-wiki as long as you check your watchlist regularly. You don't need to worry about arbwiki on a day-to-day basis. If it helps, I give freely of my phone number to anyone who isn't a loony. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I give freely of my phone number to anyone who isn't a loony. :) ahh well that explains why I never got it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that criterion excludes anyone who stood for election to ArbCom! But you never asked. Kevin did though. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Prod

" It also shouldn't have been tagged for deletion FOUR minutes after it was created." It was created a week earlier ([13]), it's not as if the creator had had no time to work on it (and they had extensively worked on it previously in the Spanish version as well). That they put it in the mainspace via a cut-and-paste move is allowed in a case like this, but that doesn't mean that it is a "new" creation where the creator needs to be given time and space to work on it. Fram (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fram,

I was not aware of the article draft in User space, I was just looking at the main space version although the fact that it was cut and pasted should have been obvious to me. I was still surprised that it was tagged for an AFD discussion just a few minutes after it was created, I don't know how you even spotted it so soon after the article was published.

I apologize if my tone was sharp, I just think that content creators should be given more time to improve a new article before deletion is considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recently speedy deleted article

Hello, you recently speedy deleted Nom Krouk. I had been editing that article to be in a better state than it was before, and I would to have it please be undeleted. At the time of deletion, the article would not have fallen under G12. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TansoShoshen,

I deleted this article as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nom Krouk and it was the consensus opinion of he tparticipants that it was a copyright violation. I can't revert my closure because you disagree with the consensus of the other participants who all argued for Deletion. Ordinarily, upon request I would restore an article deleted through AFD to Draft space but I can't do that with content that might be a copyright violation. Admins can't restore content that has been tagged as a possible copyright violation.

I would recommend starting a new article from scratch but if you really want this old content restored, you'll have to file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and argue that the closure of the discussion was incorrect. If participants in the review agree with you, they can decide to overturn my closure and restore the article to main space or draft space. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy

Liz, your diplomatic and good faith approach is inspiring and makes me want to be even better. Thank you for being a fantastic example to others. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tiggerjay,

Well, that is a very kind thing to say! Thank you. I just know that when I was a new editor, I was very frustrated, mouthed off at the Teahouse about how illogical this project was and could be a general poin in the ass. But some editors steered me out of trouble, I took a WikiBreak for a few months and came back with a better attitude.

Unless someone is just vandalizing or spamming, I think it's best to try to talk to editors. We aren't supposed to give "cool down" blocks but sometimes I think some angry editors just need to step away for a day and return when they aren't so frustrated or tired. And this goes for some experienced editors, too. Thanks again for the nice note. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just look a look at my first talk page message, it was posted by someone doing AIV patrolling and I had made a sizable copy edit that had a larger net size reduction that caught their eye and I hadn’t used an edit summary. They started from AGF and too a look and saw that it it was probably constructive, and left a welcome template with a personal note about using edit summaries. I think there was more good faith contributors back 18 years ago, it’s something we need to bring back. And of course, it starts with us. Thanks again and keep up the great work! TiggerJay (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your CSD Log

Hi! I just noticed that "January 2025" in your CSD log (I was on AN when my kitten pawed my phone and it must have triggered a click to your contribs and then the log, I'm not sure how hahaha but my kitten does get very curious about what I'm doing sometimes) was a level 3 heading, while the other months are level 2, so it was appearing as a subheading under "December 2024". I just fixed this, if this was intentional feel free to undo it! Thank you! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 09:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law schools in Taiwan

Hello. I noticed that you have undone my edits to migrate articles that were in Category:Law schools in the Republic of China to Category:Law schools in Taiwan. Given Taiwan is the main article of the topic and List of law schools in Taiwan the main list for the category, is there a rationale for the reversion? Or, have I gone about the move in the wrong way? Butterdiplomat (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drv notice

{{subst:DRVNote|Tyson Apostol}} I hope I did the format right Wwew345t (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great i messed both of those up im so sorry its my first tjme trying to make a drv Wwew345t (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 24 to save you the trouble of going and looking. —Cryptic 14:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Library House

Can you gie me a copy of the references and content of this page. I have otherwise no way of knowing if the Prod was valid. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Request for Review: Deletion of Dr. Moeed Pirzada's Page.

Dear Liz, I am writing to formally request a review of the deletion of the Wikipedia page for Dr. Moeed Pirzada. As a long-standing article that had existed on Wikipedia for more than 10–15 years, its removal appears to have been based on entries and claims made in a very short period, specifically during April 2024. This raises significant concerns regarding the legitimacy and intent behind those entries, as well as the fairness of the decision-making process. Upon reviewing the deletion discussion, it is evident that the contributions leading to this decision were coordinated to create a narrative that resulted in the page's removal. Allegations of promotional content, puffery, and reliance on unreliable sources were made in rapid succession. However, these claims failed to take into account the historical stability of the article and the well-established notability of Dr. Moeed Pirzada, who is a highly respected journalist and political commentator with a substantial body of work. Dr. Moeed Pirzada has made significant contributions to the promotion of democracy, free speech, and informed discourse, particularly in Pakistan. He is currently under severe threat from Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and the Pakistan Army due to his vocal opposition to military dictatorship. He has been a staunch advocate for civilian supremacy and democracy and is standing firmly in support of the imprisoned former Prime Minister, Imran Khan. These threats and his efforts to speak truth to power underscore his relevance and importance as a public figure. His notability can be further verified through numerous credible sources. Additionally, he maintains an active online presence, which demonstrates his influence and reach: YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@DrMoeedPirzadaOfficial (692K+ subscribers) Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/MoeedNj (3.3MM+ followers) Given the coordinated nature of the entries and the lack of consideration for the article's longstanding presence and stability, I believe the deletion decision may have been improperly influenced. I respectfully request a thorough review of this case, with particular attention to: The sudden surge of entries in April 2024 questioning the article's integrity. The long-standing presence of the page prior to these claims. Dr. Moeed Pirzada’s significant career, influence, and notability, which are verifiable through credible, independent sources. I urge Wikipedia to uphold its commitment to fairness and ensure that its platform is not misused for targeted actions or to suppress public figures. Reinstating the page, with appropriate edits to address any valid concerns, would be a fair and just resolution to this matter. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Mike Mike D11102 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A minor note on xtools

Hello Liz. This is a minor reminder about xtools:

Go to "Pages Created" on: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org
On the fourth row you can see the option corresponding to this distinction (i.e. exclude/include page-redirects)

I did not make this up. It's already there by design. I have already learned how to deal with this though. See for example this page, Initially this was a redirect. But I created the page somewhere else, and then asked it to be moved there. So it's all fine and dandy now. Xpander (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carr-Hartley

I was pretty sure I dePRODed this one. I thought I added a few details about this Olympian also being an actor. Could you check to see if I'm remembering right? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)

You did contest it, and I've restored @BeanieFan11

Not watching, so please ping me if anything further is needed. Star Mississippi 22:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2025 cut-paste move, again

The page you draftified has been re-created again via cut-paste move: Draft:Miss Earth 2025 -> Miss Earth 2025. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

28 January

Hello, I am here to ask you about a situation and get advice as you are an admin. I created an article, and it was nominated for deletion by a user. The deletion discussion was later closed by another user, resulting in the article’s deletion. After the deletion, I noticed two editors exhibiting very similar actions, which led me to suspect they might be sockpuppets. Acting in good faith, I opened an investigation to clarify the situation. However, an admin deleted the investigation without conducting any review and aggressively warned me for opening it.

I suspect this might be due to potential bias, as one of the accounts I flagged appears to also be an admin. I would like to ask: is it acceptable under Wikipedia rules to close such an investigation without actually investigating it?

If possible, I’d appreciate your input on this matter. You can read the full discussion here: User_talk:Wiseuseraze#January_2025 Wiseuseraze (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiseuseraze,

I read over the deleted SPI report and you didn't provide any evidence to support your suspicions. And it is hard to imagine an admin who has been an editor for 12 years would jeopardize that position by creating a sockpuppet for no apparent reason. Making a claim like this and presenting no evidence is considered "casting aspersions" and I think that is why the report was deleted. I think it was investigated and judged to be baseless.

What exactly were these "very similar actions" that you spotted on one page of probably hundreds or thousands of pages that they have edited? Was it just because they both voted to delete this article that you created? I know it's hard when you have created an article to have it considered for deletion but I think you have to review the comments made in an AFD in good faith and not see conspiracies where none exist.

I don't think the SPI report was deleted because one of the accused is an admin but because this editor has been active for over a decade and it would be very unusual and hard to believe that they would create a sockpuppet and you didn't present any evidence that persuaded the admin who reviewed the report that you were accurate in your judgment. The lesson here is not that admins don't make mistakes--we do--but if you are going to accuse a long-standing editor of misconduct, you better have solid evidence to present in your case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz Thank you for your detailed explanation. My inexperience may have contributed to this, and I’ll try to assess such situations more appropriately in the future. Wiseuseraze (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New question

Hi there, thanks for your respond. If you have any time could you see it. It seems have some grammer problems and I want to improve it.

Edit: In January 2025, Malinin complete the 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. He scored 114.08, take a lead in the short program. In the free skate, he attempted and landed all six types of seven quads, success finish in quad flip, quad axel, two quad lutzes and quad salchow, but fell on quad loop and earned 219.23 points, bringing his total score to 333.31 and securing his third consecutive national titles.

Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guns of Muschu

Hi, please can you advise on how to proceed with The Guns of Muschu. The page was created in mainspace but fails WP:FILM as principal photography hasn’t started. There was already a draft on going at Draft:The Guns Of Muschu prior to the mainspace article creation. I put a deletion tag on it but that was removed with a message to draftify it, which I did, but that’s now been reverted too. Many thanks, G Hildreth gazzard (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakestan incident

Hello Admin Lakestan incident it was kurdish rebels victory not Azeri persian and Assyrian it was changed by IP i have sources it was kurdish rebels victory:https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C9%99kistan_hadis%C9%99si it was Azerbaijan wikipedia it was said ti kurdish victory and successful invasion and massacre not failed MASSACRE already exists :https://books.google.iq/books?id=N28WEQAAQBAJ&dq=lakestan+incident&pg=PT86&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lakestan%20incident&f=false pls check this page 130.255.92.97 (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Football Saved My Life

Hi, I was wondering if this was fairly deleted? It is a UK broadcast TV program which aired some years ago, but the TV channel no longer exists. This is a valid TV show with some quite famous people, and I believe it's history needs to be recorded somewhere. Could you please restore this article for historical purposes? It can also be linked to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ruddock

Deleted article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Football_Saved_My_Life Steveinuk99 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Hi @Steveinuk99. As a contested PROD, this can be immediately restored, which I have done

However please improve the article or it will likely be brought to AfD and may be deleted again. Star Mississippi 03:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking pages before deleting them

Hi Liz. When you're deleting broken redirects, would you please look at each page (and its history) before you delete it?

Gizani, Ghizáni, GhizÁNi, and so forth had been fixed nearly an hour before you deleted them. As I've previously pointed out, broken redirects need to be checked for whether the redirect was broken as a result of a page move, since that makes them ineligible for WP:G8 unless WP:R2 would apply. I've also alluded that these shouldn't be deleted when they have substantive page history as a non-redirect. As WP:CSD policy states, "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible."

If there are to be automated deletions without looking at the pages to be deleted, they should be done by an approved bot via WP:BRFA. Running a database query and deleting the resulting pages as a group without looking at them goes against WP:MEATBOT. SilverLocust 💬 21:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russia / Ukraine Maps

I'm not sure if you noticed but this is the second time a dispute about de jure vs de facto borders on maps has hit AN/I in the last week or so. That one was also a mess of commons diffs and vague accusations. It ended up with the pro-UKR editor getting blocked after they accused literally anyone who didn't immediately jump to agree with them a Russian agent. I'm wondering if there is some off-wiki shenanigans going on here... Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simonm223,

Yes, I remember the other dispute. I think some of the same editors are involved. ANI deals with policy violations, not political or content disputes so my comment to the second complaint was trying to bring the discussion back to an area where we could adjudicate the issues, not get enmeshed in global politics. But that might not be possible. I did check though and both editors in the current dispute are extended confirmed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kansascitt1225 ANI

Hi there Liz! Our favorite cyberbully awaits at ANI, as you had requested a few days ago. I bet you have pings disabled, or else they're spammed for ya anyway, so I thought I'd let you know here. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert da Grava

Hi, Just wondering if you happen to have the discussion that led to your deletion of this page? I see that it "fails" GNG, but as a men's international football player with 10 caps for his country, I'm not sure why this decision has been reached. I tried searching, but only found records of its deletion, and nothing to justify GNG etc. Thanks, Phil 13:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

as an expired PROD, there is no discussion needed @Philk84. It can be restored upon request, which I have done. You can access and improve the article at Robert da Grava. It currently does not have the requisite sourcing to remain as an article so may be nominated for deletion at any time. Star Mississippi 16:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the restoration @Star Mississippi, the article is on my 'todo' list to hopefully find more sources Phil 12:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm not watching it, but don't hesitate to reach out if I can be of help @Philk84 Star Mississippi 13:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Naama Levy

Hello Liz,

I wanted to tag you in the talk page of Potionkin, and learned here that the tagging was not effective.

Kidnapping of Naama Levy contains text which harasses Levy, although she did not do anything wrong. She was kidnapped by a terrorist organization.

The law in Israel doubled the punishments upon sexual crimes which were made due to nationalist background.

An additional law gives the victim the right to undisclose their name nor any further detail.

The Levy family addressed the administrators in the He WP, asked them to ban the article about Naama, and they did.

I removed the text which violated the WP:BLP, but Potionkin restored it, although BLP overcame the focus of the media. It was written at WP:NOTNEWS.

I hope you could undo it, because I did not want to go in an edit warring. Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 19:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of her family's request. As far as I am concerned, you are free to delete that part again - I fully understand it can be painful for them to have it on public display so to speak - and I will not restore it. I suggest that you also mention her family's request in the deletion proposal you have submitted. --Potionkin (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, the issue was solved. Potionkin also commented the Afd. _Dgw|Talk 21:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, two users were deleted from the Afd page: Herinalian & Eelipe, Eelipe. Sean.hoyland warned them, using the WP:PIA: 1. Eelipe warning, 2. Herinalian warning.

Viewing their talk page, they have a WP:COI. They also wrote that they were semi-retired and were no longer very active on Wikipedia. Please see their edits today, all of them dealing with the Arab–Israeli conflict.

You might return the text of both users which was deleted. Alternatively, you could put an extended confirmed protection upon the Afd page. Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 11:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting comrades. I didn't warn anybody. I removed WP:ARBECR violations and notified the users about the restrictions that apply to the topic area. Tell me Dorian Gray Wild, what is my conflict of interest? You know, people using inference in the topic area is one of the biggest problems. People are not that smart. Want to know what I think, you can ask me, and I will tell you. Was it the photos of Palestinians that made you think that? Maybe I support Palestinians living on their land in the West Bank or maybe I support the IDF moving Palestinians off the land of Israel. All of my contributions today are related to tagging talk pages within scope of the WP:ARBPIA topic that are missing templates. This is in preparation for EC protection per ARBPIA5. Wow that's kind of you Sean, I hear you thinking, how do you identify the articles etc.? I'm glad you asked because it is quite interesting. I traverse parts of the category tree to map subregions of the vast topic area and build interactive graphs (here's a pic) that show, among other things, whether talk pages have been templated. If there is a lot of yellow (untemplated talk pages) I generate a list of pages to be templated and template them semi-automatically. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MD Sunnat Ali Mollik Related articles

The article MD Sunnat Ali Mollik le times. I think it was removed at the request of the user Abedin who deleted it without verifying the source. Please look at it from a humane perspective that the article of a brave soldier of the Bangladesh Liberation War is being removed repeatedly. Before deleting the article, it should be verified whether he is actually a freedom fighter. This article contains details about the freedom fighter of MD Sunnat Ali Mollik in the top national Janakantha News of Bangladesh. Please verify the article, I request you. I am contesting why the article should not be deleted. A Bangladeshi administrator has locked me globally. 2400:C600:4826:3426:1:0:CAEA:FE61 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you editing in contravention of that lock is also disallowed (cc @Justlettersandnumbers, @Girth Summit) Star Mississippi 21:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed logarithmic timeline

You just deleted Detailed logarithmic timeline, an article I started and worked on for many years. I was never informed of the proposal to delete it. I would like to have the source file for my own records, because it is a summary of a lot of things I want to remember and have access to as a reference. Please Ping me. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia administrators delete pages without checking or vetting them based on user requests. They are also deleting articles I created and articles that have been linked to by the country's top national newspapers. 2400:C600:4615:177F:1:0:4217:ADEB (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Eric Kvaalen: Noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed logarithmic timeline. (Wow, 1400+ edits) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I don't understand what you mean. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Kvaalen: I posted link to deletion discussion. I was impressed by the number of edits to the article. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Jesus. First edit I see was in 2005. I've taken the liberty of emailing the most recent edit I see. Hope that helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you very much. The article was quite interesting and useful, and I'm sure a lot of people will miss it. Whatever rules were used to justify deleting it should be changed. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, the deletion nomination says "My goal isn't to get these articles deleted, but to see how they would fare when held up against the scrutiny of an AfD discussion such as this one. If this discussion ends in favor of retention, the Keep arguments should be able to give curious onlookers a better understanding of why either article ought to be kept around". That's a pretty clear abuse of AfD, and to be really blunt is a hair's breadth away from being bad faith. AfD does not exist to satisfy curious onlookers. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Primefac (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, just wanted to check that you received my email. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primefac,

I'm sorry, I'm behind on my email. I'll check the account today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

Hello Liz, I nominated Category:Queens regnant of Polonnaruwa and Category:Queens regnant of Anuradhapura to be merged. The discussion has been closed, and yet these categories have not been moved. Can you tell me why they're still at the original titles? Thanks. Векочел (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Keeperman

I don't know if anything needs to be done about this, but it was started by a sockpuppet.[14] Doug Weller talk 14:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake George (film)

Hi Liz! I trust you're well. This AfD closed as draftify, but after closing it, I then realised that there's currently a draft of the same name, Draft:Lake George (film). The version of the draft is not same with the mainspace Lake George (film). What should be done in this case? Pinging Owen for comment too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanderwaalforces,

This has happened to me before. In these cases, I revert my closure and relist the discussion, providing a link in the relisting statement to the existing draft and asking the participants whether it should be deleted and replaced by the current article under discussion or if that article should be deleted and the current draft retained. Sometimes the existing drafts are in better shape than the main space article. It's better than having two drafts floating around (which I've also done by mistake). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, thanks! I did relist now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, Vanderwaalforces! I was in a similar situation two weeks ago. I closed the AfD as "merge this article with the existing draft", which I believe was happily accepted by all. I also added there a provision for how to handle things if the merger isn't done in a timely manner. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX This is nice. Thank you both for sharing your rich experiences with me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALTed page: Tord Larsson

Hello! I don't think I've ever talked with you before, despite seeing your name a lot :-). I was wondering if you could either unprotect the page Tord Larsson just to be a redirect to Eddsworld. This comes as a request over at Articles for Creation which I accepted, but only the talk page was created because the article page is salted.

If this page should stay locked, then please delete the associated, automatically created, talk page. Cheers! LR.127 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop Drinking

An IBAN user is messying and sneakily moved the redirect page I created into Draft:Please Stop Drinking (TV series). Would you take a look? (See also this log for reference) 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging other admins from the ANI result: @Ivanvector and @Pppery to also take a look. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 01:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the section below. I've restored everything to its prior state. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

revert my sneaky move on Please Stop Drinking

I actually want to create or move an article under that name. But yeah, again, it's my fault; I forgot to discuss it first. Aidillia^(talk) 01:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've restored everything related to Please Stop Drinking to the state it was before anything you did today. That said, the issue isn't your failure to discuss, it's that everything was a violation of your interaction ban and could have resulted in a block. I'm personally not inclined to block you right now since you acknowledged your own mistake, but I'm far more lenient than most admins will be. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tq. So what I need to do with this? Aidillia^(talk) 02:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to do anything - not touching it wouldn't cause any new problems. Requesting it be deleted would also be fine. And I think at this point neither of you should edit anything related to that TV show - it could be construed as an interaction ban violation even if that's not your intent. (Although this is just my opinion, not an assertion of authority or a threat). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to * Pppery * for sorting this out. I wasn't sure of the context here. In the future, it helps if you provide a link to the page you wish to discuss and any related discussions but luckily Pppery quickly understood what was happening here. If an article you wrote possibly crossed an interaction or topic ban you have, just tag it for CSD G7 speedy deletion or move to your own User space. And be more careful in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Vannes

Please restore this article, to draftspace or my userspace if you wish. I dispute the PROD. Srnec (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srnec,

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: 213.230.86.95

This user has vandalized several articles. He is committing vandalism. I ask that you report or block this user. Thanks. Happy editing! (Island Wizard (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, User:Island Wizard,

I'm going to bed, you can report them at WP:AIV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good. (Island Wizard (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Family names

Something that is among the most misunderstood things on this site: the MOS is not always followed. I'll link you to NPR talking about that. You could look at many articles like the Fanning sisters, the Judds, etc. It is acceptable and sometimes necessary to use first names. https://npr.org/sections/memmos/2014/12/17/605388509/three-thoughts-about-when-it-s-ok-and-not-ok-to-use-first-names-on-second-refere Engage01 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Engage01,

At this point, I'm not going to argue about MOS. I was trying to give you advice to keep you out of disputes so you won't face a block for disruptive editing. There are editors here that are pushing for you to receive some kind of sanction. It would help if you followed the rules as closely as possible and didn't push the envelope and the standard here on this project is to refer to article subjects by their full name or last name.

If you want to ignore MOS for whatever reason you have, I can't stop you but I think it will inevitably lead to you getting yourself into trouble. You should work on making allies not opponents on Wikipedia and following policies and guidelines helps to create good will with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say these editors to which you're referring are strange, that's being kind. Outlandish. I don't know how they find the time to be like that. Engage01 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is following me around on Wikipedia. Engage01 (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edsum redact request

Hi Liz! Would you mind, uh... redacting the edit summary of this edit I made? I probably shouldn't have included the general location of where I live on a high-visibility page. :) — E_F⁵ 14:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Done, and oversighted for good measure. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Technical news

Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inappropriate reasons for initial ban + admins refused to remove ban for non specific reasons despite evidence that it was inappropriate. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, have you had a chance to look at this yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,

Yes, I've responded to you. Sorry for the delay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thank you very much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

I mentioned you in a Arbitration Committee clarification request I filed today. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I'll note that the clarification request is closed and archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 131#Clarification request: Arbitration enforcement (since you commented in the area for participants rather than in the arbitrator discussion section). SilverLocust 💬 18:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

question about leaving a warning for an editor

Hi, you're listed as a recently active admin. I hope you don't mind giving me a bit of guidance. User:Rightwords99 left a message on the BLPN, claiming that defamatory content had been added to C. Nicole Mason by User:William_M._Connolley. When I checked it, I saw that Connelley's edit was substantiated. In checking Rightwords99's edits, I saw that they'd just edited Connolley's user page, so I checked and discovered that they'd replaced an image with another that I consider vandalism. I reverted the image change, but feel like I should leave a warning notice about this for Rightwords99. I haven't ever used a warning template on an editor's talk page, and would appreciate a quick double-check that my judgment is right about it meriting a warning and a suggestion about what level warning to use. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:She's Almost You

Hello, Liz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:She's Almost You, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians

News and notes: Let's talk!

Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon

In the media: Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk

Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City

Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed

Traffic report: A wild drive

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A random question

Could you please nominate the article Bhavishya Malika Puran for deletion?. As it has no significant coverage,poor sources,unreliable sources and also AI-generated. It may break WP:V,WP:U Regards,Ved Sharma (talk) (contribs) 08:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guest family

Hi, I was hoping to write a translation of the Guest family article on the Welsh-language Wikipedia, where I think it would be considered a notable enough topic, but you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guest family as delete before I could get to it. That's my own fault for being slow. Is there a way I could access the pre-deletion version of the article, preferably in such a way that I can use the translation tool on it (e.g., briefly re-publishing the article, then deleting again when I'm done with it)? Ham II (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That relist...

I saw that you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira Brad Matetsky (2nd nomination). I have to admit that at first I was like "What the hell?". But then I read your comment. I agree with you. Going off on a tangent; as participation in AfD declines, I see soooo many afds that get relisted. It's quite depressing. Just looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 31, there are 48 relistings that happened across those 72 entries. 48. I don't believe admins should have a supervote, but the amazing amount of relistings is bogging down AfD. So, when I saw you relisted this AfD, knowing it had been well attended, my initial reaction was astonishment. I get what you're saying though. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explain in my comment below, which I wrote as this comment came in, I don't think this relist was appropriate. One of the targets suggested is invalid because it only contains notable people and the other Liz has a COI with as a sitting member of the subject of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYB

I too am a big believer in AtD as my own AfD closes demonstrates. That doesn't mean that every time one is suggested it's appropriate. This is an incredibly informed group of editors and as you pointed out the idea of a relist was suggested in the nomination. Yet it got basically no support in a very widely attended discussion. That is a consensus. I chose not to mention it because I didn't want to spend more words than I had explaining why I didn't support the multiple proposed redirects. By relisting regardless of any statement you make it less likely that someone else will close. I ask that you reconsider your supervote and either close the AfD yourself or undo the relist and let someone else close (especially someone who doesn't have a COI with the only valid redirect target because list of wiki people only includes notable people). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of disagree with the relist, but claims of Liz "supervoting" and/or having a "COI" are really kind of unfair, I think.

Liz, the one part of this I'd agree with is that redirects were proposed right at the start, and didn't seem to appeal to anyone. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of an article - as Liz is as a sitting member of ArbCom - should not be using administrative powers to suggest that an article be redirected to an article that is about them or, in this case, partially about them. I consider that a COI and indeed I think even as a former member I have a COI so I wouldn't use my admin tools either on the article or related to the article (you're long enough ago Floq that maybe you don't have one anymore which I'd find reasonable). I used supervoting since our wiki space defines it as reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion. and that's what I believe happened here, but I'm very open to using a different term. As someone who regularly closes AfDs this one has a lot higher number of participants than the normal - and the average experience level of the participants (and thus grasp of policy) is also higher, on both the keep and delete perspectives of this - which is why relisting in this case is inappropriate even though an AfD where there is lower participation (and/or it's clear participants aren't as clueful around policy) it might be 100% appropriate to relist to seek consideration of the redirects. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD on my article had a relist also. It doesn't bother me overmuch. "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep mentions above how long ago I was on arbcom. Funny that you were the “old timer” on the committee when I was running. I still appreciate your kind advice. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those responses seem like wikilawyering. But in any case, in spite of the indenting, it was meant more as a reassurance to Liz than an attempt to talk you out of your opinion. —Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that you don't think Liz acted incorrectly when she suggested in an administrative capacity linking ot an article that she is subject of. I find it harder to understand your critique when I explained why I used supervoting (because of the definition as defined) but expressed an openness to some other term. I find it surprising that you find supervoting unfair but think it A OK to throw the wikilawyering term at me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding but, frankly, sometimes I find your messages infuriating and I was waiting for a lull in my activities when I was a little calmer. I did not use my admin powers, any editor or admin can relist a discussion and any editor or admin do relist discussions.

This afternoon, I was already to close a discussion but there was an edit conflict and while I was typing Beeblebrox had decided to relist that discussion. That's fine, different people will read discussions differently. But we have many regular editors who help us out by relisting discussions on a regular basis and they even close discussions. Just scan a daily AFD log and that becomes obvious.

As for why I relisted this particular discussion, sometimes when I see a deadlock between editors adament about Keeping an article and those who are deadset on Delete, I find that they often don't consider other alternatives so I relist the discussion and suggest they consider Merging, Draftifying or Redirecting an article. This had nothing to do with the article subject but with heat and the division among participants in the discussion. I haven't even read the article. This is not telling editors what to do, it is not a "supervote", it is a suggestion. Some editors and admins also do this when they relist discussions. Sometimes editors consider my words, but they often ignore my relisting comments. That is not my business, as someone working with AFDs my job is just to keep the process moving along smoothly. I knew that there might be objections to my comment and I said so. I also didn't plan on closing the discussion myself because some editors might see my action as controversial. I also said that the AFD could be closed at any time after relisting which is true for any relisted AFD. I don't see any COI here, I don't know the subject and haven't been active with the Committee, the fact that anyone could consider this a COI never remotely occurred to me but I realize that COI can be in the eye of the beholder.

I'd say you could appeal my action but this, as I said, was a relisting which any editor can do, not a closure and a relisting doesn't involve admin skills so I don't know where to advise you to go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz: I didn't criticize your decision to do other work and respond to other people here before me. I appreciate that you took a reasonable amount of time to respond. Your COI is not with NYB. Your COI is with Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) which you suggested was an appropriate redirect. While I continue to disagree I will accept that you do not/did not feel this was an adminstrative action. However, because you were unwilling to close the article you should not have been the one to relist it either. The issue present here (give your unwillingness to close) is fairly described in WP:RELISTBIAS, By relisting a discussion which has already fully debated the merit of the article, the non-admin has unintentionally wasted the time of any other editors who stumble upon the open discussion before it is next closed and the time of the next closer. As more and more discussions are relisted, they can also unintentionally cause a backlog to develop, as closers a week from now will need to close all of that day's discussions in addition to the relisted discussions which should have been properly closed the first time around. You explanation of why a relist to encourage discussion of a redirect is absolutely appropriate sometimes is something I agree with (see my reply to Floq). It does not address why it was appropriate in this discussion, given the composition of the participating editors which is the point I raised. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this as someone who commented in the discussion, but as someone who has been around XfD for a very long time - We want people who relist discussions to add a comment about a facet of discussion that might help make the consensus more clear, when relisting. If an idea was brought up, but was overlooked in the discussion for whatever reason, it can be presented by the relister for those commenting to consider the options. They're not saying that these are the only options, merely as a reminder these options are present too.

The goal isn't to push things along towards keep or delete, like people through a turnstyle. The goal is to service the encyclopedia to get whatever the best result that we can.

As for her being a member of arbcom - she didn't support any side in the relisting. And I don't think we need to start doing a "ceasar's wife" over this. Nothing's broken here. And as she noted, anyone else could still close the discussion. And this without bringing up IAR and that the encyclopedia does not have set rules. Not Buro, after all.

So I'm not exactly sure why you are concerned about the relisting. - jc37 05:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Account statement

What options does creating and confirming an account statement give the user? Thank you. Happy editing! (Sherzod Abduvaitov 777 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sherzod Abduvaitov 777,

I don't know what you mean by "account statement". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, a new user joins Wikipedia and is then asked to verify their account. What options does it give that user? Thanks. (Sherzod Abduvaitov 777 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello (Sherzod Abduvaitov 88 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Revdel request

[15] - obviously removed, maybe worth REVDEL Kingsif (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— _Dgw|Talk 14:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump and handshakes (3rd nomination)

When? There was no notification of the proposed deletion on the page. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarkanath Sanzgiri

Hi! As you closed the above AfD, I wanted to ask if I could have the deleted version of this article restored in my userspace. Sanzgiri passed away this week, leading to a spurt of articles about his life and work in multiple English and Marathi sources (e.g. Free Press Journal, Mid-Day, Loksatta - a major Marathi newspaper), and I believe he now passes the WP:BIO. I was looking to work on an article, and think that it may be best to first look at the deleted article; though I'll admit that the comments in the AfD don't give me confidence about the content being salvageable. Thanks! Java Hurricane 18:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging again in case you missed this message... Java Hurricane 18:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Hello, Would you please review my appeal? User_talk:Moribundum#Unban_request

Even if my ban would be reduced to only that article, would be v helpful.

Thank you Moribundum (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello pinging, not sure you saw this message @Liz. Thank you Moribundum (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINSHOPping is generally frowned upon. Someone will get to your request. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really shopping. Just requesting review from an admin who is somewhat familiar with this situation, but did not do the original ban or rejected my original appeal with little explanation. Moribundum (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Stewart

why would you delete Steve Stewart's page. Any announcer in MLB should have a page. Also if I was famous enough to have a Wikipedia page and it got deleted I would be Pissed. Steve Stewart probably would be happy if he saw he had a Wikipedia page and if he found out that it was deleted he would probably be pissed. The only reason why you should ever delete a Wikipedia page would be if someone created a page for a person that doesn't exist or a random person that is just a normal person. Please restore his page. Littleenng (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

@Littleenng that's not how notability works on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with N:BIO. While Steve Stewart is eligible for restoration, I'm opting not to do so although another admin may choose to. Please disclose your COI Star Mississippi 17:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why you're deleting a page for no reason. Can you give me an explanation on why it was deleted? Littleenng (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it was an expired PROD. The reason the editor tagged it for proposed deletion is in the deletion notice at the top of the page, in pink. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 216.126.35.221 (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to worry about @Liz. Closed as nothing. Star Mississippi 17:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussions: what does it mean to be uninvolved

Thank you for closing the Anatoly Karlin thread. I didn't close it because I felt I was "involved" as I was intervening in the discussion. Could I have closed that discussion? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, rsjaffe,

I think you were uninvolved, you were participating in an admin capacity, not as a party to the dispute. If one of the two major participants had accused you of bias (which unfairly happened in another recent case at AN/ANI), then I would have recommended refraining from closing or sanctioning an editor. But your words just served to summarize the situation and help convey what is and isn't possible on the platform.

If you happened to notice, this was a messy discussion and other admins weren't diving in to participate so I'm grateful for your attempts to bring some clarity. I wish we could do more to help editors who find themselves targeted off-Wikipedia, but we are just volunteer administrators on a website, not the police. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Yeah, I dove in pretty quickly because I saw just how messy this one was going to be. I hate long meandering complaints on ANI, particularly in those cases where there are some legitimate issues to address. I'm trying to help the participants organize their thoughts, but, in this one, that attempt eventually fell short. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that discussion when it was first opened yesterday and started looking into it, but I could tell it was going to be complicated and there was a homebrew festival I needed to attend. I glanced back at it earlier today and it had grown into a monster.

For the record as this is something I've been known to make a big deal about, I agree with Liz that you were responding as an admin and could have closed it yourself. At the same time, I also feel that it's kind of like a topic ban, if you even think maybe you shouldn't, it's probably best not to. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ranveer Allahbadia

Hello @Liz I saw in the deletion log that you recently deleted the page Ranveer Allahbadia via PROD. Could you please share the content of the page deleted with me for reference in my personal sandbox? Thank You. Regards --AstuteFlicker (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AstuteFlicker,

There are a couple of points that don't seem true to me. First, Draft:Ranveer Allahbadia was a Redirect page and it was deleted when the article was deleted. Second, Ranveer Allahbadia was not deleted due to a Proposed deletion (PROD) but through an AFD discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranveer Allahbadia (2nd nomination)). If this had been a proposed deletion, it would be eligible for restoration but since there was a consensus to delete an article, I can't restore the article to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AstuteFlicker, you seem confused, after reading where Liz wrote, "If you want to work on this article in Draft space to improve the references and submit it to AFC, contact me". If that's what you want to do, say so. RememberOrwell (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Trying to follow the "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia." instructions. I don't have email set up. See my last edit. Way too late for a revert. Hope I did OK. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RememberOrwell,

Between going through your contributions/edits and trying to read between the lines, it's IS confusing to figure out what you are trying to point out to me. "Outing", on Wikipedia, involves connecting a Wikipedia account with an off-Wikipedia real-life identity and it's unclear from the discussion you point to whether or not that is happening and which editor this involves.

If you want to contact Oversight, send an email to them via Special:EmailUser/Oversight and make sure you provide a a) the editor who might be being outed identified by username and b) a link edit or article section where this is done. Be direct and specific so it is clear to the Oversighter whether or not this is happening. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I DM'd @Oshwah; I identified the edits connecting/claiming to connect an overzealous Wikipedian's account with an off-Wikipedia real-life identity; they're looking into it. I just stumbled upon it; I was on the page with the outing because of another section I started. Hopefully one of you/someone will handle it. RememberOrwell (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RememberOrwell - Are you the user I've been talking to on IRC? If so, this should all be taken care of. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's mostly been addressed. I don't get why it took ~24 hours after initial comment and DMs to make any edits but water under the bridge now. RememberOrwell (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another pageant cut-and-paste move

Draft:Miss Charm 2025 was pasted to Miss Charm 2025 by Ky01654. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your comments

Could you please give me your comments about an issue that I raised in Moneytrees' user talk? [16]. Moneytrees has not been active recently, but maybe you can answer the questions I asked there. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip

Hi Liz, I understand your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip, but the topic remains in the news worldwide, and the most recent votes in the AfD reflected this. Normally, I wouldn't place more value on the last votes than the first, but since many of the early ones were of the "another hairbrained idea that will soon be forgotten" kind, I think more discussion is warranted here as these early votes seem (understandably) misguided. I came across this since I saw Trump plan for the Gaza Strip in the New Pages queue, andsaw it being tagged with G4. I would like to see a reopening/relisting of the AfD or else a DRV for it. Fram (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip

An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip. 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. Fram (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fram,

Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hello - sometimes when you remove backlinks to a deleted page you let delinked entries linger in disambiguation pages.. In turn, this creates pages like this which is a disambiguation page containing nothing. It's quite fit for G14. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one Atsushi Yamaguchi Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lumy Currency Page Deletion

Greetings, Hope you are well. Not being too familiar with the ways of wikipedia. You have deleted the Lumi Currency Page. I have added some comments for consideration, which I dont know if you have received them.

Long story short, Lumi currency is a failed or historic currency. The main comment or argument for deletion was that the currency was fake, which is not the case. As of 2025, there are still users of the LUMI currency in remote areas and shops, but during COVID, there was usage and trade. The Central Solar Reserve Bank was a real institution, yet short lived. The article should be re-written to consider those facts. However being deleted on the basis that it was fake is far from accurate and unworthy of the wikipedia standards. Spiddyock (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spiddyock,

I think you are referring to the discussion here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumi (currency). No, to be honest, few editors look over AFD talk pages after the AFD has been closed. An AFD closure doesn't reflect my opinion of the article but my assessment of the deletion discussion and it was unanimous to Delete this article. It would benefit you to read over the reasons that were presented if you want to work on a draft article on this subject.

If you are still interested in this subject, what I recommend is that you create a new article in Draft space and submit it for review with Articles for Creation. This is what occurs with most drafts and always with an article that has been deleted through an AFD. Or, if you disagree with my closure of the AFD, you can make an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Just know that at DRV, you shouldn't relitigate the AFD, it is purely a discussion over my decision to close this discussion as "Delete". Happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An award

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Hi there, I see your contributions often especially regarding AFDs and want to thank you for your tireless work! I see you almost always there :) I have been engaging in the AFD process recently and am very much thrilled by it, and like seeing your work. I am still new to all this and learn new things about Wikipedia everyday, including by you. So thanks! jolielover♥talk 19:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, Jolielover, that is very kind of you. I appreciate your words of encouragement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, a strange question.

Say hypothetically an editor has done WP:SELFCITE. The editor has provided directory to material identifying themselves, just off-wiki. Let's say they give no indication of their identity on-wiki, and the sole place they have linked their Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is through a citation on some article. Would it be okay if, say por exemplo, Jimbo called the editor by their first name on ANI, and when confronted about "you doxxed this guy dude not cool", Jimbo said "the editor did SELFCITE and thus linked to their PII. They made it public."?

Thank you for your time, Liz. Barnt Toust 20:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See stuff like this is why I don't WP:SELFCITE. I'm a working writer and have produced quite a lot of professionally published art criticism and have never even thought of slipping one of my refs into an article. Seems like too much of a headache in the long run. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BarntToust,

This is a lot of hypothetical questions and I'm trying to follow your example. I don't think calling an editor by their first name could be considered "outing". I've seen it among longtime editors who've met in real life but Editor X's username doesn't include their first name and no one is running to Oversight because they said, "I agree with you, Jim (Editor X)".

In your example, I think the mistake would not be that Jimbo called the editor by their first name, which he could just happen to know, but by the fact that he explained it by saying that Editor X self-cited on the project. I think THAT would be more problematic than just using someone's first name because anyone could see what articles Editor X edited, see the references they used and not only find out their name but also probably where they worked. I mean, I don't mind anyone calling me "Liz", because it's both my username and my real first name, but if someone posted my full name, that would be creepy.

I will say though that I've been doxxed, twice, about ten years ago and it does leave one feeling vulnerable. Unless someone has self-identified on their User page, it's better to be safe and just refer to them by their username. And I don't think citing oneself is a form of public self-identification. I agree with Simon though that I think it is unwise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the biograms like Jerzy Andrzej Filar

Dear @Liz

I would like to thank you once again for moving the Draft:Jerzy A. Filar from my soundbox to the main stream. I prepared the page with a sense of the importance of the topic—creators on the border of disciplines. During the attempt to publish, there was confusion—Wikipedia editors don’t expect detailed, well-researched information, but rather just a brief mention or something similar. Personally, the discussion helped me clean up the text from obvious mistakes and improve the style. However, I still don’t know what the actual goal of Wikipedia is when it comes to biographical entries. @EALCCJJ expressed similar surprise after the publication of Draft:Krzysztof Józef Szajowski.

We compared the pages for Vivek Borkar and Thiruvenkatachari Parthasarathy. The first biography is an excellent article with a wealth of detail. If that were the standard, the second one would need significant expansion and refinement. Both individuals are distinguished representatives of science. In light of this, when can we say that someone qualifies for a Wikipedia article?

Recently, I encountered such a case. While searching for information about Jan Zarzycki, the engineer and expert in signal analysis and synthesis, I found nothing about him on Wikipedia. The surname is common, but the person I was looking for had served two terms as the Dean of a major faculty at a prominent European university. I considered this to be a sufficient reason to create a Wikipedia entry for him. Additionally, he was not listed in Wikidata! I found his old biography in Who's Who in Poland: a Biographical Lexicon—founded by Ralph Hübner, Zug: Hübner's Blue Who’s Who, 2006, 5th edition, updated.

Is the fact that his biography appears in this edition enough of a reason to bring his profile to Wikipedia’s attention? Especially considering that after 2006, his life was filled with many interesting events.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider our concerns. It's difficult for someone outside the field to recognize whether a person deserves to be included on Wikipedia—except in cases where they are, for example, a recognized athlete, tennis player, politician, or similar public figure.

With kind regards,

KSz at OWPTM (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review Notice – Moeed Pirzada

Deletion review for Moeed Pirzada

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Moeed Pirzada. 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. Zeeshank9 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I've already closed this. Just flagging that a different editor also mentioned it so I'm sure this isn't the last. Star Mississippi 03:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Star Mississippi. DRV, one of my least favorite places. My immense gratitude to those admins and editors willing to sort through all the comments and opinions and close the discussions there. I'm sure that if I ever closed a DRV discussion, there would be a DRV about my DRV closure! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX and I have a running joke that I'm the official DRV early closer. This was not one that merited 7 days of community attention when there was no argument that the close was incorrect. They disagreed, sure, but appear to be a new editor and don't understand why it was deleted in accordance with policy. Actually didn't realize it was your close at first since the DRV nom was faulty and it would have been a speedy close regardless. TGIF and hope you've had a good week Star Mississippi 03:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I seem to have been the only editor with questions about Roxy's unban, Star Mississippi, so that made me feel like I was spoiling a party that everyone was having fun at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I did support lifting the c-ban, I agree with you that it was a rushed close since there are still pieces to address. With the holiday weekend I wonder if folks will be skiing or online. Star Mississippi 14:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to AN/I thread "The IP from France needs to be partially blocked"

Hello Liz, I think you might want to block the 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:D9F1:A5:EDD1:D16E IP address at the /64 range level - see this comment at that AN/I thread. Thanks, — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete User talk:Respect your elders

Hi! Thanks for deleting User:Respect your elders, which was created accidentally. Could you also delete User talk:Respect your elders? No incoming links, I already fixed them. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrisahn,

Thanks, I missed that. With Twinkle, it always deletes the talk page along with the article or draft except on User pages. I appreciate the CSD tagging, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Joy-ner at AfD

Hi Liz, a user with very little interaction with other editors is accusing a nominator of having bad faith and the backing of "industry shenanigans". He (the user) repeatedly fails to recognize their own walls of text, GNG's status as a guideline, and their personal attacks. Now, he has followed this nominator to another AfD and accused the nominations of vandalism. What should I do here? Thanks in advance, and hopefully these links to the AfDs don't count as canvassing.

also jeepers your user talk page headers are chaotic, i love it Aaron Liu (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I never saw this here. @Liz @Aaron Liu I p-blocked them when I saw the bludgeoning at the AfD. I leave further sanctions to you Star Mississippi 14:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting the latest move vandalism to my user page. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Daniel Case, I'm sorry you were targeted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects?

Hi, Liz. I was going to delete Wikipedia:Antony 2025, a redirect created as a result of reverting page move vandalism. However, when I got there, I saw your edit summary from when you reverted the move, where you said "keep redirect until redirects moved back", so I've left it. However, just for curiosity, what did you mean by that? Why keep the redirect? JBW (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: There are several redirects to the LTA page. During the 27 minutes in which it was renamed, one of our faithful bots could have had time to fix the resulting double redirects. Once the page was back at its regular name, an immediate deletion of the new redirect with the bogus name, would have left the other redirects dangling. It doesn't look like the bot had time to do its thing (or it has reverted itself), as there were no links to the bogus name (except for the one this talk page) so I deleted it. Favonian (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Favonian, that makes it clear. JBW (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Favonian and JBW,

We currently have a litle problem with some of our page movers. When they move an article, for some reason, they don't like to leave a redirect behind. This means that all of the pages that redirect to that article become broken redirects and are usually deleted by admins or bots. If they had left a redirect behind, then our bots can change them to point to the correct target article. This is a huge problem with page move vandalism because it's usually very popular articles that are moved, with lots of redirects and page moves are eager to get them back to the right page name and NEVER leave a redirect. That means that ll of thes broken redirects have to then be corrected manually and this can end up being dozens of broken redirects. I've tried to discuss with page movers but those are one-on-one diiscussions and we have a lot of page movers.

The page I left was just a "temporary redirect" to leave until the bots can change the existing redirects and then it can be deleted. I don't do this often but sometimes it happens after page move vandalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Filion (swatter) - Please undelete

The prolific serial swatter in California recently turned 18 and--days ago--was convicted in federal court and shipped off to penitentiary. [17], [18]. - knoodelhed (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, knoodelhed,

Often I will restore an article after an AFD to Draft space but this was an unanimous Delete decision. I recommend you create a brand new Draft version and submit it to WP:AFC for review. But read the AFD discussion so you can see what the objections to this article were so you can avoid them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a page

I created a page User:Sackiii/common.css. I want to delete it. I create it mistakenly to test. Please delete this page as I'm the only editor of the page. Thanks Sackiii (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sackiii,

Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sackiii (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UK built-up areas

I was going to send you multiple “Thanks” pings, but a single message seemed more appropriate. Very much appreciate your finalising these. We Brits can be very tetchy over our locales, hence my appreciation for your finalising them. p.s. It might be time to do another archive of your Talkpage! All the very best, KJP1 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KJP1,

I'm not sure why but GEO articles always stir up a lot of feelings at AFD discussions on the part of editors who participate in these discussions. And there were mixed feelings here as well. But also a clear consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup after deletion of Comparison of ALGOL 68 and C++

Hi, I corrected some articles after your deletion of Comparison of ALGOL 68 and C++: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. It seems to me that link removals like that shouldn't always be automated. Matma Rex talk 00:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matma Rex,

The standard practice after a PROD or AFD article deletion is to remove red links. As there are often dozens of page links to an article we have two options, leaving red links or removing red links. With hundreds of pages deleted every day, we can not manually check each link to an article. But if you have a preference for red links or no red links, you can let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Lost in Quebec

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Ernsanchez00's talk page.
Message added 13:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help for protecting a wiki page

Hello Liz. I need a help from you / admins who have most of the experience in wiki, and me being a novice.

Can you please help to monitor /protect the page " Poornima Ravi", as i see unchecked content getting added.

A few months back there were some abusive content which was deleted thankfully. However just want to have double protection for the page, as the person is known to me. thanks. Aniruddhamohan510 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aniruddhamohan510,

I checked this page but it didn't look like enough vandalism to warrant enforcing protection on this article. I'd encourage you to add it to your Watchlist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks liz.

sure,

and if you look at the revision history from September/October some abusive stuff were added , and it was deleted later.

however , I just wanted any of the admin/ experts to have a tab, as well.

thanks for your help. Aniruddhamohan510 (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Edge

Could you visualise the article Titus Edge? JorgeToledoFlorencio1503 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JorgeToledoFlorencio1503,

I have no idea what you mean by "visualise", that's not a term used on Wikipedia. But it's in no shape to be in main space so I have moved it to Draft space.

If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding wikipedia

Thank you for your message on my talk page. May we discuss things to help me better understand Wikipedia? Right now, it seems like a very confusing and hostile environment so I'd like to clear up several things with you. You seem kind enough to leave a note on my talk page which I why I am reaching out to you.

For now, I don't want to edit Wikipedia until I get a better understanding of how the place works. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Lumi (currency), not for recreation

May I have a copy of Lumi (currency)? You handled the closing in this AfD which I wasn't involved in.

I've been involved in the deletion discussion for Timothy E. McPherson Jr.. I have conceded and am looking to improve the "parent" article Accompong. Lumi was/is based in Accompong, which has led me to wonder what was on this page.

If it's OK, I'd be grateful if you would drop it in User:Oblivy/sandbox1. Happy to address any questions or concerns. Pinging @Polygnotus in case they have anything to say about this. Oblivy (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this request, myself and Oblivy are trying to brainstorm to try to improve the Accompong article. Polygnotus (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and userfied the page to User:Oblivy/Lumi (currency). Liz, feel free to revert if there's a reason we shouldn't be reviving this page in userspace. Owen× ☎ 13:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Page

Hello, I saw that you are the editor that deleted the Abraham Osinubi draft article. I was wondering if you would be able to undo that, or provide the copy from the previous article so that I can edit the errors in the article. I look forward to your response. Thank you Redstarwiki (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Redstarwiki: As this was deleted as CSD G12, it will not be restored. You are free to start a fresh draft. You would do well to start at WP:MFA. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Liz deleted neither the draft nor the article that was in the encyclopedia. Two other admins did that. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh my bad.

Thank you for pointing it out. Redstarwiki (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ernest Roberts (1882-1959)

My article on H Ernest Roberts was not accepted. I have now come across a review of his book, Liverpool Daily Post 9 Apr 1949, p 2, Saturday Book Shelf. Would this establish him as of sufficientnotability. Alan.jones.ski (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ableist terminology

Hello, Liz. I hope you are well.

There is a user in this Requested Move section who is repeatedly justifying the use of the ableist phrase "dumbing down" even after I repeatedly told him how and why it is so after they first used it. I wouldn't like to make a big fuss or anything but it is quite offensive how they are justifying it and, as someone who has had it used against me, I'd prefer kinder language be used in any debate.

Would be much appreciated if they are reprimanded since they aren't taking my overtures seriously at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omnis Scientia,

I don't see any way an editor would know you'd take this personally and I think, on Wikipedia, it's a common expression. I am unsure if it is "ableist" or not but I think if you are going to make an objection every time this phrase is used, this will be an uphill battle.

I think you explained your position well but it was also rejected by one of the two editors who used this term. I think for a reprimand, an admin would like to see a pattern of conduct, not an isolated incident. I realize that we take a harder line when it comes to sexism, racism and transphobia but I think the line is fuzzier here. I know that I was surprised to read that you thought this was "ableist" and I think most editors would be, too.

If you believe my response is insufficient, you can take this issue to a noticeboard but since attention is paid both to the filer and the accused, I'm not sure if you would find that comfortable. You could receive a lot of questions you might find invasive. But it's your decision. I just generally advise editors go avoid ANI unless they have solid evidence to support their claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But I hope you understand I didn't take it personally, even though I have had experiences. I simply make it a habit to educate people. It is indeed an insult and one disability activists are trying to phase out, and we should not be using the words like that, especially when there is a better way to convey a message.

But I understand if your hands are tied and I appreciate that you took the time to respond and help out here. Hope you have a nice day! Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the closure. [24] Noorullah (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An award

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Hello, thank you for your nice adminship and for your dedication to your role. You are an excellent administrator, and I am impressed by your involvement and your knowledges. Thank you very much. _Dgw\|Talk 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the compliment, Dorian Gray Wild. I'm not always as responsive as I could be because my time is limited but your case hit a nerve. The other editor is just so relentless and out-of-touch. The rest of us are fortunate not to have someone who is dedicated to getting us kicked off the entire platform because of arguments or disputes that happened years ago on an entirely different project. I wish I could do more for you. But please let me know if they make waves on Meta against your account. I'm not an admin there but I would surely speak up on your behalf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz for your nice words.

On February 8, 2025 I emailed you concerning this image. It violates BLP. Nothing happens if this image appears instead.

I do not know if Naama knows User:WMFOffice or how she is familiar with Wikipedia. _Dgw|Talk 21:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Theecember

The article Theecember has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Herinalian (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, I guess, Herinalian, but I didn't create or write Theecember. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the notification—it was likely automatic since I used Twinkle for the PROD. I’d also like to remind you that you still haven’t draftified the page Andrei Polgar or moved it to my userpage. I will highly appreciate if you manage time to do it, please. Herinalian (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Theecember for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theecember is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theecember until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Check Your Mail

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

Taabii (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your email message while I was in the middle of a Zoom meeting. I'm not sure it is technically possible to do what you are requesting. But I'll look into it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Kindly re-check other mails. I hope that's quite possible. Taabii (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to ask something about a draft

I want your opinion. yesterday, created Draft:Seven Havens because of a news article recently. Just earlier today, I received a talk page message stating that

1) another draft was created (Draft:Avatar:Seven Havens) 2) it was deleted per G13 some time prior and restored today 3) stated my draft is "old" and implied the draft I worked on should be deleted 5) and "sorry for the inconvenience"

So my question is, what should happen now? Crafterstar (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, wanted to get an admins input on the matter. I created my draft originally titled “Untitled Earth Avatar Series” in April 2024. Some time later news reports stated that the series would be called New Generations, so I changed the title to “Draft:Avatar: New Generations. However yesterday was the official announcement of the new series “Avatar:Seven Havens” I tried to change the name, but it wouldn’t allow me to because Crafterstar created a redirect page to their draft. So I changed the wording slightly to Draft:Avatar:Seven Havens. I left a notice on Crafterstar’s draft, that their draft is a duplicate. I also left a message on their talk page. They undid the notice and went to my draft and blanked the page and turned it into a redirect to their draft. I undid the edits. I believe since my draft is the oldest that any info about the series should be placed on that draft. Some help with this conflict would be greatly appreciated. Key limes (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we favor the first draft that was created on a topic and merge any subsequent drafts into it. This example is more complicated as the draft was deleted and later restored and it sounds like Crafterstar created the new draft during a period of time when the older version was deleted or had a different page title. It isn't appropriate though to turn the original draft into a redirect to the newer version and I hope you don't do this again. But I don't see how a recently created draft could be considered "old". If you want, I can try to merge the two articles together but if there are overlapping editing to the two articles, that can make that a problem.

What you don't want to do is to get caught up in who gets "credit" for having created an article, we've had good editors get blocked indefinitely over battles on that issue and no one is keeping score of things like that. Work on us having the highest quality article on a subject, not be absorbed by who made the first edit on a page. Let me know if you want me to try to do a merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry and will not do it again.

There is one more thing I have to mention. I saw the history and saw that the page was copy pasted there, and the edits were made afterwards. Isn't there a rule against it? Crafterstar (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz, first thank you for your opinions on the situation. It is true my draft was briefly deleted, I haven’t been on here in a while and wasn’t aware it was deleted. I found out about the announcement on Feb 20, I logged in to change the title of my draft and saw that it was deleted. So I requested for it to be restored and changed the title. It’s also true that I copy pasted as I tried to merge the drafts as I read that’s how you merge two articles, but I didn’t want to turn the newer draft into a redirect until the situation was resolved. I was trying not to cause conflict with any editors. I was waiting for an admin to resolve the problem. Key limes (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't necessarily last forever.

Consensus doesn't necessarily last forever.[25] I agree this might apply to RM discussion in 19 July 2023. Does it reasonably apply to relitigating a consensus less than five months old (Talk:Iranian revolution#Requested move 12 September 2024)? You appear to have missed that. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cinderella157,

I didn't miss that. It's just that the consensus comment was stated in relationship to the older RM discussion and not the newer one. I think five months is a little soon for a new RM discussion and I wouldn't recommend it but that's a judgment call and well-intentioned editors can differ on these points. We start shutting down discussions or laying out moratoriums on new debates when discussions are happening every few weeks or every month.

While I stand by the comments I made, if it has been me, I would have left the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pointy Rm at Talk:Iranian revolution#Requested move 18 February 2025 open for longer, to allow for more input, rather than closing it so soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the voting rights in the He WP

Hello Liz, Nizzan Cohen is a journalist, and it is written in his user page. He made this article, which Ldorfman put today in the He Wikipedia:Voting (I met Ldorfman at least three times).
I may say that I am a bit connected to this issue. Dovno, as a He WP bureaucrat, encouraged creating socks. He claimed that every person might edit under multiple accounts, but write on the talk page with one account only. As a result, socks flooded the He WP. Their main activity was deleting articles, mainly articles which I wrote. Dovno did not listen to me, I applied the SRG, and Dovno requested ערן to block me. ערן was a nice bureaucrat, but Dovno bombarded him. Dovno liked "thin" articles, and the socks did an excellent job by deleting masses of text. Examples are Shirly Pinto (the article in English requests expanding...), Moshe Shem Tov (Shem Tov is not identified in the main picture), Deaf culture, Cochlear implant, Alex Fridman, and additional examples.
After the sockpupets, came meatpuppets.
In the end the He WP changed the voting rights. Dovno and ערן are not bureaucrats any longer, and today I was thanked in the En WP for editing an article. _Dgw|Talk 05:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dorian Gray Wild,

I hope you are doing well. This is all interesting but I'm not sure what you are asking me to do here, on the English Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. It may concern you. The sock was "cultivated" by Dovno (who retired), and immigrated the En WP from the He WP. For now, I do not apply SPI nor ANI. If it deepens its harassment, I will. _Dgw|Talk 00:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patroclo2001/sandbox

{{You've got mail}}

HI, Liz,

I am new at wikipedia. I came in to my sandbox page to see the article I was editting and I found these messages that I do not clearly undertand. Where is my work now?

19:22, 29 January 2025 Liz talk contribs deleted page User:Patroclo2001/sandbox (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
16:18, 29 January 2025 Patroclo2001 talk contribs moved page User:Patroclo2001/sandbox to User:Jose Luis Blanco Vega (Move to mainspace: Preferred location for AfC submissions) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

Patroclo2001 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patroclo2001,

It looks like it is at Draft:Jose Luis Blanco Vega. Look at your Contributions page and stop moving pages around. It caused some to get deleted.

If you have questions, bring them to the Teahoues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct on the WP:NPOVN

Hi Liz, I hope you are well. We have a content dispute regarding the Geography article and which world map is sufficient. I’m not asking you to make a decision on which map to use, but I kind of have an issue with M.Bitton’s conduct on there. He warned GeogSage on his talk page about edit warring and personal attacks, but he refused to answer his own question on what he did that was a personal attack. When looking at the discussion at Talk:Geography and the notice board, I feel like an admin needs to do something like a formal warning or block if need be. I’m hoping that you could take a look into it and figure out what’s going on there. Thank you for your help. Interstellarity (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Interstellarity,

I assume you are talking about the discussions at Talk:Geography#World map for geography page and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Geography map dispute. While the discussions are heated, you haven't included any diffs that you are arguing specifically violate our standards. The discussion at NPOVN has a lot of editors involved and as long as arguments are thoughtfully presented, that is usually a good sign, much better than when conversations devolve into bickering back and forth between two editors which has the effect of discouraging other editors from participating. I posted a note at the one on the talk page of Geography warning editors not to cast aspersions and suggesting a new RFC if editors feel that the previous consensus on maps is no longer acceptable.

I find that when discussions start getting personal, you can try to steer them back to be policy-based as that should resonate with our more experienced editors. M.Bitton can be very blunt when making his points but he is also quite often on the mark as far as policy goes. I'll consider whether any comments cross over into personal attacks. You can also consider leaving a comment on your own as you seem to have a more neutral position in the discussion on the Geography talk page than the other two parties. If we are talking about the tone of a discussion and not any policy violations, then a word from another editor can often carry as much weight as that of an administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz and thank you for your response. I typed up my message on my phone, so it is pretty hard to provide diffs that way compared to a regular computer. For reference, I will link to the talk page where M.Bitton warned him of personal attacks: User_talk:GeogSage#February_2025. If you are interested in my feelings on the map, I think using the most up-to-date version of a map we can find is best, but I also understand that there are territorial disputes. I feel that if we have any issues with the current version, then we should address the issues in the current version of the map that we can consider fixing. Another option would be to use an iconic historical map of the world like how we use an iconic image of Earth in the infobox. I'll leave a note of my thoughts on both the talk page and noticeboard to steer the discussion in the right direction. As I said in my previous comment, I didn't ask you to be the final say on what map is best. That's not an administrator's job but rather get a second opinion on how the discussions are going and how each editor is reacting appropriately from an administrator's point of view. I appreciate any help you can give me in steering the discussion in the right direction and thanks for answering my questions. Interstellarity (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Liz!

Recent deleted prods

J. Steven Svoboda

Template:Laugh

Uwappa

Redirects Skidibi toilet, Blugray et al

Tyson Apostl

Responding to AFD request

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

A kitten for you!

Happy New Year!

A kitten for you!

Draft:SHERIF BISHARA

Deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Undetectable.ai

RFC Notice

Talkback

January 2025

The North American Discworld Convention

You have mail

Figure Skating FYI

Deletion of a page I wrote

Thank you

I feel like this barnstar was made for you

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

Request for Advice

Traveen Mathew

Resurrected page

Thank you

New message from JJPMaster

New message from DreamRimmer

Reply

Reissues

Request for Retention of the Article on Khaleedthefirst and Commitment to Improvement

Talkback at FFD

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Murder in YYYY

Inquiry from Germany

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Ballet premieres by date

Asking for advice about recent AN/I closure

Election categories

I would like to create an article for Allicia Juarrero, noted theorist and philosopher

Creation Myth

You've got mail!

Your Raegan Revord (2nd nomination) close

"2025 TikTok refugee crisis" page move

Mass reverts by User:FlightTime

Untrout please

Your talk page has become *very* long

If you have time, please help

ANI report

Hi Liz

Thank you

Category:1487 in Spain has been nominated for merging

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19 § Natural disasters by year

Raegan Revord and XFD banners

Question about AfD

Offer of help with ArbCom

Swift Prod

Regarding recently speedy deleted article

Diplomacy

Your CSD Log

Category:Law schools in Taiwan

Drv notice

Request for Review: Deletion of Dr. Moeed Pirzada's Page.

A minor note on xtools

Miss Earth 2025 cut-paste move, again

28 January

New question

The Guns of Muschu

Lakestan incident

Deletion: Football Saved My Life

Checking pages before deleting them

Russia / Ukraine Maps

Kansascitt1225 ANI

Robert da Grava

MD Sunnat Ali Mollik Related articles

Email

Categories for discussion

WP:SALTed page: Tord Larsson

Please Stop Drinking

Your talk page has become very long