This page was last edited or modified by Redrose64 (talk).
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. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013 Well said!LizRead!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)
I blanked their User page. This editor made 3 edits 6+ years ago, this isn't an urgent situation. I'm not sure how you even stumbled upon them. LizRead!Talk!04:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, someone moved Tyla to multiple titles and went as far as to create a duplicate titled Tyla Laura. My guess is that they were trying to get the credits for creating the Tyla article. Can you please look at the article, its talk and subpages and check if there's anything wrong? dxneo (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm late in responding, I actually looked into this situation when you posted about it last weekend and looked to see if any clean-up was necessary. The editor has since been blocked for disruptive editing and because it might be a compromised account. Thanaks for bringing this to my attention and I'm sorry that it's taken me a while to reply to your request. LizRead!Talk!20:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Hi Liz, could you give this a quick look please [1] to see whether it should be procedurally closed. There is an active unclosed merge discussion and this seems to have been started as a novel means to close the merge. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I initially thought it was too late in the process for a procedural close but when I saw the nominator's deletion argument was actually an indirect request to get support for keeping the article, I decided that you were right and this was an incorrect use of AFD. LizRead!Talk!20:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how this could possibly be considered a no consensus result? It's a clear keep result unless you are overriding the five keep votes and deciding for some reason that the two deleters have stronger arguments (which is a bit odd since it comes down to people claiming he meets GNG versus people claiming he doesn't). What is the justification for this? You don't say in your closing statement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that keep arguments were "people claiming he meets GNG" is a fundamental mischaracterisation of your own argument which consisted partly of "The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets" and which made absolutely zero attempt to assess notability based on sources. That's one of the weakest arguments I've seen at AfD in a while. No closer should take it into account at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that is Oz Londoner? I have been reading that forever as aus, as in German for out. Out of Londoner. Now I don't know what to think! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I added the surfer emoji partly to clarify. When I first came up with the name I had know idea furries were a thing. Furboy was my Paladin when I used to play D&D. I do actually surf - although these days I have switched to a kayak. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought "Aus" referred to Australia or, maybe Austria, but I now see from your User page, AusLondonder, that you don't seem to participate in any WikiProjects on those countries so perhaps I've been wrong all of this time. LizRead!Talk!19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that you would have preferred a firmer close as a Keep rather than No consensus? Well, first, as a frequent AFD participant, I know that you know that it's not a vote count. But when you have a divided discussion like this one, with some editors arguing that WP:BASIC is met and others arguing WP:BASIC is not met, then you need to review the arguments and, I believe, the experience levels of the participants in the discussion.
I didn't think I could close as Keep without it signalling that I was ignoring the opinions of two editors who were arguing for Deletion, both of whom are very experienced in assessing articles and sources in AFD discussions. So, I closed as No consensus which is not saying that both sides were equally strong in their arguments but it acknowledges that their wasn't unanimity or agreement close to unamity in this discussion. This is not an uncommon outcome when you have experienced editors reviewing sources who come to opposing evaluations of them. It's not my job to review the sources myself because that would lead to a "supervote" so I have to rely on the arguments of the participants and, in this case, I didn't see a consensus.
Of course, you can take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want and present your argument there. In this case, you might have a few participants who agree with your interpretation but I think the majority of opinions would be that "No consensus" was a reasonable outcome that any closer might come to. I'm occasionally willing to revert an AFD closure if an editor is asking for an additional relisting or I've made some obvious error but I don't think I did here and I don't think a third relisting would have altered the outcome of this discussion. But that's your call. LizRead!Talk!19:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a "vote count", but when you have more than twice the number of editors voting one way than the other, then not acknowledging that majority and closing in their favour does indeed look like a supervote unless they're spouting utter rubbish. I didn't think I could close as Keep without it signalling that I was ignoring the opinions of two editors who were arguing for Deletion, both of whom are very experienced in assessing articles and sources in AFD discussions. I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. It's basically saying that because two editors, both of whom have a proven track record of being very keen on deletion incidentally, say it should be deleted then their arguments should be given more weight than the other five participants because they're "experienced" and it would be somehow insulting to them to close in favour of the other participants. That's just weird, frankly, and I think goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the effective same result so I'm not sure why you're complaining so much. Consensus is based on argument quality, not numbers. Maybe try and assess notability based on sources rather than tangents about cornflakes and your opinion will count for more at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Necrothesp, I didn't participate in that discussion, but reviewing it now, I see two editors making good source based arguments to keep, as well as two making such arguments for deletion. Two said it meets WP:BASIC but did not say how. So I think Liz evaluated that fairly. But there is also your argument that the CMG is a high honour. This was not related to any SNG, but is an SNG style of shortcut argument that many of us use in our first look at a subject to come to an initial view. For instance, today I have posted on an AfD school discussion that you also posted on, and expressed my own shortcut argument based on the age, prestige and size of a school. But such arguments are nothing more than a rebuttable supposition of notability. What always matters is whether sources exist from which the page can be written. A school can be big and old and so unremarkable that perhaps there really are no sources. A person can be an unremarkable civil servant or part of a diplomatic mission, so much in the background that sources do not exist. In such cases the assumption of notability will be rebutted by the searches that turn nothing up, and no page can be written. But certainly we can use such arguments to choose where we might be concentrating our efforts, and, when the matter is finely balanced, to argue the toss in favour of retention. Still, what really matters are the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article for the Powhatan Hotel in Galveston (sometime in early 2023), which I realized was an ill-conceived mess, so I requested speedy deletion. Thanks for your assistance with that. Now I have a new source for the article, making two expert architectural sources for the same article. Before I re-create the article, however, I would like to recall the specifics of the mess I created in order to avoid a similar mistake. I am not finding my own conversations on this and without the text of the original, I am not recalling the specifics of my errors. Do you have any tips for pulling any helpful documents? I am in no rush to re-create the article, so whatever timetable works for you also works for me.
Best regards, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like I might be able to help you out but you need to provide a link to the deleted article. You know the exact name of the article you created so it would be faster if you could provide this rather than me spending time looking for it. Then I could review the reason for deletion and see if the situation is as you state it is. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I needed. Oh, this was from 2023! This was a CSD G7, an article creator asks for deletion so this can be reverted if that's what you are asking for. LizRead!Talk!23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your concern, on the AN/I thread, that the volume of material is daunting. I spent literally hours researching, drafting, and editing my request, to try to simplify it as much as possible. (I'm responding to you here instead of there precisely so as not to add to the length of the thread.) I think this was also a problem on the thread on the BLP Noticeboard. The three SPAs flooded the zone with reiterations of their position, and only one uninvolved editor was dedicated enough to wade through it all.
And speaking of wading through it -- you presumably haven't waded through Talk:The Keys to the White House. You've done more than other admins by even reading my summary. Frankly, your hope that these differences could be resolved on talk pages is, alas, completely unrealistic. If you look at that page, you'll see that I've tried and tried and tried until I'm blue in the keyboard. The SPAs will not budge.
It's a classic case of WP:SPA. In June of this year there was a blog post criticizing Lichtman. At about the same time, these three accounts showed up pushing the bloggers' position. They even insisted on citing the blog's criticisms (in a BLP!). You can see several screenfuls of text at Talk:The_Keys_to_the_White_House#Unacceptable_source as I tried to get them to adhere to WP:SPS. But even that self-evident point couldn't be resolved on the Talk page. Just to get those improper citations removed, I had to expend yet more time to create a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard thread. Consensus-based dispute resolution just doesn't work when there are SPAs whose sole or primary purpose in editing is to push their POV. (The current, POV version doesn't directly link to the blog post, but it does quote the nonnotable bloggers as if they were experts. Coincidentally, the SPAs asserted that the bloggers were experts.)
I'm at my wits' end with these accounts. There's a limit to how much time I can spend banging my head against a brick wall in the hope of some miraculous resolution on the Talk page. If no admin will pick up a mop and do something (maybe even a 30-day article ban would send a salutary message!), then I'll probably just have to give up. The SPAs will succeed in thumbing their nose at WP:NPOV and hijacking a BLP article to promote their views. JamesMLanetc15:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this situation has left you so frustrated. And also that I'm not willing, at this point, to go diving into this complicated dispute to try to settle it. But most of my time editing on the project is filled up with some routine tasks that take up most of my time and I've only recently returned to even looking at cases that come up on ANI so I don't see my time freeing up any time soon.
Without coming to a conclusion on this complaint, I see that you have two problems: a) the complexity of this case that involves at least three other editors and the fact that it appears that this dispute has covered several different talk pages and noticeboards and b) that, right now, it looks like it is you against at least three editors. You'd have an outcome more to your preference if you had at least one other editor who was contributing to this discussion who supported your interpretation and could speak up. I'm sure it's maddening to see a situation you believe is inappropriate and be alone in this.
Is there a related WikiProject where you could go to their talk page and ask for uninvolved editors to offer their opinion? Or you could post an impartial request for help on the talk page of a related article. Of course, numbers don't always determine consensus on Wikipedia but at least you could get a second opinion on whether the way you interpret this situation is correct. I've found that in many disputes on Wikipedia "me vs. you" situations (or, in this case, "you vs. them") are frequently resolvable if more editors join in the discussion. Any chance of that occurring? LizRead!Talk!19:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz, thanks for your response. I completely understand the limitations on your time and energy. I have a long Wikipedia to-do list, with some items dating back years, and I'm not even an admin.
I wanted more editors to join in the discussion. That's why I started the RfC and then the Noticeboard thread. Each of those efforts brought a response from an experienced and previously uninvolved editor, and in each case the editor agreed with me. The three SPAs are unmoved, though. Their attitude is that their POV is correct, the article is fine the way it is, as long as they don't agree to a change there's no consensus, and as long as there's no consensus the version they prefer must remain in place.
As for WikiProjects, I did post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia#Question about adding template. I just want the BLP template placed on the Keys article, because the SPAs wouldn't even agree that BLP standards applied. Being cautious, I thought an uninvolved editor should add the template. No one added the template or even responded to my post. I also noted the RfC on the lists for Biographies; for History and geography; and for Politics, government, and law. I assume that many WikiProject participants monitor the applicable list for their project.
My current inclination: (1) Hope that the AN/I thread gets attention from an admin who can undertake the admittedly burdensome task of addressing the problem. (2) If some time passes and no other admin responds there, I'll try starting a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The weakness in that plan is that, even if it elicits comments from a few experienced editors, the SPAs will persist. Past comments from such editors have had no effect on the SPAs. (3) If that doesn't work, I'll consider your suggestion of WP:AE. I've never done one of them and it seems to be a lot of work by me, and then hope that some admin takes an interest. My personal opinion is that the SPAs' violations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are much clearer than the charge of contentious editing. If nothing can get done based on violations of two clear policies, I can't be very optimistic about AE. JamesMLanetc20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I'm writing about the odd situation with Wikipedia and antisemitism. I don't believe the AfD nominator (Selfstudier) was looking for a Keep result; they supported merging while sayingMight be better just to AfD it as POVFORK. They seem okay with either merging or deletion.
From my perspective, the merge discussion seemed to effectively evolve into a deletion discussion, especially now that the destination article already has relevant content and can't really fit more. So I thought it was logical to move to AfD, and there seemed to be some agreement for that from both sides of the dispute: myself and ProfGray on one side, Selfstudier and Hemiauchenia (the merge proposer) on the other.
I suppose the merge should have been closed before an AfD, but now that the AfD had developed, would you consider reopening it to let it run to conclusion?
I realize it could appear like I'm trying to work around a consensus to merge, but FWIW I think those arguments should also be considered by a future AfD closer. I.e. I believe this should be evaluated as a deletion, but with consideration of all relevant arguments. — xDanielxT/C\R22:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was accommodating another editor who requested a procedural close since the merger discussion was ongoing. Since the consensus was going in the direction of Keep, it was not clear to me what a Keep would mean if a Merge was also being discussed. Would it negate a decision to Merge? If a Merge was opposed then a Keep decision would be irrelevant because a Merge would already have been rejected. And I didn't see much support for Deletion which is what AFD is typically for, to consider whether or not an article should be deleted. So, I don't see any purpose to having an AFD discussion ongoing while a Merge is being considered if the closure looks like it would just have Kept the article as it is. I don't think an AFD should occur to just see if there is widespread support for a Merge, that's what the Merge discussion is for. So, it looks like this was splintering the debate and since the Merge discussion was started first, I think it should continue.
And AFDs should never occur just to verify that an article should be Kept, they should only occur if the nominator is seeking Deletion. Sometimes the outcome for an AFD is a Merge, Redirection or Draftification, but that decision arises out the consensus of the discussion, not as an outcome sought by the nominator. LizRead!Talk!23:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining further. So as I understand it, there were two concerns with the AfD:
The filer might not have been seeking deletion.
It was filed during an open merge discussion.
On (1), my impression is that several editors like Selfstudier are seeking either a deletion or merge outcome, and probably don't feel strongly about the difference since there isn't really content that would be merged. The practical difference might just be a redirect. For example Tryptofish mentioned supporting "either deletion or merging"; the merge proposer Hemiauchenia also planned to file an AfD. I guess what I'm saying is, we can have someone else file if needed.
On (2), I think ideally the merge discussion should be procedural closed (but its arguments still considered) to indicate that it has been supplanted by an AfD, but the question is who should make that call. I think Hemiauchenia might be willing to. If not, we could request an uninvolved closer, where a possible close could involve recommending a change of venue to AfD. Does that sound reasonable? — xDanielxT/C\R01:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is reasonable at all. The merge discussion had been open a week when the AfD started and had some 25 participants and represented a lot of editor time. The AfD was started without a deletion rationale and any outcome that overturns the merge outcome would instantly be challenged at DRV because it is out of process. It was just making a mess. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about
Hey Liz, I thought you might want to be aware of this discussion (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Wikipedia's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate sub judice reasons).
While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? SnowRise let's rap00:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been following this issue for about the past 10 days. I'm always reluctant to jump into a very long discussion that I haven't been part of since the beginning because I'm sure I'll miss something important when I skim through all of the comments. But I agree that this is a very important issue so I'll check in on the current state of the discussion. I appreciate your efforts to publicize this problem. LizRead!Talk!07:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz: it's a novel form of project activity for me and I'm not sure my approach is optimized for exposure, but I've made such efforts as I could. SnowRise let's rap09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a process that is easy to describe here. I would just go to SPI, look at some of the open cases listed on that page and then follow the instructions to open a new case which is pretty obvious if you review the page. As a warning to you though, Checkusers will not connect registered accounts to IP addresses because it can be an invastion of privacy, sockpuppet investigations are really to compare registered accounts with each other. So, if you just have this registered account and an IP address, I don't think it would be worth your time to go through the steps to set up a case. But I suggest you at least look over the SPI main page so you are more familiar with the process. LizRead!Talk!02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are cool, say what you want to say, and straight forward. Mine kind of people. Lets keep on this project going on better and better, and, please, poke me for whatever you need. I had been away and only focused on football for the last decade, or so, but earlier I had been active in many more areas of Wikipedia because I always did and still do find this one of the most amasirog projects on the entire internet. FkpCascais (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Crafterstar, you will have to be more specific and list the deleted drafts you want restored. You can also request restoration of a draft deleted for CSD G13 reasons at WP:REFUND. But I have deleted tens of thousands of draft articles for legitimate reasons and I'm not going to blindly restore them all because you requested this. LizRead!Talk!02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry, I didn't recognize your name and didn't know that you had been unblocked. You were quite a prolific editor and I deleted many of your drafts during the time period you were blocked as they went stale. In the page history of your User talk page, there should be a record of notices from FireflyBot so you can see which drafts were due to be deleted via CSD G13. I'm happy to restore any of those articles if you give me a list of the ones you wish to continue working on. Any way, welcome back. LizRead!Talk!20:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only advice is not to sock. There is no benefit from doing so, only risks and sanctions. If you want to have an alternate account, make it a legitimate one and put a notice on both User pages identifying it as such. I think that is where you got into trouble.
Also, among editors working on recently released films, there is some kind of rivalry on being the editor who creates the article for a new film and multiple editors in this area have been indefinitely blocked for taking shortcuts like overwriting another editors' work or tagging a page for deletion and then recreating it yourself. Don't get caught up in this nonsense because, truthfully, no one is keeping score of "who got there first". Focus on quality, not speed. LizRead!Talk!20:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑This is fantastic advice; I have been tempted many times to approach you, Crafterstar, regarding your creation, abandonment, and requested restoration of drafts. I have never seen this pattern outside of editors trying to be "first" when a draft they created becomes notable. It's not a particularly well-regarded approach to article creation.-- Ponyobons mots20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, there is also one other area where I see this happen and that is with hurricanes, tropical storms and tornadoes. But luckily, there is a fairly sizeable community of editors working on storms, they have created their own norms and they generally police themselves. And this has come up with some articles on elections and current events as seen on ANI and in a recent arbitration case. But the movie business is so big, prolific and announces upcoming movies years ahead of them being made, spreading across lots of countries that it is on a different scale as those other subjects. I've seen drafts kept "alive" for 3-5 years just because a film has been announced to be produced but nothing has happened on it yet. There is a lot of anticipation surrounding them, especially some big budget films and sequels. LizRead!Talk!20:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft work is a useful process in the situations you note as the event (whether it be political, a storm, or similar) is imminent. It's a staging area where multiple editors work together in preparation to publish an article on a soon-to-be notable topic. The mass creation of drafts based on announcements is just sort of...hoarding. It really appears, to me, as an attempt at owning the creation. -- Ponyobons mots20:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. Sorry to bother you, but I've noticed on several occasions you have closed AfDs on North Korean footballers (as delete) and then removed links to the article. The issue is that some of the links you are removing were incorrectly linking to the footballer and should have been linking to a politician of the same name. For example, in this diff you removed a valid redlink to a member of parliament who would be deemed notable under WP:NPOLITICIAN. I wouldn't say anything if this was a one-off, but it's happened repeatedly over the past year (see the history of the 2014 North Korean election article, where this has happened at least seven times). As this seems to be specifically an issue for North Korea, could you be a bit more careful when closing AfDs on North Korean footballers if the outcome is to delete? Cheers, Number5700:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are not bothering me. Thank you for bringing this issue to me but I'm not sure exactly how to respond. You say these are links are from articles deleted through AFDs and XFDcloser removes all links to deleted articles as part of its deletion process. And I'm not the only AFD closer, where are probably half dozen regular AFD admin closers and we all behave similarly, as far as I know. So, if this problem has reoccured then it's because I'm the only closer that has handled articles about North Korean footballers. The closure process doesn't make it easy to examine links to other articles to see what they are, it's kind of an "all or none" option and most (all?) closers choose to remove all links.
I also wonder how common it is that a North Korean football player has the same name as a politican. Is this really a big issue? All I can offer you as a soljution is that I skip closures of AFDs about North Korean football players but I think you will run into the same issue with any other closer who does handle them. It's just the way XFDcloser operates and closers are dependent on this editing tool. I'm sorry that I can't offer you a more elegant solution than for me to just cease closing these AFDs. LizRead!Talk!02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that these links are all removed because of AFDs? Because we see a lot of North Korean football players in PROD'd articles and that is a different situation entirely. LizRead!Talk!02:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: when using XFDcloser, do you see a list of pages you are about to edit/just edited when removing the links? Otherwise, it might be a good idea to check your own contributions after running the script, just to verify that removing the links made sense. For example, after you closed the Ri Yong-chol AfD, you made edits to the following pages:
Knowing you just deleted an article about a football player, many of those are obviously correct. However, the ones I marked with a * above are not as obvious, so you should verify whether your edit made sense and possibly self-revert. Obviously, that's not always necessary, only when the name of the deleted article could be ambiguous. And looking at your contributions, most deleted articles have far fewer incoming links, so checking if the removals made sense is even less work.
(note: in this case, Number 57 already fixed the two election pages, I fixed four others, and the last one is a list of people with that given name, so it's a correct removal.) --rchard2scout (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't realise it was automatically done by XFDcloser rather than you doing it. It's not a massive problem, but just as it had happened so often I thought it would be worth bringing to your attention. Perhaps it's an issue for XFDcloser and tweaking that so closers can examine the incoming links to make sure they are all relevant? I've never used it, so not sure how it works. Number5715:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieving my draft titled "The Jackson 5 Us Tour"
I request for this draft titled "The Jackson 5 US Tour" that was taken down by you on October 4, 2024. I wasn't aware until now that it was lacking editing and that it was taken. I'd like my draft back. 1Skywriter (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to the deleted page. Then I can see why it was deleted. That will determine whether or not it can be restored. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost certain I added a reference and deproded this article. Could you check in the history to see if I did, or am I not remembering right? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I was wrong. Sometimes, I open up articles, each in a tab, that are due to be deleted. I saw in the page history that you added content but I didn't note that you had removed the PROD tag, this is often noted in an edit summary. But I should have refreshed my screen. Thanks for being on top of this and your work on PROD'd articles. LizRead!Talk!19:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz,
Thanks for attempting to intervene with @Altenmann:, who I have pinged for transparency. Unfortunately, they are clearly not getting the message that they're deep into battleground behavior. And insulting my coding ability, telling me I should be shamed by my behavior, and frankly, just throwing a temper tantrum instead of trying to actually engage in the issue, is not helping them achieve their desired outcome. Frankly, I'm surprised that they have so many edits (200k+) and think that this kind of behavior is acceptable. I think that they should be embarrassed by their behavior. I'd rather not waste ANI's time if it can be prevented. SMasonGarrison01:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, politely revert warring with cosmonauts in the category of Russian Empire is a nice and pleasant behavior. Surely you are not ashamed of your WP:OWN attitude. Your coding creates a mess in wikipedia category, and it is a fact, not an insult. Yes with my 200k+ non-automated edits have brought me in a contact with plenty of bullies and sometimes I am losing temper. --Altenmann>talk01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical of my experience with this editor over the years. Every once in a while, they will post here IRATE, not displeased but seriously angry, over some random edit I made that is just typical of the editing I do, nothing out of the ordinary at all. But it drew their attention and they were not happy about it.
When I tried to discuss the situation, they might have made some parting shot but then they just moved back to continue editing like nothing had ever happened. I'm sure given their MO over their long tenure here, there is enough for an ANI complaint about civility but it would take a lot of time to track down all of the diffs and I'm sure you'd rather be editing categories. If I were you, I'd try to just shake it off and know that you are just the latest target of their displeasure and they are unlikely to be hounding you. I think especially among editors who been editing here for a long-time, they just learn to avoid disputes by keeping their distance from editors who push their buttons. No one at Wikipedia gets along with everyone. LizRead!Talk!01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz, it's good to know that this is just what they do. I assume that after the CFD closes with a rename, they'll move on to their corner of the internet. And yep, you're right, I'd much rather be futzing around with categories :) SMasonGarrison01:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, Timtrent. I didn't see any indication of a changed username and generally, when a username is changed the renamer moves their user pages to those corresponding to the new username. LizRead!Talk!19:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz I thought I'd answer your question here rather than on the AFD discussion as it isn't relevant to whether the article is deleted or not (it'll be not by the way). Shrug02 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Liz I've now left an answer on the page in question. I've had enough of all this business and would like to be left alone now. I will not be participating in any further AFD matters after the current ones are closed as 1 I started doing Wikipedia for fun not hassle and 2 the process is a biased farce based on who says what rather than facts and rule adherence. Have a great day 🙂 Shrug02 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Yes, I did create it, because it must take so much effort for you (and the other closers) to do the pretty thankless task of reviewing ALL the AfDs that close every day and I thought a little recognition was in order. I thanked you first because from what I've you always throughly evaluate the consensus and close with reasonable ATDs that might not have been considered. So, thanks I guess! MolecularPilot🧪️✈️05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I have a bias in closing AFDs, MolecularPilot, It's not for "Keep" or "Delete", it's for a valid ATD. But I found out early on when I first started that I can't introduce an ATD, it has to come out of the discussion. So, hopefully, a participant can find a relevant article to redirect to and bring it up in the discussion. LizRead!Talk!05:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mülbach had been a bare stub in mainspace. Then a student-project began working on it in draft-space. It was recommended they merge the stub with the draft, which they did. But they did "stub merge+redirect to draft", rather than leaving the stub existing until the draft was ready to move to mainspace. Should the mainspace be undeleted and returned to the stub state, rather than losing mainspace content? DMacks (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do whatever you think is appropriate. It was just deleted as an CSD R2, cross-namespace redirect, not because of the content. LizRead!Talk!06:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DMacks, I"m trying to turn over a new leaf. I have been remiss in not replying to messages on my talk page very promptly. I was waiting until the end of the day to respond to them all and then something would come up. I'm trying a new way of responding to messages soon after they are posted. Wish me luck. LizRead!Talk!06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Good luck!" If you're in the northern hemisphere at the moment, perhaps you can find some nice autumn leaves for turning-over or shuffling-through. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, you recently blocked this editor from category namespace for improper editing there, and it appears they have now transferred that same behavior to file namespace. Can you please take a look and consider taking additional administrative action? Thanks. Left guide (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz
Dr. D. presents his compliments, respecting you to be one of the (alas, now very few) sensible and rational administrators of this community.
Since Dr. D's group members do not edit Wikipedia article space, he requests yous to kindly arrange with like minded admins to Revdel all references to his bodies on this project, for which he shall be obliged.
PS: that's a really cute kitten(meister).
PPS: The medium is the message SumoAvocado (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my User talk page. First, I have no idea who Dr. D is so I wouldn't know how to search for references to him on this enormous project. If there aer specific edits you are concerned about, please provide a "diff" or link to an individual edit and I'll see whether or not it fits in with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There usually has to be a good reason to remove content from an article (unsourced claim, BLP violation, copyright infringement, etc.) so if you could provide a reason why these mentions are unsuitable, that would be helpful. But first, you really have to first provide a real name before any action can be considered.
If you have any general questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies and guidelines, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice and support. I'm not always available but there is almost always someone available at the Teahouse to address any concerns you have. LizRead!Talk!18:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the prompt revert. Here's the diff. and here's Dr.D in conversation with famous journalist and author Iftikhar Gilani. Since we presently have no intention to edit in mainspace, your welcome offer of the Teahouse is politely postponed to a future date. (Sorry for any misunderstands, English is not my first language).SumoAvocado (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see no reason to revert my comment on WP:ANI but I'm not sure that's even what you are asking of me. And you still haven't provided a name for who is this "Dr. D". I read through that link you shared and I didn't see anyone who is a "Dr." who had a last name that started with "D". Your intentions for your contributions on Wikipedia are unclear to me so I don't know how to respond to you. You are being very indirect and not spelling out what you want to happen. But discussions on Wikipedia are public and not censored as long as they don't violate our guidelines and policies. So, I guess, for the moment, this discussion is over. LizRead!Talk!03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. R.S. Dalvi, CEO of Hindu Raksha Dal requests Administrators of Wikipedia (English version) to delete all references to Hindu Raksha Dal and "Hindu News" / "Hindunews.stream" from WMF hosted computer servers. Specifically, for the present, Hindu Raksha Dal desires that the following threads be REVDELed 1 and 2 as they contain unacceptable, derogatory language and ignorant opinions about the organisation and its projects. SumoAvocado (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out you were referring to "Rajendra Singh Dalvi". I did a search on Wikipedia and he is not mentioned in any article on the project. I'm not going to delete entire discussions about the Hindu News and no other admin would either. That would be censorship. Just because a discussion can contain criticism does not make it defamatory. Discussing subjects in detail is how editors come to a consensus on how to treat sources and come to decisions.
Certain privileged confidential material criminally misappropriated from a private website of Hindu News is being discussed on your website by strangers to the Hindu Raksha Dal/HRA. In these discussions highly disparaging and derogatory remarks are being made about Hindu Raksha Dal (an intensely private body) and its projects. Your editors have no cause to discuss HRD / HRA (private bodies) or its private projects, it's a blatant violation of your CoC. When an HRD rep visits your website to protest he gets blocked. When we approach WMF (in the past) they say they have no editorial control over this website. Having previously gotten these matters escalated all the way up to the Supreme Court of India (where WMF was severely rapped for its selfsame stand) on the 2024 Kolkata rape/murder victim naming issue, HRD is now left with limited options (incl. but not limited to enforcing its own CoC in place of WMF's). If complaints to Senior Administrators of this website go unheeded it only spirals the situation, especially since HRD/HRA is not your typical "rule of law abiding" aggrieved stranger coming here to complain. NB: When WMF pleaded "no censorship" to the Supreme Court of India, they were told categorically WMF would be blocked in India. Its a slippery slope. If legally ill informed Wikipedia editors generate content about a private Indian organisation that contravenes India's cyber, media and criminal laws , we should not be told that only US law and Wikipedia (English) policies like "no censorship" apply. SumoAvocado (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SumoAvocado, I've already advised you to go to the Teahouse if you want to get in touch with WMF. Additional comments here, trying to itimidate me into doing what you ask, will have no effect so I see reason to continue this conversation. I do not know anything about the Indian courts, I'm just an administrator, taking care of my daily tasks and my concern is the health of the project, not your organization. I advise you not to make any legal threats which would result in a swift block of your account. Since your interest seems to be into debating and not actually contributing to this project, I'll ask you politely to move on from my User talk page and find something more productive to do with your time. Good bye. LizRead!Talk!07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have more than one email communication from WMF Legal (eg. from WMF erstwhile counsel Michelle Paulson -Date: Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:27 AM-, and/or jpgordon, and/or legal@wikimedia.org "On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation") asking us to reach out directly to Wikipedia (English) admins in such situation. Because you are an Admin who has posted multiple messages on the Administrators Notice Board thread we are concerned with and in accordance with the afore described WMF communications to us, we are reaching out to you, and you specifically, to get those 2 threads entirely redacted / revdelled IN GOOD FAITH as contrary to US Law in addition to Indian law, as well as WMF's CoC and ToU. We are puzzled why you feel intimidated. As an Administrator of this website and its policies, surely you are obliged to follow the policies of your website and those of your media hosts which we are approaching you to enforce with the administrative tools at your disposal which are not available to us. SumoAvocado (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am Muhammad, and while you don’t know me, I’ve noticed and greatly admire your work on improving Wikipedia. I’m reaching out because I’ve recently been given a 72-hour block (that's now expired), but I’m still not entirely clear on the reason behind it.
I saw your comment on my prior talk page [2], and it seems you may be familiar with my actions. I’m open to discussing the situation further in case there has been any misunderstanding or if I missed something. Any insight you have to help me understand the reasons behind the block would be truly appreciated.
I’ve written a response here [3] and would be grateful if you could take a moment to review it. I’m more than willing to engage in a constructive conversation to clarify things and if I had indeed done something wrong to get 72 hours, I will take responsibility for those actions. But it's hard to take responsibility when you don't even understand the error.
If you are evading a block, please stop editing right now. Wait for your block to end and then we can talk. Block evasion can result in a much longer block for your original account, lasting weeks and months, not 72 hours. This is a short block and don't do anything to jeopardize your original account. LizRead!Talk!23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad to hear that your original block is over. I have posted a response to you on the User talk page of your original account, the one that got blocked. I'm sure you won't be satisfied by my comments but it's the best advice I can offer you. I'm not saying that your block wasn't a "big deal", every block is a big deal to the person who has been blocked. But if you want to continue to edit here in harmony with the community, you need to move past this block and work on improving the articles and other productive work you could do. Think less of the past and more about the positive ways you can contribute from here on out. LizRead!Talk!03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are more than capable of handling this incident yourself, as you have been. Sometimes, though, the protector needs protection. I hope I have not overstepped the mark here. If I have, and if I have upset you in any manner over this, first please accept my apologies, and second please ask me to withdraw the ANI report. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Timtrent, I wasn't pleased that you brought this discussion to ANI because while I, in general, agree with removing vandals, I didn't think I need "protecting" from this particular conversation. And also I was wondering how far this editor was going to go with their demands. But I didn't object here, or at ANI, because I had ended the discussion here and I thought that this subject of threats against Wikipedia is bigger than me and this User talk page and my interactions with this editor. I was considering sharing this discussion on AN but that was just to inform other administrators about the revision deletion demands, not to take action against the editor. But now that NRP has identified the editor as a probable sock, if I had known that earlier, I would have blocked them myself. But I see you had good intentions when you took your action. LizRead!Talk!20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, Timtrent, no apologies are necessary. I know that you do what you do for the benefit from the project and clearly this was an attempt to exert undue influence over our discussions and content. As a woman, the language of "protection" probably strikes me differently than if I was male or gender fluid.
But I also appreciate having editors watch my user talk page because, for some reason, I seem to have a lot of socks and bad actors reach out to me, maybe it's because I'm female, I don't know. Additionally, I do try to engage with some blocked editors to help them understand why they have been blocked and perhaps that is an unwise use of my time and I should rethink that activity. LizRead!Talk!22:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not believe this, but I had not considered your gender, your username notwithstanding. I see you as a valued colleague, no more and no less. I consider Wikipedia editors to be equal in every respect with each other. I think I need to stop digging this hole now!
I know there is usually a last-minute rush but at the moment we don't even have enough candidates to fill the open spots. And although several former arbs are running, the committee needs people who aren't as jaded and prone to burnout. I think you could bring the perspective of a very hard-working admin who knows what it is like to be in the trenches to the committee, something that it may be a bit thin on right now. I'm also more or less positive you'd get in if you ran.
The process really isn't so bad, you answer a bunch of questions, maybe a few people comment on your discussion page, that's pretty much it, the rest is just waiting. I expect it will be considerably easier for you than it is going to be for me. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just posted my statement but had some glitches so if you could double-check it, that would be awesome. I noticed during the same half hour, that two other admins also posted their statements so maybe this is the beginning of the last minute rush. But thanks for the encouragement. LizRead!Talk!00:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, Liz! Though I'm sure JSS is right and you don't need much extra luck. There's lots of folks on standby ready to pick up the slack if you have to drop some of that hard work you do to handle ArbCom business instead. :) -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
asilvering, you know, besides repeating the horrendous experience that was my RFA, the other reason I was hesitating to file was because I greatly enjoy the work I do as an admin and it keeps me very, very busy. I'm reluctant to let that go as it provides me with little boosts of energy throughout the day. But, if I am elected, we'll talk more and maybe I can start delegating some of the projects that I spend time on to other competent administrators who might have some time on their hands (just/kidding) LizRead!Talk!02:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting both of your candidacies @Just Step Sideways @Liz (and full disclosure, a root vegetable of whom I'm quite fond). You are exactly what ArbComm needs to move this project forward in its next decade but also amid this world mess which will lead to more CTs and not less. Good luck! StarMississippi02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz. You have semiprotected ANI from editing indefinitely, which is very unique and surely not desirable. Usually it gets protected for 6 or 12 hours or a few days at most. Did you perhaps misclick and mean to semi moving the page indefinitely, which is usual, and from editing for 3 days? Bishonen | tålk09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, never mind, I see you changed it as I was posting, with ECR protection for 3 hours. Mind you, I still think moving the page should be indefinitely limited to admins. Basically, nobody needs to move it. Bishonen | tålk09:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
That was a mistake, I meant to semi-protect it for 3 days but it sounds like even that would be too long. I'm not sure why the default duration of protection is "infinite". I didn't want to protect for only extended confirmed editors but this troll seemed to have an infinite number of accounts and reverting them was burning up our supply of editors. But it's just for 3 hours, hopefully, long enough for him to get bored and move on. But sorry for my mistake. LizRead!Talk!09:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I see you caught it yourself. The short ECR protection is novel but seems a good idea in this situation. (But, sorry to go on about it, what about the move protection? Move vandalism is quite popular, if the trolls get a chance with a major page.) Bishonen | tålk10:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hi Liz! I hope it's ok to reach out with this suggestion, you know so much more about Wikipedia than I do but I'm wondering if I might be able to help a little with blocked editors, considering what you've said?
I've been working on getting more experience with editing (specifically with the Typo Team) as you kindly suggested, along with some basic copy editing of random articles. I've come across editors who were otherwise decent, but became embroiled in a dispute to the point that they lost perspective & wouldn't drop the stick.
They were angry because they cared about their work but let it get the best of them & just needed someone to acknowledge their feelings, so I continued on their Talk page to say if I could help. I'm glad to say that it definitely did and the stick was dropped - you can see the discussion link in the Barnstar on my Talk page if you want to see an example, or I can post a direct link for you?
If you come across someone who you think might benefit from a similar positive message on their Talk, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to do so! I realise how busy you are (and will be, I can see everyone's rooting for you for Arb!). Needless to say, I'm too inexperienced to discuss the reasons for a block, policies, other people's actions etc., so I absolutely will not discuss that. If things go awry I'll immediately stop and seek advice.
TLDR: If you come across someone who might need a positive post please let me know; similarly if you don't think this is a good idea then I completely understand, I just wanted to throw this out there to see if I can help 🙂 Blue-Sonnet (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your comment to start a new discussion as it had nothing to do with the rather intense conversation that you placed this in the middle of. Please do not insert content that is not relevant to a discussion, especially in the middle of an ongoing conversation. I don't think you have enough editing experience to be advising other editors (maybe when you are extended confirmed) but I encourage your efforts to deescalate situations. We always need more peacemakers as long as they aren't telling other, more experienced editors what to do. That will not be appreciated. LizRead!Talk!05:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago I created a page for Bojan Ilievski after his debut for the Macedonia National Team. You deleted it, saying he is irrelevant and it was only one friendly game. He is now summoned again by the national team for the upcoming UEFA National League fixtures. Is there a possibility to bring back his page?
I assume you are talking about the article that was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bojan Ilievski? First, I didn't say anything about the quality of the article or the notability of the subject, I just assessed the consensus arising out of the discussion and closed it. I have no opinion on the subject.
Secondly, I'm willing to restore this article to Draft space or User space but you MUST submit the draft to Articles for Creation for review. If you just move it back to main space, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 which is for articles deleted through AFD that have been recreated. It will then be much, much more difficult to restore it a second time. Are you willing to do this? If not, then it is better to write a new article in Draft space from scratch. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Still wondering if you could possibly restore my userspace draft for Ivy Wolk so that I could get a look at it and possibly move some things to the page that exists there now. Thanks! benǝʇᴉɯ18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, sorry that I didn't follow up your original request that is somewhere in the middle of this User talk page. I typically just look at the bottom of this page and can miss updates to older discussions.
Secondly, as you mention, there is an article, Ivy Wolk, in main space that was moved from Draft space. Is there yet another version of this article that was deleted? Please provide me with a link to the page of the deleted article so I can look into the circumstances of its deletion. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fine! The draft I'm talking about was located at User:Benmite/Ivy Wolk. I moved it to mainspace before it got deleted so I'm not sure if the page's history will still be intact, but let me know if it is. benǝʇᴉɯ19:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with other work on the project. Here's what I can see, there is only one deleted edit at User:Benmite/Ivy Wolk so there is no content on that page. However, there was content that you made at Ivy Wolk which had gotten deleted when the article was tagged for speedy deletion CSD A7, G4. I have restored your edits now that this article has gone through a deletion review. I did not restore deleted content that was removed through an AFD discussion deletion and I don't think I could, but that is not what you are asking for. However, even though this content has been returned to the page history, do not revert this article back to your original edits. The edits remain there as a source of content you could draw from to add to the new version of this article but do not just restore this article back to a version of the one you created. That would erase all of the work that has been done since this new version was created. Make sense? Thank you. LizRead!Talk!23:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
There has been major disruption in the article and the version you restored for maintaining the Afd tag is about a different politician. It was earlier about a different person who is serving as a minister in Government of Bihar. But, now the version you restored is about a poltician, who is not notable.[4]Adamantine123 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD might have the same outcome that you were trying to achieve with this article. It's just that once an AFD has been opened, it can't be bypassed. Tags should not be removed or the article redirected, moved to Draft space or blanked until the AFD is closed. Your best bet is to go to the AFD discussion, if you haven't already, and make your case there. If it is persuasive, you'll probably achieve the results you want. But the decision has to come out of the AFD discussion consensus. LizRead!Talk!00:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised, too, so I inquired about the block at Primefac's User talk page even though I expected the reply that I did receive. But Star Mississippi is correct, ArbCom blocks are not discussed publicly so we'll just have to accept what is as reality. But know, if Saqib wants to be unblocked, they can appeal their block, also, to ArbCom for review. LizRead!Talk!00:00, 16 November 2024 (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.
Re [5], I think it was clear enough there wasn't going to be any more bickering, so I wonder about your comment. I'll take minor offense to the half of it directed at me. No big deal. The main point there was that GoodDay was in the wrong from the start of that issue, and never said as much (nor did anyone else). Cheers, ―Mandruss☎12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mandruss, I apologize if you found the word "bickering" as implying that you didn't have a valid reason for opening a complaint. That's not what I meant. By bickering, what I typically mean is a discussion that goes back and forth between two editors who disagree, that is not moving towards a resolution. I closed the discussion because I've found is that, often, on ANI, the longer a complaint stays open, the more frequently it receives unhelpful comments from the peanut gallery that watches noticeboards. I also see that the longer a complaint is open, the more likely it is that sanctions will be imposed on one or both of the editors involved and I did see that as an appropriate outcome to this dispute. You outlined your disagreement, there was a response, GoodDay withdrew from participating on that article which seemed like it resolved the problems you cited. If it instead continues on a different article, you are welcome to open a new complaint and cite this one for reference.
I see my job as an administrator on ANI as trying to resolve and deescalate disputes and so this was my mindset when I closed this discussion. LizRead!Talk!23:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were referring to bickering between me and GoodDay, which had clearly ended some time before your closure. withdrew from participating on that article which seemed like it resolved the problems you cited No, the problem was resolved (far too late) by GoodDay's self-revert. Their participation at the article was never an issue—as I said in the ANI thread. ―Mandruss☎00:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you invented a new header that I didn't add. I don't think of this as a "controversy", other editors are just sharing their opinions. Look at any long-term editor's User talk page and you'll see a mixture of compliments and complaints. And, believe me, this is not a "scolding" and I definitely didn't start anything. You moved my comment down from the middle of the page, where no one would have noticed it, to its place at the bottom of the page, where editors are trained to look for new messages.
You seem to be ignoring the advice that experienced editors are offering you which is to focus more on improving articles and less on the "discussion" aspects of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a forum or social media channel. Please focus less on socializing and more on article improvement. LizRead!Talk!02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can not restore an article that was deleted through the AFD deletion discussion process. Your best bet is to start a new article in Draft space. If you think my closure was an incorrect reading of the consensus of participants, you can make an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. LizRead!Talk!06:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for sharing your DRN experience on the ANI complaint. I've been reading over the pages related to this subject and it seems like folks are basically in agreement now. It helps when you remove sockpuppets from the conversation. LizRead!Talk!18:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It's not like there is a big red button that an admin or arbitrator can push to cause a blackout to happen. Actually, any admin with the interface-administrator bit could do this, in various ways, depending exactly on what was meant by "blackout", like what level of blacking out the community intended. If the idea were extreme, to literally make the content unavailable except to technical experts, then changing the CSS of most of the important divs and other elements to display: none; would do the trick. If it were to visually hide the content at first but still make it accessible with a little effort (and have no effect on users of screen readers), a common means, used for spoilers and such at various websites, is to make the text the same color as the background so that it has to be selected with the mouse (causing a highlight color) before it can be read. A third approach is simply visible effect; the original web blackouts (which I helped originate back in the '90s) did not render the page unreadable at all, but simply changed content and most other site elements to black with light-colored text on top, so it was stark and a major change (well, except maybe for some goth scene and horror film and death-metal music sites, heh). The usual approach is then to provide a message spelling out why things have gone black, to raise awareness about whatever the issue is.
I argued in the RfC why this was a poor idea for something like this in particular (complicated legal questions few would understand, yet an activism method designed to generate an immediate "no!" reaction, with a target, which in this case would basically be a WMF hand attacking to cut off WMF's own nose to spite its face). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the technical explanation. It is disconcerting to me that one admin, with a certain degree of privileges, could cause a blackout to happen. This is like blanking the main page, there should be safeguards in place. I don't think this is how things should work, that one person could unilaterally make this happen. LizRead!Talk!04:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they could do it and then get immediately desysopped for vandalism or something akin to it (mega-POINT?). Ultimately, for any "big deal" there will be some gatekeepers whom we have to trust. Someone somewhere has to be able to edit the "interface" pages including our CSS specifications, just as a technical matter. I suppose that the "pending changes" system or something like it could be bent to putting any such change on hold until another interface-admin approved it, but I'm not sure how much that would impede interface-admins' normal workflow. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:
Oh, Gerda! You are one of my favorite editors and are such a positive presence on the project. But I really do not have strong opinions on infoboxes and I don't really know what your take is on that long-ago arbitration case. Sometimes, infoboxes can provide a useful summary of information for biographical or historical articles and sometimes, they are completely unnecessary. ARBCOM doesn't rule on content decisions or MOS issues but on disruption caused by editors so I just hope that if there are still disputes about infoboxes, they can be resolved at the appropriate noticeboard or policy talk page and not erupt into a dispute that finds its way to an arbitration case request.
I'm sorry I can't give you a more definitive answer but I really am neutral on infoboxes and would support whatever decision a consensus of editors has come to on an article talk page. But I support content creators all the way! LizRead!Talk!05:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but sorry, I don't think you got the question. There was an arbcase in 2013, but the "contentious topic" came in a later one. Do we still need it? Look at discussions on the talk of 5 composers and tell me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. Regarding my question, I found one so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. I'd still like to know what you think about the Copland posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. - I can report happily that the Barber situation was resolved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I emailed you hours ago explaining the situation, and have just had to go to Oversight again to request suppression of the ANI thread where you and @Explicit disclosed the supressed username. Utterly stupid behaviour. qcne(talk)13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I published an article about an academic journal, Functional Diamond, almost a year ago, which you deleted in Jan this year for the reason that the journal is not notable enough. After a year's progress, now the journal has been indexed in ESCI. So, I think it has reached the requirements and hope you could restore the article. Thank you very much :)
Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article? Then I can look into the circumstances of the deletion which will impact how or if I can help you. Just write [[Article title]]. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!18:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoneFunctional Diamond was deleted as a Proposed deletion which can be restored upon editor request so I have done so. However, I know the editor who tagged this article for proposed deletion and they are likely to start an AFD deletion discussion on this article in the near future. I recommend editing it in order to improve the article and address any problems stated in the PROD tag which you can see in the page history. Good luck! LizRead!Talk!02:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz
Just a quick note to say I hope you're ok after those inappropriate and disrespectful comments at ANI. I want to put on the record that I and many others appreciate your work here, particularly in AfD, PRODs and categorisation. Explicit also does important work which is why it was pretty disappointing to see that whole mess at ANI. AusLondonder (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I'm just getting up and I haven't looked at ANI since the complaint was posted so I haven't seen anything new that was added to it. But this has been simmering a while, at Wikipedia:Deletion review, several times they have called for me to resign and they were so vitriolic on my User talk page years ago, that I asked them to stop posting here except for required messages. After 11 years, they are the only person I've asked to stop posting here and that includes trolls! But, my mistake, I haven't been collecting diffs over the years so depending on what they say, it could take a while for me to defend myself. I'll head over there in a few minutes. Thanks though for your support. LizRead!Talk!18:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i recently found a website started by a social worker academic which is a database of open source (freely available) social work textbooks on every course a social worker would need to take from entry all the way to an advanced practice degree. will be useful for building Wikipedia articles. also please spread the word if any social workers you know would benefit. URL: https://opensocialwork.org/textbooks/RJJ4y7 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DreamRimmer. We generally make useful of the lists created by SDZeroBot but it always helps to have multiple sources of information plus you list the drafts last edited by a bot which is invaluable. Thank you for your work and for letting me know about it. LizRead!Talk!09:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 in Croatian television
Okay, well thanks for letting me know. I've been editing for over 11 years now and have so many scripts installed that I am not always cognizant of how my view of a page is different from another editor's. But it's amazing how often editors will suggest a target page for a redirect that is also a redirect. I guess they don't go and check it out first. LizRead!Talk!20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is very embarrassing to me. For CSD G13s, we use lists produced by SDZeroBot that, a week ahead of time, produces a list of upcoming stale deletes. See User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. I regularly keep 7 tabs open for the subsequent days of the week that are coming up. Accidentally, last night, I started deleting stale drafts that were due to expire on 11/25 UTC, instead of 11/24 UTC. I was a day off because I had closed one of the tabs. After a couple of hours, I realized my mistake and just restored all of the drafts I deleted a day early. It probably makes no difference at all, I mean, no one has edited these pages in 6 months but you should always check the page history to make sure there are no recent edits to the drafts.
Given the discussion on ANI last week, I didn't want to delete any page early since that was mentioned as a problem. So, go ahead, there is no reason not to delete these pages now that it actually IS 11/25 UTC. But I appreciate you checking in with me. Over the past 5 years I've been working with CSD G13s, this has only happened to me one other time so I don't expect this to be a regular occurrence. LizRead!Talk!03:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That GalaxyBot report is very, very new. It's only been around for a day or two and you can see DreamRimmer announcing it right here. It was originally a list to report drafts whose last edit was by a bot, that wouldn't show up on the SDZeroBot report, but it's turning out to be useful in other ways, too. LizRead!Talk!03:57, 25 November 2024 (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.
HI Liz, My Self Sujit Kumar Mishra, I'm author and actor. Last time year I have created wiki page for me. but that time lot's of mistake and my profile was deleted by you I think. So Now I want to create my new wiki pages. How Can I Start Pls. Guide me, Thanks Advance. Sujit0601 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sujit0601, can you give me a link to the deleted page? Perhaps it can be restored. As for advice on editing on Wikipedia, I'd recommend bringing your questions to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a forum to help new editors with learning about editing here. I don't really spend time advising editors on content creation. LizRead!Talk!02:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. You seem to be familiar with Quarry? I'm rather hopeless with SQL. Could this be used to produce a list of articles created (excl redirects) by an individual user? I got a bit carried away trimming my watchlist and want to make sure I have them all captured. xtools.wmcloud.org doesn't work due to edit count and I can't find any other way. If not, are you aware of any other tools? No urgency at all for this .. only if/when you have time. Thanks. Jevansen (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my user talk page. Am I familiar with Quarry? Well, yes and no. I run queries on Quarry throughout the day and so I make use of it a lot. But as for the queries themselves, the ones I use were all written by more technically-savvy editors than I. That happens a lot on Quarry, an editor will find a query that produces some report they are interested in and then they "fork" it or make their own copy.
One way to find editors that might know more about writing queries than I, is by looking at a list of recently run queries and see which editors are using Quarry. If you are friends with one of the editors who appear, you might try approaching them. But from looking at this list, I see DreamRimmer who just wrote an awesome query that helped us find expiring draft that had last been edited by a bot. Perhaps they would be able to whip up a query to help you.
You also might try Wikipedia:Request a query. I once wanted to find out how many Teahouse invitations I had posted (which was in the tens of thousands) and someone there helped me with it.
As for Watchlists, I'm the LAST editor to give advice there as I have over 200,000 pages on my Watchlist. I made the mistake of checking off a box that added every page I edit to my Watchlist which makes it practically useless to me now. I'm not even sure how to get it down to a manageable 10-20,000 page list.
Hi @ Liz. I hope you’re doing well. Recently I created this article about a Radhikaraje Gaekwad is one of the most progressive Maharani of India. Can you please review it? This has gone unnoticed for a while.Can you please tell me when and how will this article appear as the top search result when someone will search the topic? Radhikaraje Gaekwaddsrprj (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking for here. Radhikaraje Gaekwad has been a main space article since July 2024. When editors ask for a "review", it's typically of a draft article and they are asking if it is ready to move to main space. Main space articles are only reviewed by our New Page Patrollers and it doesn't look like any have examined it yet. But after all of these months that have passed, it's unlikely to be reviewed by a NPP now because they review recently created articles.
As for Google search results, that's nothing Wikipedia has control over. But you might get better advice than I can offer if you pose your question at the Teahouse, there are a lot of experienced editors there and maybe one of them knows more than I about search engine results.
it IS relevant. wikipedia has a shortage of articles on many important concepts in the social work profession.
my purpose in sharing the link was to jumpstart the building of wikipedia articles in this aria.
and since the "wikiproject social work" is pretty much dead, I'm enlisting the help of wikiprojects sociology and psychology which are the closest academic disciplines to social work.
what else should i do ? RJJ4y7 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to promptly and systematically remove all links to articles deleted at PROD? E.g. [6] It makes it much harder to fully restore these articles in the event they are deleted in error (which happens frequently at PROD IME). ~Kvng (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are having a good week. This is a more complicated question than it appears. It started when I first became an admin in 2015 and I was instructed that when I deleted a page, I should remove all of the red links. So, that's been my practice for the past 9 years. But lately, for PROD deletions (it doesn't seem to come up with AFD deletions), I've been asked to not just leave the red links but to go to each article and remove all of the references to the deleted article completely. Since some articles are linked to dozens of related articles, this could be very time-intensive additional work to do when you are focused on admin tasks, like I am.
I'd question you on two points: Is it really that hard, if a PROD'd article is restored, to undo my edits? Is it that they are hard to find amidst my long Contributions list? They are usually mentioned in my edit summaries and my guesstimate is that only about 1 out or 20 PROD'd articles is later restored. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "deleted in error" for a PROD'd article. Are you simply asserting that, if you had known about these tagged articles you would have removed the PROD tag? Because all admins I know who review PROD'd articles make sure they have not been PROD'd or to AFD before so I'm not sure what you are referring to as an "error". Additionally, I'm not the only admin who reviews and deletes PROD'd articles so if you want this unlinking behavior to end, it should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion.
Can you tell me where you receive these directions to delete links and mentions as part of deletion?
By error I mostly mean that WP:ATD has not been respected as I believe was the case with 8-N-1 recently. I have suspended my WP:PRODPATROL activities because it is not a workload I can sustain. When I have been active, I tend to deprod over 30% of proposals. Your assessment is 5%. I wonder why there is such a big discrepancy here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I appreciate the work you do with PROD'd articles. They don't get the kind of attention that articles nominated for AFD discussions receive. CSD-tagged articles and pages receive even less attention and are more difficult to restore than PRODs but that's another discussion that can occur at WT:CSD one day. I'm sorry you can't sustain your PROD patrolling as we only have a few other editors who keep up with PROD'd articles and then tend to focus on specific types of articles like ones about Olympians or films. Unfortunately, we don't have many "generalists" like yourself.
As for numbers, we are talking about apples and oranges here. Your figure is the number of tagged articles that you have de-PROD'd. I was talking about the number of articles and files that are deleted through Proposed deletion that are end up being restored through WP:REFUND or through a request to the deleting administrator. Also, I said my figure was a guesstimate that is just based on how many articles I delete as PRODs vs. how many articles I'm asked to restore. So, I wouldn't put any money on my figure.
That makes sense. I've never tried to assess how many prodded articles are restored (not an easy task for a non-administrator). I'm surprised it is 1 in 20. That means that as many as 1 in 6 iffy prods are being restored. I assumed that having to make a REFUND request and the near cloak of invisibility on deleted articles would provide a higher barrier than that. I don't know whether to be encouraged or discouraged by this information. ~Kvng (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2024 (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.
I know, that's why I removed the speedy deletion tag. It still needs some "parent" categories added to it. Our categories are in a hierarchy so what would be the logical categories that it would be a "child" or? It shouldn't be too difficult as species/genus also are sorted into hierarchies themselves. LizRead!Talk!21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have quite a few editors who have this User talk page on their Watchlists and you often help me out by supplying answers to queries either before I can get to them or when I don't know the exact answer to the question. But now I'm writing directly to you to encourage your participation in an annual election on the English Wikipedia.
This is the last weekend of Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024. Please take a moment to review the prospective candidates' statements, scan over the candidates' answers to questions posed to them, if you want, browse through some of the voter guides created by your fellow editors and, if you have formed any opinions, cast your vote. Your options for each candidates are "Support", "Oppose" or "Abstain"...Abstains are not included in determining the level of support for a candidate. Voting is open until 23:59 UTC, 2 December 2024, this Monday (3 days from now). Depending on where you live, this UTC time could correspond to 4 pm, 7 pm or 10 pm (Monday) or even 3 am, 6 am or 9 am (Tuesday) so check your time zone and clocks.
But here is your annual chance to cast your vote for the future arbitration committee members. Voter eligibility is outlined right here. Typically, I think elections draw between 1,000-2,000 participating editors so it's a fraction of our active editors. Consider your options and if you choose to participate, than please do so before Monday, midnight UTC, Dec. 2nd. Thank you for reading, now return to your regularly scheduled editing routine. LizRead!Talk!22:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, I dream of horses, is this election just a distraction from the editing work you prefer to spend your time on or is not voting a "protest vote" because you think the whole thing is political? And if you don't want to answer, that's fine, too. LizRead!Talk!02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "wasting space", it is just not an urgent matter than needs the attention of the entire admin community. If this had been persistent vandalism, then it would have been suitable for you to report it at WP:AIV, if it was an incidence of edit-warring, go to WP:ANEW, if you believe it was a case of sockpuppetry, file a case at WP:SPI, if it was an ongoing dispute that you cannot seem to resolve, then WP:ANI might have been appropriate if talking to another editor hadn't worked. But WP:AN is for issues affecting the admin corps or for certain other issues like a request from a banned editor to be unbanned from the project. Like many areas of this project, it takes a while to figure out where to go to find an answer to a problem.
This incident, however, was just 2 rather odd edits from a new editor but they weren't disruptive or damaging to the project. Instead of coming to AN, you could have tried talking to the editor or alerting an admin on their User talk page. But it definitely wasn't urgent and it's likely that this editor won't return to edit on Wikipedia. We get a lot of new accounts that are created, make one or two edits, and then leave. And, surprisingly, most accounts that are created don't make any edits at all!
You might want to look over Wikipedia:Noticeboards to see the variety of places you can go for help. I'm sorry if it seems a bit overwhelming but we have a lot of noticeboards broken down by the nature of the problem that is being discussed. Finally, any time you bring a complaint to a noticeboard about another editor, you have to notify them of the discussion. On the noticeboard, a code should be displayed that you can use or you can just leave a personal note that you write.
If you have any other questions about noticeboards and when you should use them, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. Have a good weekend. LizRead!Talk!21:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I see you removed the PROD from David Prager. I used to think it was for one-time use, but when I've recently double-checked, I'm not finding such restrictions, only restrictions on reverting and edit warring. Am I missing something? - Hipal (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PROD, PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD.. This article was PROD'd (see here, and then de-PROD'd (see here), in May 2007 so the article is not eligible to be re-PROD'd. In fact, no article can be PROD'd more than once unless the tag used is actually a BLPPROD which is for BLPs that have no references, citations or external links. I hope this explains my decision to remove the tag. This only means that, if you wish to see this article deleted, you must nominate it for a discussion at WP:AFD. LizRead!Talk!21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal (talk page watcher) Just to add in my opinion, PROD is good for checking if a low-quality, abandoned article is actually abandoned. If it is, it gets refundably deleted. If it isn't, it goes through AfD.
This is why I am so eager to convince editors to use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion, because Twinkle will leave a relevant edit summary stating that it was posting a PROD tag. It's easy to see when you are looking at the page history. But we have some senior editors who like to manually tag pages for deletion and they do not always leave a helpful edit summary stating what they did so sometimes you have to check all edits that are of a certain size to see if they were PROD-taggings. LizRead!Talk!23:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to set up a better editing environment for myself that includes Twinkle. (Yes, I still use WikiBlame and I miss reFill and it's predecessors.) I'm fairly good with the edit summaries at least. --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw that you are the editor that deleted the Raleigh Memorial Auditorium article. I was wondering if you would be able to undo that, or provide the old body from the previous article so that I can add that in when making a new article under the auditorium's new name "Martin Marietta Center for the Performing Arts"? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. Willthacheerleader18, you are better off starting from scratch. Since its creation, the page has been almost entirely lacking in independent verifiable sources or any real facts to show that it meets the notability criteria. It's also promotional in tone (recently enhancing the space to blend state-of-the-art technical amenities with traditional theatre traditions... a unique experience perfect for ballet, opera, concerts, and comedy... this space is also the idea blank slate for video shoots, meetings, and corporate luncheons) and a substantial copyright violation of the theatre's website. In any case, the G12 precludes restoration as a draft. Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:46, 1 December 2024 (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.
Maybe you can explain WP:REDLINK and MOS:BIRTHDATE to Robin82346? They won't listen to me, and they've been deleting red links with the editsummary Fixed dead link. Many of their edits are subpar, and many of them should be reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the categories of North Indian and South Indian descent.
Greetings,
I noticed that you placed a speedy deletion tag on the categories Category:American people of South Indian descent and Category:American people of North Indian descent. I would like to offer some reasons why these categories should be retained, as they highlight important aspects of diversity within the broader Indian-American community:
Recognition of Cultural and Regional Diversity:
India is an incredibly diverse country with distinct regional identities, languages, cuisines, traditions, and cultural practices. Categorizing individuals of South Indian and North Indian descent helps acknowledge these unique aspects within the diaspora, which otherwise might be overlooked in broader, generalized categories.
Better Representation:
These categories allow for a more granular understanding of how various communities contribute to American society. For example, South Indian Americans have made significant contributions in fields like technology and classical arts, while North Indian Americans are prominent in areas like politics and Bollywood-inspired media.
Facilitating Research and Accessibility:
Scholars, journalists, and readers looking to explore specific contributions or experiences of South Indian or North Indian communities in the U.S. will find such categorization invaluable. It ensures that resources and information are easier to locate and study.
Reflecting Diaspora Identity:
Many Indian Americans identify strongly with their regional heritage (e.g., Tamil, Kannada, Punjabi, or Gujarati). These categories validate and reflect the lived experiences and identities of people within the diaspora.
Consistency with Other Ethnic Subcategories:
Wikipedia frequently recognizes subcategories for other ethnic or national groups, such as Category:American people of Basque descent or Category:American people of Scots-Irish descent. The proposed categories are consistent with this practice of nuanced representation.
I believe these categories enrich Wikipedia’s diversity and inclusivity by acknowledging the varied and vibrant backgrounds within the Indian-American community. I hope this perspective provides a reason to reconsider the deletion proposal.
Looking forward to your response! SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this message is supposed to mean. Why are reposting a message from May 2024 on my User talk page? What are you asking for? LizRead!Talk!02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea either; you can contact the original commenter. I was just moving a message that had been misplaced on the wrong page in case it meant anything. Passengerpigeon (talk)03:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Liz! My name is Jayson Sherlock and I'm a musical artist and have been on Wikipedia for many years, I have many fans worldwide who use Wikipedia to find out information about me. I have no offensive material on my page and would never accept anything of that nature. I hope you will reinstate my page so my fans can continue to learn more about me. Thank you so very much. Blessings, Jayson. 115.64.107.101 (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to entertain the notion that it's someone related to the recent ArbCom case? I have filed an SPI request yesterday (under a different IP, as my home IP granted by my ISP is dynamic), but it seems that the request was shot down by an admin before it could have been reviewed.
I have been detailing that account for a while now and with their recent harassment by copypasting a CTOP warning (intended for themselves) to their victim (which is reminiscent of their behaviour on the Japanese wiki), I am confident to say that it is the very same person behind it, from the topics involved to the account they're (currently) harassing, as well as the edit timelines between the 2 (1 has been active, while the other has stopped completely). I have also sent an email with updated info regarding this to the CU team, perhaps you should ring them up regarding this.
On a final note, previously I was told off by users with something along the lines of "that misconduct on non-EN wikis aren't indicative of a user's behaviour on EN", I would like to think otherwise, misconduct is misconduct and a leopard never changes its spots. 14.192.215.18 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz! I was wondering if you could RevDel this diff that I made to my userpage (and the first edit of my userpage) in November of 2020, it unfortunately has my real name in it and I don't want to be self-doxxed on Wikipedia, especially since I'd assume people go to "first diffs" of pages just to see how they've changed over time. Thanks! EF517:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I saw that you handled one of these for EF5, and I was wondering if you could get everything from this diff back to the beginning of the user page, and for the same reasons.
Done And I took care of 2 edits on your User talk page, too. But there is a message in your talk page archives you're going to want to remove as well. LizRead!Talk!19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get that one; is there anyway to RD the name from my talk page history or am I just going to have to live with it?
Yes. The reason I didn't say anything is because of the renaming policy, where it says something about linking to previous names. As long as it's OK to delete that, I would love to.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Liz! I saw you made edits on the Simple Wikipedia. I have no idea what site is that, but you said it is your name. This is a famous convicted scammer with the fake agency for bots and fake accounts online.All the articles there are paid and fake and you can see that when you check them. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano
I am really not well acquained with the Simple English Wikipedia and how to nominate articles for deletion. Every Wikimedia project has their own system. But I do know that Vermont is an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia. I'd recommend posting a request on their Simple User talk page] and see if they can look into this matter for you. But admin privileges are not transferable so I am just a basic editor on that project and I don't visit it very often. Good luck! LizRead!Talk!20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be careful when discussing this editor as we have had conflicts in the past. It's not an accident that they happened across this draft deletion. I'm sure they will be reading this discussion, too.
I'll just say, thank you for addressing the mistake so quickly. All systems like bots have errors and the important element is to note when they happen and fix them promptly which it looks like you did. Thank you for your efforts to be responsive and for creating GalaxyBot. LizRead!Talk!02:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Hey. You left some comments in this discussion in November 2024. That discussion was eventually archived and no actions were taken. However, that same editor wrote this edit summary yesterday, which is once again targeted at me. Actions by administrators must be taken, because this has been going on for far too long. – sbaio20:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a polite edit summary, I'll admit, but why on Earth are you editing a draft that this editor created when you have a history of disputes with them? Stop looking at their contribution history and just keep distance between the two of you. I'm not going to sanction this editor for snapping at you when you came to a draft they created and were working on and chose to edit it, given the past history between you two. Don't monitor each other. Just work on your own projects. LizRead!Talk!22:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that draft was largely abandoned about five months. In addition, that draft is a WP:CFORK of multiple pages that have all that information. And I see that editor's contributions, because there are some pages on my watchlist that are sometimes edited by that particular editor. The "snapping" has been going on for more than a year and it all started when I tried to explain about WP:DATERET, which that editor ignored. So yes, I have a very good reason to look at history, because someone is getting away by constantly making personal attacks and breaking guidelines/policies. – sbaio22:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I PRODded this article on November 26 and then the page creator proceeded to remove the PROD template, which led to the category for the proposed deletion being deleted (by you). What should I do here? CutlassCiera23:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to need more information here. The category for the day's proposed deletions (like Category:Proposed deletion as of 27 November 2024 for today) is deleted at the end of the UTC day when all tagged articles and files have either been deleted or de-PROD'd. It's a maintenance category and the day has passed. You must mean a different category. Can you provide a link to the category you are concerned about? LizRead!Talk!23:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cutlass, once an article has been de-PROD'd, you can't PROD it again. A PROD happens only once. An editor removing the PROD tag doesn't need a good reason to remove the tag or offer any reason at all. You'll need to bring this article to WP:AFD if you are still seeking its deletion. LizRead!Talk!01:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can remove a PROD tag, the article creator, a registered editor, a random IP editor. I think you are thinking of CSD Speedy deletion, for CSDs, the page creator can not remove a CSD tag. And no one can remove an AFD/RFD/CFD/etc. tag until the discussion is closed. I hope this clear things up. LizRead!Talk!01:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: Prod is for deletions which are relatively uncontroversial–if anyone disagrees with the tag, then by definition the deletion is not uncontroversial. --Finngalltalk06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking some direction on this deletion discussion. The main reference being argued for showing notability was discussed here where even one of the keep votes suggested it needs additional consideration, and here where there is clear consensus that it is not reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also did not want to taint the discussion but this user who voted keep is awaiting behavioral review at SPI. Was hoping they would have been blocked before the end of the discussion but SPI appears to be busy. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking me to do here. Reconsider the AFD closure? Even if Sunuraju is judged to be a sock, I don't know if they would be a sockmaster or a sockpuppet and that would affect whether or not their AFD argument was struck. I'm not going to judge evidence on an SPI when a checkuser has been requested and, unfortunately, SPI is usually backlogged. And I wouldn't be surprised if there are some open cases from October that haven't been closed yet! And Sunuraju wasn't identified as a sock in the first two instances of this SPI in November that were closed so it is far from clear whether they would be identified as a sock in the current open investigation.
But even if Sunuraju's AFD argument was struck (and it wasn't even an argument so I didn't give it any weight), then I still think there was enough support for a Keep of this article or, at the least, a No consensus closure and the Keep arguments relied on more than the Youlin Magazine reference. Are you considering taking this to Deletion review? LizRead!Talk!19:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Liz. I am not asking based on the SOCK. I think I am mentioning it because of the SOCK activity that we see in these pages and don't want one of their keep votes to influence others to vote keep. The SPI was just re-opened which is a separate issue so please disregard me even mentioning it.
I don't feel like wasting time with a deletion review. You made the best decision based on the information presented so not questioning why you closed it. I think that I should have at least left a comment prior to close about the discussion with Youlin not being considered reliable by the film taskforce. This could have possibly led to a no-consensus at the least but not sure. So no, I won't be at DRV as you made the decision based on the information presented. Maybe hoping you could turn it into a no-consensus based on the new information about the source being unreliable. If not, that is fine as well. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you put a speedy deletion tag on Category:Peruvian companies established in 2011 because it's currently empty. The problem is: I've detected that someone created Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú S.A.. I then created this category according to the model of other already existing categories Peruvian companies established in yyyy, and added the 2011 category to this new article. After this, another fellow wikipedian moved the new article from mainspace to draftspace where it's now awaiting revision: Draft:Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú S.A.. So that emptied my category.
So what should I do? Wait whether the revision will be successful and then create my speedy-deleted category again? Remove the speedy deletion tag because I assume the new article will be moved to mainspace again soon?
Empty categories are easy! You can only remove the CSD C1 speedy deletion tag from an empty category if it is no longer empty. We don't keep empty categories because they might be needed in the future. But here's the thing about CSD C1s...if the category is ever needed in the future, it can just be recreated! Either by an editor or you can go to the admin who deleted it or go to WP:REFUND and ask that it be restored. No problem. So, don't worry about a category that you might need when your draft is in main space, the category might not be deleted yet but even if it is, poof! we'll just restore it. Sound good? LizRead!Talk!08:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I nominated the European Cricket League 2023 for deletion with the suggestion it could be merged with the overall league page. You kindly agreed with this and closed the AFD today. But I checked and the page is still there. I'm still quite new to this process so could you explain how the merging happens and do I need to do anything as the AFD nominator? Thanks for your time reading this. Best wishes.
Hello again Liz. After lots of reading into page merging, I've made sure the relevant content has been included and set up a redirect. Hopefully I did it correctly. Anyway you can ignore my question now. Sorry to trouble you. All the best, Shrug02 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with asking questions although it can take me a while to respond. Who actually takes care of a merge is really up to whomever wants to take on the project or which editors if more than one person wants to be involved. The AFD closer only tags the pages, they don't handle the merge. Unfortunately, some merges can sit for a long time before an interested editor takes on the work. LizRead!Talk!22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merge. The process looks complicated but just follow the steps to set up a discussion on the article talk page and post the notices. Once the discussion is over, an uninvolved editor will close it for you.
If you have other questions about where to find information on this enormous project, I recommend visiting the Teahouse. I know a few things having edited for years but at the Teahouse, you'll find the combined knowledge of all of the editors who visit it to answer questions. It's more than I can help you with with my limited experience. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!22:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I had tried and waited over three days and never got a response.
That's why I did the AFD as it has a more public platform.
If I was to be honest, I feel like there should be a MFD but it has become inactive as of late and the project seems to be abandoned and if I could I would re-establish it but idk the proper procedures for it.
Reader of Information, what were the articles involved in this proposed merge? Maybe there is a related WikiProject where we can find interested editors. But three days is not a long time on this project, some Merge proposals are open for a month or two before they are closed. LizRead!Talk!22:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was II Corps into the hatnote linked article which can be seen here:
Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.
Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June.
Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here.
Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.
To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Wow, well, thanks for letting me know. I'm bummed that you didn't get in. I hope you will consider running again next year. I remember meeting you at the Wikipedia Conference in 2019 with "Katie" and I was looking forward to getting to work with you. I really admire you, putting yourself through a process you could expect would be adversarial. That shows grit. LizRead!Talk!00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that means a lot to me. I was looking forward to it as well, but this obviously isn't really a surprise. I'm sure the team you are coming in with can ferret out whatever it is that has been making the committee so apathetic lately, perhaps just the influx of perspectives and personalities will have the desired effect. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today01:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz - congratulations on your resounding win. It is clearly a sign that the community recognizes the many ways you've contributed to the project, both in your personal qualities and in the work you've done. If I may throw a word of caution out there - as an arb I found people less willing to extend me good faith than they did before. So I would suggest to the extent that you're going to continue your admin work around deletion that you follow the pledge you made at ANI not to close things early, something you've done a few times even since that thread (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_Pichincha). Fortunately XfDCloser makes it easy to know when you're closing something early. You have some great new colleagues on the committee but if there are anyways I can be of assistance to you please don't hesitate to reach out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Barkeep49, I think. You are sending a pretty mixed message. The AFD you highlight was closed 15 minutes early which I don't think is egregious. We have some NACs who close AFDs a day early. At this point, I have closed hundreds (thousands?) of AFDs so I wouldn't be surprised if I made a mistake on a few of them. And if you could spare a few hours a day to help out closing AFDs, your help would be welcomed there.
I agree with you that the 10 AfDs (from a review of the close of the AFD to Dec 2) and 2 PRODs (from the review of a single day) all were 30 minutes or less early which is one reason I hadn't said anything prior to now. But also people like me who don't close early can't possibly pitch in if others close early (and thanks for the note about NACs happening a day wearly; I will try to spend some time watching for that as that is far more troubling). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AMAZING. Congratulations and well deserved. FWIW, 15m early is a non issue but you know I'm one of the guilty early closers. But if I may make one minor suggestion, slightly more archiving? Currently choking my admittedly four year old computer. StarMississippi03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dear Star Mississippi! Believe it or not, I just archived all of the messages from September 2024 from this page, I thought having 2 months' worth of talk page messages was okay. Maybe I should reduce it to one month.
This election result was a surprise. It almost takes the sting away from my tumultuous RFA nine years ago. I try not to reflect too much on the past but, boy, that was a brutal experience. For any talk page stalker, running for ARBCOM is much less abrasive than having an RFA. So, consider that when November 2025 comes around next year and editors ask you to consider being a candidate. LizRead!Talk!03:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm it's much speedier now. Perhaps my cache caught it at the wrong time or something more techy that I don't quite get. I don't think I'll have the on wiki time to ever be an Arb, but your feedback on process is reassuring. Congrats again! StarMississippi00:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2025 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.
Please use the EmailUser function to indicate the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business.
Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the VRT users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45). Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed them. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.
Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.
Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.
L235, this notice makes it sounds like it should be soooo easy but it took several tries to even get to the correct page. The first instruction should be "Log in". And then it took me to a general Phab ticket page. But the deed is done. But it would be great to update this notice with the correct link. Thanks again for the welcome! My email Inbox will never be the same. LizRead!Talk!04:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps I did some quick math and arbs sent only 7920 emails to the main ArbCom list in 2024 (down from 10410 in 2023, 10370 in 2022, and 12098 in 2021) (though data is somewhat incomplete for this year as the year is not yet over). KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L235, oh my Lord. I mean, I knew from my years as a clerk that there was a lot of email but I had no idea, numbers-wise, that it was in the thousands of messages. LizRead!Talk!18:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These numbers are only for the main ArbCom mailing list, and perhaps not all of it. There's also the -b and -c mailing list, the clerks mailing list, the functionaries mailing list, the global checkuser mailing list, the checkuser VRT queue, the oversight VRT queue, the COI/UPE VRT queue, and various direct emails that people will send you simply because you're an arb. I just looked through my own inbox, and I received 21,086 emails in 2021, and 22,433 in 2020. And people wonder why arbs don't edit much. – bradv19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, not sure you're going to have any time to look into this given your new responsibilities and all, but this user's AfD nomination pattern, communications in response to you, and contribution history tingles my Spidey sense like someone who's lowkey butthurt over the lack of Scott Pilgrim characters, or possibly an LTA account. I'm going to keep an eye out, but you see far more AfD's than I do. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Electoral Commission is pleased to announce that you have been appointed for a two-year term to the Arbitration Committee effective January 1, 2025. Congratulations on the appointment.
Thank you for all of the congratulations. Yes, and I'm so lame that it has actually swung back around to being hip. You wait long enough and even workholic, rule-followers who post Welcome notices can become fashionable. LizRead!Talk!22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the official notice, Cyberpower678 and for all of the work that you and your fellow Electoral Commissioners did to have such a smooth election in 2024 with timely results. It sounds like it was a big change from last year, in a very positive way, thanks to this year's Scrutineers. LizRead!Talk!22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some changes for sure. I think the biggest changes that made coordinating easier was all the automation I implemented a few years back. Automated watchlist notices, automated status headers, automated mass message templates, and so forth. I'd like to think that's made coordinating ACE much easier over the years. :-) —CYBERPOWER(Merry Christmas)03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberpower678, our technologically gifted editors have made so many changes, tools and innovations that have helped out the rest of us in visible and less visible ways. I know that the committee isn't "pro-active", looking for problems to resolve, but if there is anything I can ever do to assist editors in receiving cooperation from the development team at WMF, let me (or us) know. Of course, I can't make any promises but I've been hearing about problems for years now and it would be nice if some assistance could be provided to you all. LizRead!Talk!03:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also came here to say congratulations, Liz! Your responses to editors in difficulty at the various admin boards have always struck me as some of the calmest, most thoughtful and helpful comments there, and this election is well deserved. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, StartGrammarTime. Unless there are just blatant violations occurring, I believe in deescalating conflict. Often, two editors in a dispute have gotten themselves in a "me vs. you" situation that makes one person a winner and the other a loser. It's much better to get other editors participating in a discussion so that a consensus can be determined so the disagreement becomes less personal. We have lost a lot of talented editors who got themselves into a feud that they just couldn't let go of. It's interesting how often difficulties becomes less about policies and guidelines and more about getting along with other editors who have different opinions from your own. LizRead!Talk!04:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, count me amongst those who are very heartened to see you take up a position on the committee. Without intended commentary on the other worthy candidates and electees, I have to say that your election to the post is, for this community member, the best news to come out of the election. I am confidently of the opinion that this community and project are about to face some of our most consequential developments, decisions, tests, and times, and knowing that you will be in such a central position to interpret and shape policy and to influence the collective community discussion and voice is a bright spot at the end of a year that has at times been largely defined by worry about both the immediate and the near future. I was confident of your success in the election and I'm even more confident of the benefit that will accrue to us in having elected you. SnowRise let's rap06:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Snow Rise, for your vote of confidence. But while I think the committee may help interpret policy by judging when it has been violated, I think it's debatable that they actually shape policy. I don't think that's seen as a role for the committee by the community although it might happen indirectly. I am a bit concerned about my daily routine as I've seen editors and admins who join the committee become less and less active on the project as editors and I currently have a very busy schedule. But if I have to cut back on those activities for two years, I guess that's just a price that I'll need to pay. LizRead!Talk!19:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I largely agree with you that this is how the division of authority should work, and was originally meant to work, but let's be honest: it hasn't been that way for a long time. To take just one example from relatively recently, the last ArbCom decided it was within their authority to take such a monumental decision as to not only ban all non-registered users from editing articles in contentious topics, but indeed to ban them from even supplying perspectives on the talk pages of such articles. Rather than putting the issue to community. That's not just "shaping" policy: that's creating policy whole cloth for the entire project, via fiat.
And apparently the larger community is just willing to let the kind of assumption of authority go unchallenged, because there was not the kind of pushback I would have expected. In that case, acceptance may have been bootstrapped by the populairty of such a move with a once small but growing (though in my opinion, ill-conceived) movement to lock down access to the editorial process more and more, especially with respect to those who choose not to (or cannot) register. But even if that's the case, it's clear that my perspective is somewhat out of step with the broader community, because I would have expected more people to oppose that kind of over-reaching of a dozen-ish users setting policy for the entire project on principle. Even if they liked that particular idea. But there was barely a squeak.
So yeah, ArbComs power is arguably at its zenith right now. I would argue that if the consensus norms that govern this project's core functions are going to survive, we're coming up on a time when we are going to have to set some institutional limitations and clear rules on the scope of ArbComs authority, because through rulings like that, ArbCom has slowly absorbed more and more power into its remit for, frankly, decades now. It honestly bears a striking resemblance to how the Supreme Court of the U.S. established its role in the early decades following the establishment of the nation. Thankfully for democracy in that nation, jurists in that body and outside forces eventually saw the need to pause the growth of the court's powers and to adopt the much lauded (if somewhat mythologized) "checks and balances" era of governance.
But it remains to be seen if ArbCom itself will eventually develop a sitting body of Arbs and a culture willing to self-restrain itself in that way--or in the alternative, when, if ever, the community at large will step in to better define the limits of the committee's authority. Food for thought, anyway! In the meantime, ArbCom really does have massive potential to shape policy, for better or worse, and what we should hope for so long as that is the case, is that such authority should at least be in steady and contemplative hands. That is one of the major reasons I am very happy to see you take a position in the body. SnowRise let's rap06:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what happened, Anachronist. I find my current round of routine editing tasks really enjoyable but I thought that after 11 years as an editor, I should really help out with some more serious work on the project, to help out with the "less fun" activities and ARBCOM is at the top of that list, along with going through an editor's entire contribution history looking for copyright problems and reviewing unblock requests. So, on to consider some of those "intractable" disputes. LizRead!Talk!19:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, DFO, anything is better than your former name which was unpronounceable. By the way, anyone who devotes their free time to work on an online encyclopedia for free is a lame nerd so you're in good company. LizRead!Talk!23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the hardest time tracking down templates that I want to use. Right now, I'm looking for the one that advises blocked editors that they have lost talk page access and need to use UTRS. It's not in Category:Wikipedia administration templates, can you tell me where to find it? You do so much work on UTRS, I'm hoping you know. I've looked for it multiple times and have never been able to locate it. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Deepfriedokra, so I should have looked in Category:User block templates? Template:Uw-blocknotalk says it's for a temporary block but I guess there are parameters I can change to make it indicate an indefinite block. Before seeing your message, I found a copy of the template on a different editor's user talk page and copied it over. Not all of the information is accurate for this block but at least this notice gives a link to UTRS which is what I wanted. Thanks for pointing these out to me. LizRead!Talk!08:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, I get frustrated by admins who block without posting a notice on the user talk page explaining why an editor is blocked and how they can appeal the block. It's just so unnecesary if you just use Twinkle to block an editor. LizRead!Talk!08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I'd like to ask if it's okay if I edited the source assessment table in my initial post with the updated sources I added to the AfD. My assumption was that everything above the relisting line should be left alone, but I feel like my most recent argument addresses all of the issues others have brought up so far. Thanks for the help! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be okay for you to edit a source assessment table that you created but please note this fact by putting a note like "Updated by GregariousMadness, December 9/10 (depending on where you live)", knowing that this last part can be replaced by your signature, ~~~~. This note that the table has been updated will hopefully cause participants to review it again. This updating it much better than posting yet another table. Thank you for checking in about this. LizRead!Talk!00:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Draft:Wole Olusola wasn't eligible for CSD G13 today. I often have pages/tabs open and this draft would have been eligible but I didn't notice that the article had been recently edited. I'll remove my talk page notice on the user page of the draft creator. I've deleted so many of these expiring drafts and after six months of inactivity, it's very unusual to see editing in the hours right before the expired deletion time. But I'll be more careful.
Did this draft pop up on your "mistaken deletions" report? I use to review that to see if any pages I deleted appeared on it but I've lost the page title. I appreciate you catching this one. LizRead!Talk!05:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was up for way too long when I had written what I did and I am sorry. I hope you can also understand given my age. Thank you for your query, I understand now that you were just trying to look out for the best interests of the site. Again, I am really sorry and hope we can turn a new leaf. :)
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 1 January 2025:
Outgoing members are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their terms on the Arbitration Committee. To that effect:
Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing members, who have not chosen to retain them, after 31 December 2024:
CheckUser: Firefly, L235
Oversight: Firefly, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees
Outgoing members are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. That will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
All outgoing members will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
All outgoing members will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Firefly, Guerillero, and Moneytrees, who have chosen to remain subscribed.
To respond to your edit summary, this comment by Yngvaddottir (03:31, 19 November 2024) is worth repeating:
ArbCom is also en.wiki's primary defence against the WMF, which also does great damage to the projects with its overreach and its misplaced priorities.
Hi L., I noted you put up a "Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Portuguese all-female bands" and posted a notice on user Kjell Knudde's Talk page. I am posting this having found you by tracing back from a number of quite odd categories recently added in bulk to the "Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle" page, e.g., diff. Many of these categories seem pretty dubious, and many of them were started by users that have been blocked (potentially all just one user?). I am suspicious of the situation for one, for another, a Category like "Comics about anthropomorphic deer and moose" seems a waste of time, and for another, I rather object to bloating down articles with excessive Categories. I don't quite know how to proceed, so I ask for your second opinion. This general situation seems like it might be a problem, or perhaps it is all on the up and up. It smells like the time I looked up Hurricane (cocktail) and noted it stated dryly that the drink had been invented by Ernest Borgnine, that is, something that seems all on the up and up, but is in fact vandalism. Thanks! (I am just a writer...not a Wikipedia expert...) Bdushaw (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, any time you refer to a page on the project, please provide an active link to it so it can be easily checked. Otherwise, I have to cut and paste, go to the search bar and I'm still not sure if I end up on the page you are talking about.
Second, I'm not sure what your question to me is. You seems to have some kind of suspicions but I'm not following your comments. If you are concerned about an individual category, then mention that category, what the problem is and a link to it. LizRead!Talk!01:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply; sorry I was not clear. I have a broad suspicion that there is an malicious (?) effort to add Categories and so bloat up articles or for some other nefarious purpose. I noticed this with the recent additions of a large number of Categories by this article diff, and that many of the categories added had been started by users (or perhaps only a single user?) that are now blocked. User Special:Contributions/Kjell_Knudde seems to be vigorously adding Categories to articles, in what seems to be a "sole purpose" manner, and irrespective of what seems me to be the dubious nature of many of the categories. I may be way off base in all this, but I came to you only because I saw you had posted on User_talk:Kjell_Knudde talk page about deleting one such category. As I noted, many of these categories don't seem me to have much sense or merit to them. I know of no way of ascertaining whether the problem is real, or what to do about it, whereas you seem to know what you are doing. I'll let the matter drop here; I don't have an axe to grind here (other than being somewhat annoyed at an overload of Categories on at least one article, viz. The_Adventures_of_Rocky_and_Bullwinkle_and_Friends). Best regards, Bdushaw (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Kjell Knudde's user talk page, you'll see a number of messages to them about their misuse of categories. But this editor has been active for 16 years now and has over 100K edits, I don't think that this is anything malicious or "nefarious", I just don't think they fully understand how categories and subcategories work. This is really not that unusual, we have had a number of editors who don't seem to "get" how categories function as an organization tool. As for the notice I left, one of my regular tasks on the project is tagging empty categories so I post messages like that on a daily basis.
Overcategorization is an ongoing problem on this project in general but I can't see how it benefits any one on- or off-Wikipedia to add unnecessary categories. If you feel that any categorization they have done is problematic, I'd approach them on their talk page to discuss it or you can remove them from an article or category. Right now, I don't see a need to escalate things to a noticeboard-level discussion. LizRead!Talk!02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking! I've regularly run across things that did not look quite right, but on further inspection turned out to be that seemingly-innocent-looking vandalism. It has given me a hint of paranoia... Happy Holidays! Bdushaw (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just archived messages from September 2024 about a week ago, I thought that would help with the size. But you're not the first person to mention this recently so I'll archive October messages this weekend. This talk page gets a lot of traffic though and it can take me a while to notice some messages in the middle of the page and respond so I like to keep at least a month's worth of messages up. LizRead!Talk!06:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been very active editing lately. Regarding [7], I did jump the gun there and I believe I had reverted my edits by the time you replied. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the request but I don't feel comfortable closing an AFD after it has been open only a few hours unless it qualifies for a Speedy Keep. But if the discussion continues like this, the article will clearly be deleted, if not now than soon. I know that there are other closers who wouldn't hesitate like I'm doing. Do you think it would qualify for a Speedy deletion criteria? LizRead!Talk!06:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very understandable. To answer the question, the author themself said that the article probably doesn't meet GNG in the AFD, so it could go under criteria A7. I would also just invoke WP:IAR personally, but hey, I'm not the admin here. TheWikiToby (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, I address you to this request from today. It is the second request. The former request from Nov 19, 2024 was declined. I have not done anything wrong.
An additional information is here. The essay is exist also in Hebrew. I would suggest that as a member in the AC, you would decline the user from editing in the En WP. Thank you, Dgw|Talk16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this editor is so focused on you (for unknown reasons) but our jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia and I have no influence on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Their request was rightly denied (no local admins can globally block an editor). I hope you let me know if another request happens on Meta. I also have no influence there but I can at least leave a comment on Meta while I do not have the ability to communicate in the Hebrew language on that project.
As for the Arbitration Committee, I don't join the committee until January. It does include some additional privileges and many new responsibilities but I can't arbitrarily block an editor for what they are doing on another project. But if they violate their Interaction ban on the English Wikipedia, inform me or open a case on ANI. I hope you can put this editor out of your mind and focus on productive editing. You don't want to let them take up residence in your head. LizRead!Talk!03:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Dominic3203 has heard you, loud and clear. I do know other editors who run Citation bot but, Dominic3203, if you could give StarryGrandma some space and be considerate about other editors' User space, it would be appreciated. LizRead!Talk!03:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been playing along to Christmas songs on piano and guitar and doing my own jazzy arrangements the last few days, I suspect that's why I am! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Quangminhvilla, one of the editor on Wikipedia. I hear that you are one of the admins on Wikipedia, so I want to ask you for help. In the few months before, the article 2023 AFC Asian Cup had an user name RealLifed was vandalism the article so many. Since the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, there was no third place match. But he always edited the third and the fourth ranking on the 2023 article, which lead to many user have to reverted the article many times. He always said that the reason was he used it from the AFC website, although there was no source about it. I have already gave him a warning for this, but he said threatly for me and always said by using CAPSLOCK to tell many user when they said to him politely. I think this user not only used incorrectly sources but he also one of the dangerous user that threaten anyone. So this message today is can you help me block this user please? Because if anyone warning to him about it, he will not change and still violated to them. Thank you for reading this message. Hope you have a good time during this week. Quangminhvilla (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I think there's been a mistake with a deletion review regarding 15.ai. Ever since I posted the new sources on the AfD after the discussion was relisted, all of the subsequent votes have been either keep or a striking of a deletion, but the closing admin marked it as a delete instead. How can I challenge this result, and would it be appropriate to do so? Thanks! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd advise you to either approach User:Cryptic and ask them to unclose the Deletion review or start up a second DRV to review the new closure. But you should first go to User:Barkeep49 with your questions before opening up a new deletion review if that is what you choose to do. You should always initiate a discussion first with an AFD closer before starting up a review of a discussion closure. Sometimes, this can lead to an adjusted closure decision or change in a closure statement but it's also considered polite to inform the closer that you have some questions about how this AFD discussion was closed. Considering how divisive this discussion was and the history of this article, these questions shouldn't be a surprise. After having closed hundreds of AFD discussions, there are some that you just know will end up at DRV and no matter how this one was closed, it was easy to see that any closure with this article would be contested. LizRead!Talk!19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if the close decision is endorsed, would it be okay to recreate the article using the new sources I found? I'm still confused by how a deletion review can be endorsed due to bad behavior even though I dug up new sources that demonstrate notability and significant coverage. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, slow down! Do not create a new version of an article deleted through an AFD if that closure is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. What if that closure is overturned and the article is restored, then you'll have two articles existing on the same subject. So, be patient, and see how the DRV is closed.
Second, if the second AFD closure is endorsed and the article is kept deleted, the proper approach is to create a new draft version in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Do not move it back to the main space of the project or it can be tagged for speedy deletion CSD G4 as a recreated article of an article deleted through an AFD decision. The only way I know to overcome an AFD Delete closure is to work on a new article in Draft space and see if an AFC reviewer will approve it. This takes time but there really is no quick way to overcome an AFD Delete closure. So, in your DRV statement, put your best foot/argument forward on why the closer overlooked some important information or didn't take some factor into account and then wait for some senior editors to assess your argument. Do not make your argument personal and DO NOT CANVASS a deletion review, this will just backfire on you. The editors who regularly participate in deletion reviews are fair and knowledgeable about policy. Having some new accounts pop up on an obscure Deletion review page will not help your cause as this isn't a vote count or a numbers game but an assessment by experienced editors on whether or not this closure was appropriate given the arguments that were presented.
The typical results coming out of a Deletion review are "Endorse" the closure, "Overturn" the closure, "Relist" the AFD discussion for another week or "Allow recreation" of the article in Draft space. Deletion reviews typically run one week but can be closed early if there is a Snow closure which means that there is one outcome that all participants are arguing in favor of. I hope this helps you understand the process better. LizRead!Talk!19:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm new to all this and I can't help but feel nervous that I'm doing something wrong. I felt so proud to have done all the research last week only for the discussion to be closed as a delete without warning, so I'm left thinking that I did something wrong, especially since most Wikipedians aren't very patient with my mistakes (unlike you, so thank you very much for your kindness). I'm hoping that I'd be able to at least be able to rewrite it as a draft because I do think that the discussion was closed prematurely. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I’m not wiki literate yet so please forgive me for struggling with the wiki protocol.
I am trying to query an edit on the PANDAs (medical condition) page and I’m finding some of the language used by the original poster to be inflammatory and out of date.
I’ve tried to discuss on the talk page and am now seeking a “second eye” for the edit.
The specific edit revolves around the removal of “controversial” to a more nuanced “emerging medical knowledge” and I have posted links to recent publications such as that by the APA.
I can across your page whilst searching for dispute
resolution and you seemed the friendliest page out of some that seemed designed to keep out new posters! Please do redirect me if I am not following the correct protocol. I feel very passionately about the topic and want to ensure I am doing all I can for the clarification. BeccaW1986 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not edit in articles about medical topics. There is a much stricter rule about sourcing requirements which you can read about at Wikipedia:MEDRS. It seems like you are already having a constructive discussion on the article talk page where you outline your opinions and arguments. But, especially with articles on medical conditions, Wikipedia only uses the highest quality secondary sources so these other sources you bring up might not be acceptable at this stage.
I think the editors you are discussing PANDAs with have a much deeper knowledge about MEDRS than I do and it would be best to heed their advice. Content disputes on Wikipedia are resolved through the process of reaching a consensus opinion based on reliable sources so I can not go in and "overrule" them especially when they seem familiar with the literature on this subject and I am not. You can try going to the Dispute Resolution board to get an editor who could facilitate a discussion on this disagreement. But know that medical knowledge can change over time and perhaps Wikipedia can adjust its language as more accepted studies are published in the future. But if mainstream scientific literature calls a condition "controversial", then that is the language that we must use as well. Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be "cutting edge" but to reflect the mainstream scientific perspective and is especially conservative when it comes with articles on medicine, medical subjects and treatment options. LizRead!Talk!21:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, I would like to write an article about Mrs. Moriya Almkiass. She is a Deaf Israeli woman, who serves the news of the The Israel Deaf Sports Organization [he] (Asach).[1][2] She is professional and signs perfectly. She is fluent, stares at the camers, smiles and is not confused. Mr. Bar Vanunu, who is a professional Hearing interpreter, responded to the video: "Extra Excellent". Michael Kadosh, who is a Deaf sportsman and is shown in the video, is married to Shirly Pinto.
She is married to Mr. Shafir Hafif, a Deaf goalkeeper of the Ashdod Dolphins [he], who plays vs Hearing teams, as well as in the Deaf Champions League [he] games. She also participated the Miss & Mister Deaf World contest in South Africa when she was single.
Hi Liz, I’m sorry to bother you about this, but I followed your advice above on rewriting the 15.ai article as a draft and sending it through AfC, but someone has tagged it as a speedy delete regardless. Did I do something wrong? What can I do? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who tagged it. I did not retain the original article so I cannot tell the extent to which what you have is a rewrite, but as I said elsewhere, just click the link to contest the speedy deletion and an admin will compare your version to the deleted one. If they are indeed substantially different, then speedy deletion will be declined. Nothing more to that. If the articles are the same, it will go, if they are different, it will not be speedy deleted.As to what you did wrong: well I would say this was all a bit hasty. I gave you advice on your talk page as to how you might demonstrate notability, and keeping the article in draft for now would have been better. We could all have helped, and also identified continued issues. By submitting it at once for AfC, you have an article back in mainspace even before the deletion review is closed. Even if speedy deletion is declined, this could find itself back at AfD very quickly. It is better off in draft, which is a safe space to incubate the article. But that's up to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I was writing the draft, it said that AfC could take 8 weeks, so I figured I should submit it now and continue to edit it. I didn’t expect it to be accepted so quickly. I didn’t mean to do it in a haste. I was just following directions. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this new passed draft, but have not been party previously so I believe this might best be settled by the discussion already at DRV. BusterD (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, the article was deleted even before I could post my rationale. There are many reliable sources that has in-depth coverage about the person which clearly meets WP:SIGCOV such as [8] or [9] etc.
I strongly believe the article is salvageable so can you please be kind enough to re-open the Afd to have a more clear consensus? Thank you. Herinalian (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to reopen this AFD because the discussion had already been relisted twice and you were the only participant who was arguing to Keep this article. Another editor reviewed the sources and found them not to be adequate.
I am willing to restore this article to Draft or your User space if you wanted to continue to work on it. Please know that since this article was deleted through an AFD discussion, you won't be able to move it back to the main space of the project or it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. But, when you believe it is "ready", you can submit it to AFC for an editor to review. Let me know if this option is acceptable to you. LizRead!Talk!23:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I haven't had time to check the noticeboards lately. Seems like some of the folks with the strongest opinions are editors/admins who don't close discussions themselves or even participate in deletion discussions. We could use a little more help in AFDLand especially at some hours of the day/night, both for participants and closers. LizRead!Talk!01:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you removed a page a couple of weeks ago for Celerity BBS which I have involvement in. This is primarily a pre-WWW software product, but copies of it are extant and more references and details can be provided. Can you please restore it so I can improve the article? Bytre (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do about this page. It doesn't meet CSD but it is an autobiographical article by a user who is circumventing the AfC process. Already a version of this article has been draftified, but the user then just moved their sandbox into mainspace. I tagged it and removed one blatantly promotional statement but I'm not sure what else should be done in this case. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for speedy deletion, CSD A7, as an article on a non-notable person. This is often what happens with autobiographical articles that are unfortunately moved into main space. I'm not going to delete it myself, I'd rather let another admin review it but if it is still around at the end of the day, I'll probably take action here. You have to be careful with CSD A7s as this criteria only applies to a limited range of subjects but these are outlined at WP:CSD. LizRead!Talk!21:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, someone else tagged it for A7 after I commented. I figured since there are sources, A7 doesn't apply. I figure it might not survive AfD but that is also a more laborsome step than is needed. I have left a few messages on their talk page, including a warning for logged-out editing and may take them to ANI if they persist since they are being rather disruptive and possibly showing WP:NOTHERE behavior. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Found a sandbox from the old account too that I just tagged with G11. Might keep an eye on the pages they created in case they need to be salted. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing,
— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, the amount of work you do for Wikipedia is staggering, and you do it with your signature empathy, kindness, without sacrificing any quality. You are always welcome on my talk page with your category questions. I love them because I normally learn something myself :) You didn't get NYB-esque numbers at WP:ACE2024 for nothing, and I really look forward to working with you as a clerk during the term! Best to you and yours in the new year, and happy holidays! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those words just touch my heart. I think that is the sweetest thing that has ever been posted on this page. You know the work keeps me busy, fills my day with purpose, but there is a reason why about 50% of my edits are to User talk pages. Most are just formal notices but I also like to check in with other editors, either when I have questions or if I see them struggling. And I know on Wikipedia, we prize the project over the people but I don't think I'd still be editing after 11 years if I hadn't encountered so many genuinely good-hearted and well-intentioned people of which I count you. Have a wonderful holiday, however you celebrate the end-of-the-year festivities. LizRead!Talk!06:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution to the Wiki. On October 9, you deleted the Creatio company page (Creatio) , which had been there for many years. This page was handy for everyone who is interested in the Creatio company and its products.
Creatio is a worldwide company with a $1.2B valuation and a presence in 25 countries. The company is a leader in the market and well-known among different analytic agencies (we have a lot of mentions from Gartner, Forrester, Nuclear, etc.). The company's products are a new era of CRM software with no code, and they are transforming the market. Outsystems, Mendix, Appian, and many other companies from this market have pages on Wiki, but in this case, you decided to delete the page.
Can you help me understand how the Creatio page on Wiki can be restored (or how we as a Company, we can improve it from the content standpoint)?
While we can try the redirect method again, I will point out that that has repeatedly failed multiple times in deterring past students each semester assigned to create this draft. They've removed the redirect, uploaded their work as the new draft and leave, completely unaware of how Wikipedia works, and ignoring the real article on Kim Abeles. They don't return after the upload and a minor edit or two right after. @Belbury's template was very effective this fall on this draft as no edits occurred between your June and Dec edits. Early Dec would have likely been another round of this likely assignment reappearing. This and multiple other articles have been seasonal regulars of new drafts of existing subjects from a "rogue" teacher's Wikipedia assignments, and while I agree that having the redirect is the normal solution, this is not a normal case, and I'm not optimistic that the teacher assigning these is yet aware of the issue (but I've not followed all draft cases, just this one).
I don't recall if a request for page protection on these pages occurred, or if that would be appropriate in these cases with the ~6month reoccurrences, but I feel like it's been clear that having it as a redirect has not been a deterrent for recreations. Like I said at the top of this message, happy to try it with the redirect again, but I'm not optimistic. It will likely be late April/early May when the Spring finals approach when the likelihood is ripe again. Regardless of opinions, hope you have a happy, safe, and calm holidays. Zinnober9 (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I was not aware of that update and will relax on this being a redirect given the promising details of that conversation and the lack of any repeating occurrences this fall from the pages/files you were aware of. I had seen yesterday's changes as a return to a state that had not worked in the past, and was seeing your template as an effective solution so far, but still in the test phase since it had only been up for one semester. I'm glad this issue appears to be concluded now. Happy holidays to you as well, Zinnober9 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!.
I can see that a page i had create almost two years back has been deleted, i want to undelete it and update its content and references, could you please help in this regard?
Just a reminder, DFO. When you restore a draft/sandbox that has been deleted due to CSD G13, you need to make a minor edit to the page or it becomes eligible again for a G13 speedy deletion. That's something you learn if you help out at WP:REFUND which is actually a more enjoyable admin task than many others I've tried. It's like you have to remove the PROD tag from restored PRODs. But thanks for being a very helpful TPS and I hope you have a great end-of-the-year holiday! LizRead!Talk!20:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Davidindia (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 26th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 August 2024. At press time, over 94% of the world has legally fallen prey to the merry celebrations of "Christmas", and so shall you soon. It's been a quiet 4 months, and we hope to see you with way more new scripts next year. Happy holidays! Aaron Liu (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Very useful for changelist patrollers, DiffUndo, by Nardog, is this edition's featured script. Taking inspiration from WP:AutoWikiBrowser's double-click-to-undo feature, it adds an undo button to every line of every diff from "show changes", optimizing partial reverts with your favorite magic spell and nearly fulfilling m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Partial revert undo.
Doğu/Adiutor, a recent WP:Twinkle/WP:RedWarn-like userscript that follows modern WMF UI design, is now an extension. However, its sole maintainer has left the project, which still awaits WMF mw:code stewardship (among some audits) to be installed on your favorite WMF wikis.
DannyS712, our former chief editor, has ascended to MediaWiki and the greener purpley pastures of PHP with commits creating Special:NamespaceInfo and the __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__ magic word to exclude a template from Special:UnusedTemplates! I wonder if Wikipedia has a templaters' newsletter...
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Andrybak/Unsigned helper forks Anomie/unsignedhelper to add support for binary search, automatic edit summaries after generating the {{unsigned}} template, support for {{undated}}, and support for generating while syntax highlighting is on.
Polygnotus/Move+ updates BilledMammal's classic Move+ to add automattic watchlisting of all pages—except the target page(s)—changed while processing a move.
Is the removal of the draft on Pony too soon or can it get put back up? There are some newer books on the programming language that are out. Language appears to be relevant and seems a bit much to start from scratch again.
Deleted link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pony_(programming_language)
Saw that you tagged seasons 3,4 & 5. I agree that they could be tagged, I have a work meeting I need to attend before I can finish moving things from the supercategory to them. Is there a way that I can do this so that I don't waste your time? I'd really prefer to create them all at once, I'm not sure if there exists an equivalent of template:Underconstruction. (And I'm probably going to doing this to split the contestants in at least 3 other franchises of Drag Race. (Agreement on that at the Wikiproject.)Naraht (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Vertiport? The creator has moved it back to the Wikipedia namespace once again. I'm not sure whether the subject meets GNG or why the creator didn't submit to AfC review, but they seem to be trying to create the article in the mainspace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor actually has some writing experience so I don't know why they thought they should move a draft to project space. I have moved it back and left them a note on their User talk page. Thanks for alerting me. LizRead!Talk!06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, Happy Holidays. I'm very disheartened that you deleted the article and I created for the subject @Bruse Wane. The article adhered to wikipedia's neutral and non sensationalism writing structure guidelines. The article provided numerous independent 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party references/citations that were not connected at all to the subject, from various media sources. The citations validated the subjects notability in their particular field. Why was the article deleted when it was more than thoroughly sourced ? I know you have a lot on your plate, but if possible please read the article and consider my case for the deletion to be reversed. In my opinion the article was nominated for deletion for no real major legitimate grounds, and if there were grounds I addressed all of them with countless edits to bring the article up to and above par. I worked tireless to make sure this article met all of wikipedia's criteria for notability. Every editor that chimed in on the deletion discussion made comments that clearly showed they did not even read the article, or check the independent references and citations. It made me feel like a clique/ lynch mob mentality exist on wikipedia, with editors ready to pounce on anything they did not create, or fellow clique members did not create. I would like the deletion on the article talk Bruse Wane reversed. Or the ability to create it again in a draft for legitimate review. Edward Myer (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked why I reported myself to WP:AN. It's simple: at VPT, DuncanHill was persistent in their insistence that my status as an admin meant that anything that I wrote was somehow to be interpreted differently from a similar post made by a non-admin. Plus, they were getting insulting, as may be seen from their comments and edit summaries. See also their user page edits from yesterday.
I just wanted somebody to step in and explain that not everything that an admin does is necessarily an admin action. Not all admins are evil.
As for the post to my own talk page: that is a required action for WP:AN reports. I didn't want to be pulled up for not having followed procedure. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Done I initially thought it was too late in the process for a procedural close but when I saw the nominator's deletion argument was actually an indirect request to get support for keeping the article, I decided that you were right and this was an incorrect use of AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Interface administrator changes
(and thanks for the note about NACs happening a day wearly; I will try to spend some time watching for that as that is far more troubling). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
.JPG)
cookie monster 755 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Restored there. Jay 💬 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Miscellaneous
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scripts
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)