User talk:Liz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions:

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

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

    3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

    It's spring!

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

    Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
    and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.

    Basalisk inspect damageberate 4 August 2013
    Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
    No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – March 2024[edit]

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

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)


    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz, I hope you are well.
    I am an employee at E.ON Next, the gas and electricity company based in the U.K. We are looking to create our own Wikipedia page, as we currently don't have one to direct our customers too. The most we have is a subsection on E.ON UK's page, as they are our parent business. I can see that in March 2022, you created a draft article for E.ON Next, but it appears to have been abandoned. May I ask what stage you were at with this content? Would it be better for you to delete the article so we can create a new one from scratch? Please let me know what you would best advise. Many thanks, Maria. Maria Savage (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz, could you restore Jason Perlow to draft? The article was recently deleted but I think there is enough sourcing out there to demonstrate GNG is met. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Thriley,
    The AFD which resulted in deletion of this article just closed today. I'd advise you to approach Explicit and request his help. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Is that okay? Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. I just left him a message. Best, Thriley (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz. This newly created article is a copyvio cut and paste from a blog site. Twinkle won’t let me tag it for G12 as the source site is on the spam blacklist and it blocks the link, so it may need an admin’s attention. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    also Mugbamugba War Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no worries someone else has dealt with it. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Mccapra,
    Oh, okay. Well, then, I guess it's taken care of. Liz Read! Talk! 08:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 2 March 2024[edit]

    AFD John Dunlop (chess player)[edit]

    Hi Liz. You recently closed the AFD discussion for John Dunlop (chess player) one day after it was relisted to generate a more thorough discussion. I would suggest that 24 hours is not long enough to generate a more thorough discussion, and would ask that you reconsider the closure. I have located contemporary sources that would allow an expansion of the article, e.g. this item from the New Zealand Herald of 6 January 1921. Paora (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Paora,
    I'm open to your suggestion if you can state that you will participate in this AFD if it is reopened. As it was, if it wasn't me, another admin would have closed it similarly at the state it was at. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz. Thanks for your prompt response. Yes, I will participate in the AFD if it is reopened. Paora (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Paora,
    Okay, so I reverted my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dunlop (chess player) and restored the article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of NPOV[edit]


    I noticed that you left a npov template on Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department without any explanation, even though one is recommended per the templates page. Could you provide examples or reasons as to what made you decide to append this template to said page? I personally didn't think the page is biased but I may be blind to what you see. Thanks! Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you![edit]

    The Admin's Barnstar
    Thanks for your tireless work for the closure of AfDs. Tehonk (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting urgent assist on WP:ANI[edit]

    Hey there Liz. Could you help take a look on this issue? Correct me if I'm wrong, but said IP address appears to be showing chronic and persistent behaviour, from repeatedly making edits with no ES to avoiding any sort of discussion on their talk page. Appreciate your help on this. Thanks. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Said IP address has even made a rather aggresive reply too in ANI. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Lindsay - Add parentheses/disambiguator[edit]

    Hi Liz,

    You undid an edit I made, comment: "Unnecessary page move".

    Could you help me understand what makes a page move necessary?

    R. Ryan2602 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nawwaf Hannan - Deleted Page "Ariful Hannan" due to unamibgious content[edit]

    Hi Liz,

    You deleted an article I recently wrote on this individual, and I was wondering if it is possible to rewrite the article with a more neutral tone and less specificity, mainting neutrality and consicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawwaf.hannan (talkcontribs) 03:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Nawwaf.hannan,
    I assume you are talking about Draft:Ariful Hannan. We generally don't restore content that is judged to be promotional. But if you go into your Preferences to your account and enable email access, I'd be willing to email a copy of the content. Then you could use content, off-Wikipedia, and try to write a new draft that isn't so promotional. I recommend you work on it in your User space, like a User sandbox. Then you can submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Let me know when you have email enabled and I'll send it to you. If you are being compensated for your work, please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow the guidelines presented in the policy page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Library message[edit]

    The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
    Issue 61, January – February 2024

    • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
    • 1Lib1Ref results

    Read the full newsletter

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Deletion - Adam Jamal Craig[edit]

    Dear Liz,

    I hope this message finds you well. I recently learned that the Wikipedia page detailing my acting career (Adam Jamal Craig) was deleted under the belief that my contributions are insignificant. This decision also led to the removal of my name from my college's list of notable alumni and omitted references to my involvement in culturally significant works, including television series such as 'The Office' and 'NCIS: LA', among others.

    As an actor and business owner actively working and living in Los Angeles, I respectfully request a reconsideration of these changes. The landscape of art and media is evolving, and my contributions, albeit not always captured through traditional formats, are part of this continuous change. Please, I ask for your support in undoing the deletions, allowing my career's ongoing story and contributions to be recognized and shared. Thank you for considering my request, and I look forward to any possibility of dialogue on this matter.

    I am new to communicating in this wiki-based format so please forgive me if I have responded in some improper way. Edit -> Not sure how the "Books & Bytes" section appeared above. Again, sorry. I'm new at this.

    Warm regards,

    Adam Jamal Craig

    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.

    Adam Jamal Craig (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Jamal Craig (talkcontribs) [reply]

    @Liz to save you looking -- the article was Adam Jamal Craig, PRODded by @Primefac. No comment on merit as I've not reviewed Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Adam,
    You are fortunate. Wikipedia has 3 forms of deletion, Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion and AFD Deletion Discussions. Restoring an article can range from being simple to being close-to-impossible. The article you are concerned about was a Proposed Deletion (or PROD) and that can be restored upon request, which I have done. However, the article still might be nominated for a deletion discussion or AFD because the article right now is very weak and has poor sourcing. You or your representation should not edit the article as you have a conflict-of-interest. But it really needs some valid references to establish your notability. This is typically done through independent, secondary sources from mainsteam newspapers, journals, books, websites, etc. that provide significant coverage of you and your career. Do you have a website where you list media coverage? That would make the process easier.
    Two more things. If you have questions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you are encouraged to bring them to the Teahouse. There experienced editors can address your questions and concerns about the project's complicated processes. And, second, you are commended for not being angry about this article deletion or taking it personally. It can be very difficult to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it (see WP:NACTOR) and every day, hundreds of articles and drafts are deleted. Again, you shouldn't edit the article but you are welcome to share any sources on the article talk page and, hopefully, an editor can added them into the article. What we don't want to see is blatant advertising or promotion which can result in another deletion that is much less likely to be restored. Let me know if you have any questions or you can take them to the Teahouse. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Thanks for the link, Star Mississippi. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz! Hope you've had a good day. Would you reconsider this since the creator has now been CU blocked? If not, totally understand and happy to take it to MfD. Thanks either way cc @DoubleGrazing Star Mississippi 01:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Star Mississippi,
     Done I'm kind of a stickler for verifying CSD G5 as many overeager editors will tag articles for deletion when they simply file an SPI case. I just want to see a) that the page creator is a confirmed sockpuppet and b) that the block-evading editor is identified. In some cases, Checkusers do not identify the block evading account and I turn those requests down. I know other admins aren't so strict about G5s but when I first became an admin, I was less rigorous about the CSD criteria and got rightly chastized for that. I don't know about you but I always remember the times when my admin decisions are critiqued by senior admins when I first got the mop. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. It all makes sense. Thankfully there is progress being made with the SPI backlog which will make all of our lives easier.
    I totally understand your decision, and hope it didn't come across as not. Just wanted to save us seven days of MfD if the info was now resolved to your satisfaction but didn't want to re-tag over your decline. Unfortunately I think we'll be seeing more of this draft.. Have a good evening and you're totally welcome re: link above. No treasure hunts needed. Star Mississippi 02:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least "overeager" is not the worst thing I've been called. Ho hum. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, DoubleGrazing, I wasn't referring to you, not at all. It's a comment coming from 10 years editing on the project, not about any editor specifically. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The redirect Draft:Skånska Socialdemokratiska Partiet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 6 § Draft:Skånska Socialdemokratiska Partiet until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick help request[edit]

    Hi - I hope you don't mind my contacting you; I'm doing so simply becaause you came up top on the 'recently active admins' list. There's an article Pumi dog that is blanked out because of an alleged copyvio, which concerns a single sentence where the wording followed that of the American Kennel Club breed standard. Unfortunately the reporting editor has placed the flag at the top of the article, rather than in the relevant section, thus removing the entire article from view. I've followed procedure and posted an amended version of the article, which deals with the matter, at Talk:Pumi dog/Temp, and I hope it's just a question of an admin copying this back to the main page and removing the flag? But this has been pending now for five days, and with the world's biggest dog show starting tomorrow, this is a period when dog breed pages always get more views. Could you or one of your colleagues kindly drop by here and take a look, please? Thanks in anticipation.... MapReader (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello MapReader (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, MapReader,
    I apologize for the delay in responding to your query. It looks like an involved discussion has been occurring at Talk:Pumi dog#Regarding removal of content.. To be honest, the only times I deal with issues of copyright violations is when there is a blatant copyright violation in an article that has been tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G12. I recommend you go to MER-C, an admin who regularly handles copyright issues. They have already commented on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 March 2. MER-C has experience on this subject that I do not possess and I think they would be a better judge of what is possible. Since this has been brought to an investigation page, I can't just revert the actions of the other editor as an inquiry is currently in process. There is also an issue of content attribution and I'm not sure it's appropriate to just use your new version over the existing, problematic version. MER-C would be a better judge on this proposal.
    I'm really not blowing you off, I'm sending you to someone who could possible offer you the help you are requesting. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Liz, I have noticed you do consistently wonderful work on categories, but you have just rolled back my edit at VB-4 and I wonder if there may be some mistake. If you review Chapter 1 at the linked page -, you will find that at the height of the Pacific War in World War II, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers were operating a number of Bombing Squadrons, the most famous being the ones that fought at Midway and Coral Sea. All of these squadrons were redesignated several times over, and many now have articles within Category:Strike fighter squadrons of the United States Navy under their later VFA designations. But to link them properly when they fought the Japanese, a new category will be necessary - this category which I have created. I believe it will easily surpass 20 entries. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Buckshot06,
    If you disagree with my edit, just revert it. I just saw a category that only contained a redirect and redirect categories are rather optional. But if I acted incorrectly, just undo what I did. I'm not a subject matter expert here. Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please specify deletion reason[edit]

    Talk:Xianfeng Gu Article Talk Read Edit Add topic View history Tools From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Why is Xianfeng Gu the only missing page for Morningside Gold Medalist? What are the criteria for creating Xianfeng Gu (born Nov 2, 1970) page in Wikipedia? Chinese Wikipedia page for Xianfeng Gu presently contains contents that deviate from the original contributor's intention but "somehow was inserted" by a group of seemingly more than 10 (a "Japanese" wiki bot, somehow, too) zh-wiki users (that are changing and on average use more than 4 simplified zh accounts with Japanese "real" person names, with targeted interest in HK, TW, Dalian, graphics, computational chemistry/topology) including a user ID Shizhao publicly demonstrating (DBLP/Google Scholar) academic tie to Microsoft (Xianfeng Gu's student Wei Zeng) possessing publications in CVPR (Xianfeng Gu a many-time program committee member, general chair, reviewer for CVPR). Competitive (Chinese Olympiad) chemistry base is in Jilin University (guided by Yanbo Sun with serious connection to Dalian University of Technology where Xianfeng Gu works heavily with a high-rank Secretary Na Lei Professor connected to Yanbo Sun as of 2023 which has been and is of course open information to chemical Olympiad competitors) Already in wikidata. Harvard CS PhD 2003 (Gortler & Yau) Harvard CS Master 1996-1997 (Mumford) graduate fellowship Tsinghua TCS 1994 (1989-) undergraduate fellowship (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz: The above is a WP:CIR issue and logged-out editing. See Sadaijin, (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They have made bizarre edits like this and this. — MarkH21talk 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation, MarkH21, I think there is a question in here somewhere amongst the gibberish and conspiracy theories. But it's hard to discern what they want. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Badun page deletion[edit]

    Hello Liz

    This is in regard to the page deletion for the danish music group Badun, which I would like to dispute.

    Badun is most certainly a very notable danish music group. They have existed for 20+ years and released 10+ albums, which are available in both physical and digital format:

    They have been well covered and reviewed in the media and played several hundred concerts around the world, and they have collaborated with and inspired many artists.

    A quick search on google for 'Badun' yields a first page almost exclusively with results about the band, which should validate its existence and wide notoriety:

    Sincerely Janus Janusnovak (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Janusnovak,
    Sorry for the delay in responding to your query. Badun was deleted through a Proposed deletion so it can be restored upon request. I can either do this or you can make a request at WP:REFUND and the admins there will handle it. Please know that the article can still be nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion but this would give you time to improve the article and participate in a discussion and put forward your argument. Just let me know what you would like to do. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could make the request to restore it for me, that would be wonderful, thank you. :) (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could make the request to restore it for me, that would be wonderful, thank you. :) Janusnovak (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz,
    Did you request for the Badun article to be restored? I don't see that it has come back up... Janusnovak (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz
    Maybe you didn't see my replies, since I didn't mention you like I do now. So I would still like you to restore the Badun article if you would? Then I will add reliable sources to it. :)
    Janus Janusnovak (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bundled / Not bundled AFD[edit]

    As the closing admin, could you have a look at Women's Bangladesh Premier League? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Whpq,
    There was a problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Women's Bangladesh Premier League wasn't set up appropriately as a bundled nomination, the other article was just thrown into the deletion nomination. So, XFDcloser didn't delete it when the discussion was closed. But an editor later tagged Women's Bangladesh Premier League for speedy deletion and since the editors participating in the AFD were in favor of deleting both articles, I went ahead with that deletion.
    I wasn't 100% comfortable to handling it this way but it's fairly common that AFD nominators don't set up bundled nominations appropriately (more the rule than the exception) and the consensus did seem to favor deletion. There is already a draft at Draft:Women's Bangladesh Premier League that was created before the AFD closed so perhaps an improved version will eventually be approved. I hope this addresses your concern. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have deleted it, but it was not clear from your close that you considered it was a valid bundled nomination so I decided to post a note here. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Damage done by User:Fhektii[edit]

    Hello Liz, hopefully you are doing good. Although, usually questions are asked on the Teahouse, however, since you are familiar with the case, I thought I should ask you. Hopefully you won't mind.

    This was my first time, as you might have noticed, so initially I was just going around. I saw the edit history of the User:Fhektii, I saw the deletion discussions, for crafting my own comment. In the process what I discovered was that there were few very old accounts that were commenting for deletion, however, to the best of my knowledge, it seemed that they were ignoring WP:GNG and WP:GNP. I don't want to assume anything bad about any one, maybe I have missed something or misunderstood, if you could find the time and look into it. I will be truly grateful. Thank you. (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, talk,
    Could you specify which AFD(s) you are concerned about? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned about a senior editor. User:Oaktree b.
    S/he/they commented for delete, on almost half of the User:Fhektii nominated for deletion. On the pages Sharon Tay and Jennifer Gilbert specifically, are not making sense to me. Not assuming bad about him, maybe I have misunderstood. Thanks. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Leila Feinstein[edit]

    Hello, it appears you may have mistakenly soft deleted the page Leila Feinstein. I don't think it was eligible, as it had previously been nominated in the Fidel Vargas batch. Unless there's some kind of misunderstanding on my part. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse,
    Yes, you are absolutely correct. I didn't catch that. I will revert my actions. Thanks for your sharp eye. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Beck Bottom AfD close[edit]

    Hallo Liz, thanks for closing the AfD, but why "Merge", rather than "Redirect"? There is no content not included in Lowick, Cumbria other than the coordinates and an image. PamD 06:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, ignore that: I now see it didn't previously have a mention, so its existence needed to be merged! PamD 06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, PamD,
    I'm glad you found your answer. In the discussion comments, at least one editor proposed a Merge and while editors can recover content when an artice is transformed into a Redirect, it's easier if you close a discussion as Merge. Plus, after any usable content is removed, the page then does become a Redirect which is the result you seem to have wanted. I think I'm a very neutral closer but I do favor an ATD if one is proposed, if only to repurpose content from weak and unwanted articles to other articles where it might provide some value. Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)[edit]

    Hi Liz, Thankyou for closing the AfD on this and reverting the article per AfD.

    However, I believe the AfD called for more than a simple content reversion within the page. The article was renamed by User:Tedgrant1917 ([[1]]), and the article requires moving back to the title Socialist Appeal (Britain), since the article is about Socialist Appeal. Unfortunately because it is still at the title Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024), editors have continued attempting to rewrite the article about RCP, which is non-notable (and doesn't even exist at this point). I am unable to complete this move as Socialist Appeal (Britain) has multiple revisions and therefore a normal editor cannot complete the move.

    I may have caused confusion here by stating "Keep, Sort of" in that I was advocating to keep the edit history, more than the title. The content needed reverting, but so did the title.

    Per the AfD, would you be able to :

    In either case, it's clearly inappropriate for the article about Socialist Appeal to be under the title RCP, and people will continue to try and replace the logo and change the article contents if it's under that title. TedGrant has caused a right cluster-fudge by usurping/rebranding the original article instead of just creating a new one (which would have failed NPP).

    Thanks Hemmers (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Hemmers,
    While I could do what you ask, I hesitate to take on more action than came out of the consensus for this AFD. When a closer goes beyond the community consensus, it's called a supervote and the closer can be taken to AN/ANI when they do this which I'd like to avoid.
    I'd recommend you taking this request to Wikipedia:Requested moves and asking the editors/admins there to consider your request. They are experts at evaluating move proposals and dealing with existing page histories and I'd trust them to know what they are doing. The page moves I do are rather simple affairs and this is more complicated. I'd also be interested in hearing their assessment of your plan.
    I don't mean to discourage you, this might not be a big deal, I just think that the editors who patrol RM would be better to assess this than I am. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz,
    Thankyou for the considered response. However, I'm a little confused because the consensus clearly went further than just "revert the content". All bar one of the "Keep" votes was actually "Keep as per Hemmers" or "Keep and restore as per Hemmers". So the restoration of the page title as described in my proposal does seem to be the consensus of the AfD. What's been done so far - reverting the content - is somewhat "half a job". I can take it to RM if you prefer, but from my understanding of the discussion, the following was the accepted consensus:
    Keep Sort of. But revert to 17 December 2023, when it was actually a moderately well-sourced article about a long-standing publication/movement (the Socialist Appeal) (done). Then merge the latest edit of Socialist Appeal (Britain) back on top of it and delete that article (not done). Then move the entire stack (with edit history) back to Socialist Appeal (Britain) where it belongs (not done). I'm at an absolute loss as to what the blazing nonsense has gone on with this article. They've moved a long-standing article, blanked it and rebranded it, and then someone's copied the old content into a new article using the old name!?! A quick hunt back through the History shows it is notable - they've just removed all the references to the former name, instead of creating a new article for the new name/body (which likely wouldn't pass NPP). Failing all that, Delete, it's just a shame to lose the edit history for Socialist Appeal (Britain), which is currently underneath this article. Hemmers (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Hemmers (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review for Volvexzshawa[edit]

    I want to request a review on article on Artist Volvexzshawa the reason for it's deletion was because it lacked enough reference and required more time to be updated with reliable sources of reverence and with my research I do believe the artist is a Notable person and a pioneer in the Kenyan Hiphop Music cited sources across Nigeria National Newspapers and Kenya National Newspapers and Television notability Teresia Akinyi Achilo (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Teresia Akinyi Achilo,
    You are talking about Volvexzshawa, right? It helps to provide a link to the article you are concerned about. To appeal the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volvexzshawa, you would need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review file a request there. Please review the instructions and follow them.
    DRV is for if you think I didn't close the discussion appropriately, so it's about my closure, not about the value of this article. The only way I know to overcome a "Delete" AFD decision is to write a new draft, addressing the problems coming up in the AFD, and submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. If you move a new version directly into main space, it will likely be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 which is what happened the last time it was deleted.
    If you have general questions about article creation and Wikipedia's deletion processes, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Dell monitors[edit]

    Hello, I just noticed and was quite surprised that the article mentioned in the title got deleted. I used that page multiple times in the past as reference, and I was not the only one. I personally do not agree with the deletion, and I'd like to elaborate why that is.

    The most often mentioned reason in the discussion is WP:NOTCATALOG. I have looked into said ruleset. It is not a simple listing because it explains what the different numbers in the model number mean, and shows a comparison between model years of different series of models. They are not loosely associated, what is listed is exactly defined in the title. The points 3. through 6. are pretty obviously not involved with this.

    It's also not a "brochure-style advertisement", listing of (industry standard) specifications is not an advertisement and the text sections are written as neutral as possible.

    "Largely unreferenced, and most of the references provided are primary sources from Dell's support site." I don't see how it would have to be done differently for a page that contains lists of technical products. It's like that for other list pages for technical devices as well. Also, there's pretty much no better source for the specifications of a product than its manufacturer, because if they lied, they'd be liable.

    As for the notability of said products, Dell has consistently been the largest manufacturer of monitors for the past decade. Coming back to the example of Samsung, it would be like claiming a list of Samsung Galaxy devices is not notable despite them being the largest manufacturer of smartphones for years. And that's also why there are lists for the Galaxy Z, S, A, M, F, XCover, Note, J and Y series.

    I'm not in favor of keeping pages just for the sake of it. This page has been legitimately useful for people, including me and those mentioned, and I don't think it's only the three of us using this page for a reference, especially because it goes back so far, which is information hard to come by nowadays. Punkt64 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What I would like to address in further detail is the argument of lack of sources. There are many reviews of individual models (often but not only of the higher end Ultrasharp series) on the internet and youtube. Those could be added in a section for reception for example, here are some
    Their monitor series also includes some products that are rather unique in the market, for example some models with 8K resolution, reviewed many times including popular YouTube channel Marques Brownlee.
    And to clarify, someone in the deletion discussion mentioned that the article does not show why this is just another monitor manufacturer. That's why I referenced and said that Dell has been the single biggest manufacturer of monitors for the past decade. That link and statement could also be included in the article to show the relevance. Punkt64 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Punkt64,
    I actually have no opinion about this article. I closed the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell monitors and the opinion was unanimous for Deletion. Please read over the arguments in the AFD to see why the participating editors believed the article should be deleted. If you do not think I read the consensus correctly, then you may appeal the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Ordinarily, I normally make an offer to restore the article to Draft space so that it can be improved but the very nature of this article, which was basically a product catalog, is unlikely to be changed by editing. Additionally, the article was full of templates about Dell products and those templates have since been deleted.
    If you want an article on this subject, I think your best route is to start over by writing a draft article in your User space, like your Sandbox, or in Draft space. That, and deletion review, are the two options I see as the consensus was clear and I can not revert the closure based on any arguments you make here. I'm sorry but my role is to interpret the consensus in a discussion, not advocate for articles. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you say the article in its current form will not be accepted by editing then what use is a Deletion review? I don't know the exact procedures of english wikipedia, I'm usually editing in german wikipedia.
    As I do not have the energy or time right now to write a completely new article, a relatively large one at that, I'd like to recreate it in my space for personal use. The missing template is a problem. Is there any way to get this into the user space and then use it? It is not saved in the wayback machine. I know of no way to get it back without rewriting it myself. Punkt64 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or better yet, you said you could restore it to draft space. Is it possible for you to restore it to my user draft space, together with the template? That would be very nice and useful. As I said not necessarily for publishing at the moment but for personal use. I have tried it myself but that was from a wayback save from 6th May of 2023, so probably not the most current version. And it also lacked the template which makes half of the article unreadable. Punkt64 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Punkt64, I'd be willing to restore it to your User space so you could view it. I'm not sure about restoring all of the templates. Just know that if you move it back into main space, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 as an article previously deleted in an AFD deletion discussion. The only way I know to overcome an AFD Delete decision is to write a draft and submit it to AFC. I understand that the English Wikipedia does have a truckload of policies and guidelines that are especially confusing to new or infrequent editors. I'll look into that restoration later tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    G4 in draft space[edit]

    Hi Liz, you've a couple of times (most recently just now, at Draft:Ricky Guillart) declined my G4 request on the basis that G4 doesn't apply in the draft space. Could you please point me to where it says that, so I can understand the rules better? Looking at WP:G4, my reading is that this is true only when the content has been draftified, whereas eg. the Ricky Guillart draft was created in draft space from the outset. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, DoubleGrazing,
    When you are a new admin, there are two ways to learn what decisions you should make as an admin. One is reviewing policy and guidelines. The second is seeing how more experienced admins act and adopting their practices. My action about CSD G4s in Draft space might fall under the latter group. Unless the draft is identical to the deleted article or is vandalism, drafts are typically untagged if they are labeled CSD G4s. The reason why is that there should be a way for an edtor to write on an article subject that has been deleted through AFD and write an improved and better article. If all drafts were subject to CSD G4s, we'd never be able to accept well-written articles on subjects that had once been deleted through AFD.
    If this point isn't stated in CSD policy, I'm sure it's been a subject of discussion (probably multiple times) on the CSD talk page and I'll search for that later tonight. If I can't find it, then I think it is worth starting a new discussion on CSD Talk to make that clear. The only aspect that I'm sure of is that I'm not the only admin to handle CSD G4s in Draft space in this way. So, if I'm incorrect, it's not just my behavior that needs to change but the other administrators who patrol CSD categories. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no worries, Liz. I just thought maybe I'd overlooked something obvious, but it seems more of a grey area? In any case, I'm not here to argue with admins' decisions, whether I think they're right or wrong; you guys take enough flak as it is, for doing a difficult job (that I wouldn't do, even if offered!), and I for one don't need to be making it any more difficult. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Undo deletion of Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar)[edit]

    Mrs Liz, please undo the deletion of Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar). It is a party that is going to contest in the national elections as part of a major national alliance in a few months. The party has seats in the national parliament and seats in multiple state assemblies. There is no reason to delete it.

    The name can be adjusted to Nationalist Congress Party — Sharadchandra Pawar since that is the name accepted by the Supreme Court. MrMkG (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, MrMkG,
    While my closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) was tentative, the consensus I saw was that the article content was inaccurate and if an article exists on this subject, it should be rewritten. Please review the comments made in the AFD. So, I closed the discussion as Delete. I don't think another relisting would increase the participation and because some editors actually thought the information in the article was false, I'm unwilling to restore this article to Draft space.
    I see two options for you. If you disagree with my assessment of the consensus of the discussion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please know that this discussion will not be an opportunity for you to argue that the article subject is notable, the discussion will focus on my actions and the closure of the discussion and whether that was correct. The other option is to start a new draft in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. This is necessary when an article has been deleted through an AFD because another article on this subject put into main space can be speedy deleted, CSD G4. I think that is the most productive route to take but it's up to you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you can just restore it so that editors can correct it if it has false information like it is normally done. Why are you unwilling to restore it? Articles aren't deleted for being incorrect, they are corrected. I don't care for the merits of your actions or all the bureaucracy. I've seen it takes far too long. There is an upcoming election and an major party has gotten its article deleted. MrMkG (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD discussion[edit]

    Hi! The note you dropped on my talk has gotten some engagement. Flagging that, but also User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Related_issue. Nothing wrong with your relists, you followed procedure. I did not on the close, but I always like to drop a note when I mention people. It's the same discussion we' ve had a lot. It's ineligible for soft deletion, but if no one wants to retain it, why do we bother. Happy Friday! Star Mississippi 18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to piggyback on this in re my AfD for The Garagiste Festivals, since it's another example of the same issue. Considering the total lack of engagement with this AfD, would there be any issue with a BOLD merge of notable, non-promotional into another article, or do I need to wait until the AfD closes? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know, Star Mississippi, I usually don't join talk page discussions until the end of the day when I have more free time but I'll check out the discussion on your User talk page. I appreciate you letting me know about it as I don't check my pings.
    Just Another Cringy Username, please do not Merge content until the AFD is closed but if you want to go that route, please make sure you mention that in your AFD nomination statement so it's clear you are not seeking deletion. But we typically advise that while it's fine to improve articles while they are being discussed at an AFD, large content removals, Merges, Redirects or page moves can be disruptive.
    As a closer, if there is low participation, I typically like to let AFDs run at least two weeks although other closers will close them sooner so I'm not sure what will happen with this one. I've actually seen 3 or 4 editors jump into a discussion after 3 relistings so it's hard to predict what will happen. There are some subjects that draw a lot of participants, like contentious topics, subjects in the news and, for some reason, articles about places/towns, but most AFDs are suffering from a shortage of editors interested in participating. I'd estimate that we have half the number of participating editors in most AFDs than there were a year ago. It's an area of the project that many editors burn out on and I can understand why. An editor can spend an hour or more searching for reliable sources and then the AFD is closed as Delete. I'm sure it is very frustrating. But I can't think of an area where an individual editor can have more influence over the content of the project than participating thoughtfully in AFDs. Whether or not articles are Kept or Delete can often come down to one or two editors which, honestly, I don't think is optimal for the health of the project. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Latest from @depthsofwiki Twitter account[edit]

    Have you seen this? :) Owen× 20:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Owen×,
    No, I hadn't seen it, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Fifteen years ago, I spent as much time on Twitter as I do now on Wikipedia so I'm aware of the account but I just am not on the platform any more so I don't see their posts. I think they are on Instagram as well.
    It's very flattering but also a bit unsettling as I think most editors work without thinking that anyone is paying attention to what they are doing...unless they make a colossal mistake. And there are many editors/admins who work just as much if not more than I do. I think about editors/admins who create Featured Articles, dig into unearthing sockfarms, handle disputes on Contentious Topics and manage the AE noticeboard and, most of all, those editors who take on the thankless task of investigating copyright concerns. They are heroes to me. The work I do does fall under the rubric of "maintenance" as unglamorous as that sounds, that's what the mop is for. I guess I find it satisfying cleaning out the unwanted pages and welcoming new editors. I just think it is so important what that "first contact" is with newbies, it can drive them away, muttering under their breath about what a bureaucratic hellhole Wikipedia is, or encourage them to spend more time here and try to pick up all of the rules and policies. I think we forget that with experienced editors moving on and retiring, we have a constant need for competent new editors and you never know which ones will turn into those editors who write articles on some subject that is missing from the project.
    But thanks for letting me know, it's kind of like getting a barnstar only in front of an audience. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talent economy (disambiguation)[edit]

    Can you please bring back Talent economy (disambiguation)?
    WP:G14 was not applicable because there were two links to existing articles: One to 10x Management and one to Andrew S. Rosen. Up the Walls (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Up the Walls,
    These two articles might mention the Talent economy phrase in the body of the article because it is part of a title of a book but this term is not part these articles' page titles or a main subject which is what disambiguation pages are for. They just happen to mention a book that has Talent economy in the book title. For further guidance, please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Specific instances and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include or you can inquire about disambiguation pages at the Teahouse. But in my eyes, this was an appropriate speedy deletion tagging.
    If you disagree with the tagging and deletion of this page, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and see if the editors there agree with you. Personally, if was me, I would create Talent economy as a Redirect page and use one of these articles as the target page, including a hatnote to reference the other article rather than create a disambiguation page. But you are free to take what action you feel is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeletion of Taiwan editing tips[edit]

    Please see WP:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan 1000/Editing Tips where you were pinged. Jay 💬 17:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Jay,
    Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alpine Junction[edit]

    Hi, can you please tell me which page Alpine Junction redirected to? Kk.urban (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Kk.urban,
    That page was a redirect to Alpine, Mendocino County, California which was deleted by PROD. The only edit to this page was one creating this redirect. This page creator created a lot of articles about small towns that have since been deleted along with many redirects to them. I hope this addresses your question. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you. Kk.urban (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Mrs. @Liz, please delete user page such as User:Ayig2 because CSD G1. Thanks. (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why the content bothers you so. I just blanked the page, not all User pages with gibberish need to be deleted. I hope this addresses your concern. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review for Dr. Squatch[edit]

    An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dr. Squatch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Some bubble tea for you![edit]

    Thank you for all the work you do. I find your contributions to one of the largest free online encyclopedia amazing. Thank you for all that you do. Maxb133 (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, Maxb133. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Wise Article Deletion[edit]

    Hi Liz, Why was the Jeff Wise article deleted? I'm a new user, so I'm not super familiar with the nuances of this website. Maxb133 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Maxb133,
    As a discussion closer, I assess the consensus of the discussion. If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Wise you can see the arguments editors put forward for why this article should be deleted. After you have read it over, return here and tell me if you now understand. Would you like to create a new article on this subject?
    If you have questions about AFDs and Wikipedia's deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz, could you restore Draft:Musk v. OpenAI? The deletion discussion ended in a redirect, but I believe there is enough to meet GNG. I would like to work on it and resubmit. Best, Thriley (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Thriley,
    You've been around here long enough to know that I can't just revert a AFD consensus decision, especially when no editors were arguing to Keep this article. But since it is a Redirect, the content is still all there. You could move the page to Draft space, creating a Redirect in its place, where you could work on improving the article. Sound good? Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, I didn’t mean that! Just wanted to move the redirect to draft. Looks like I can do that myself. Thriley (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    G5 for non-EC users creating ECP articles?[edit]

    What is the current status of using G5 to speedy delete articles in ECP topics (in this case, the Arab-Israeli conflict) created by users not yet EC? Should these pages be marked for deletion, and if yes, what is the correct way to do so? I didn't want to imply that the creator was a sockpuppet, I'm sorry. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Chaotic Enby,
    If this is the case, it shouldn't get a CSD G5 tag, tag it instead with {{db-gs}}. I'm not sure if this is programmed into Twinkle yet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot, I'll tag the article correctly! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaotic Enby, to be honest, very few editors, even page patrollers, know about this speedy deletion code. I only know of two editors who have correctly tagged articles that fit the criteria. Now you are one of them! Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again! Always happy to learn! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Required help 🙄[edit]

    Respected Mam can you please 🙏 help me inprove Draft:Yash Shah (contortionist) and make it fit for article space. Mam I had tried my best as much as I can able. But mam now I don't able understand how to improve it further.. So I request you please help me.. Tablasingh (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Tablasingh,
    First, I don't work on article or draft creation. Second, could you provide me with a link to the article you are talking about? Then I can look at it. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Mam please 🙏 try to help me. Tablasingh (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template redirect deletion[edit]

    Hi @Liz: Can you delete this: "Template:People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group". Another another renamed that template wrongly and I put a G8 on it. I'm not sure if the G8 is applicable. I moved the the template name to something else accidently. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 08:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz, its been done by Fastily. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good because I was asleep. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation of the page Delonte Hood[edit]

    Just saw this page was deleted two months ago for "Appears to fail WP:SPORTCRIT, cannot find any significant coverage and none shown in article." If I can fix the problem and provide significant coverage about his player could I create this article again? (said If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.). Thank You ! Danjobilly1 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Danjobilly1,
    Can you give me a link to the page you are talking about? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry about that. Here Delonte Hood Danjobilly1 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Danjobilly1,
    No problem. This was a Proposed deletion so it can be restored upon request. I can restore it to main space, where it might be tagged for AFD deletion (it's a possibility) or to your User space or Draft space if you would prefer a chance to look it over. Let me know what you would like. Liz Read! Talk! 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you restore it to main space? I can make the necessaryessisary changed from there. Thank you ! Danjobilly1 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Danjobilly1,
    I see you already recreated this article. But I restored the previous edits which you can check out in case you wanted to know what the original content on the page was. Sorry for the delay. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Would you please restore Draft:Camp Lambec. --evrik (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, evrik,
     Done Sorry for the delay. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    hello Liz. just accepted this out of AfC, but I'm unable to move it without the disambiguator. i noticed you were the editor who protected it -- there appears to be a draft at Draft:Justin Jin, but it is about a different subject, and not currently in the mainspace. could you move these? thank you. She was afairy 06:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Shewasafairy,
    Well, I handled this backwards as I only saw your message now. I lifted page protection, then saw that Justin Jin (entrepreneur) is being discussed at an AFD so it shouldn't be moved unless it is Kept. I should have checked first as the page title appears to me in a pink font, signaling that it has been tagged for deletion or deletion discussion. Sorry for the tardy response. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ah no worries, maybe it would be appropriate to keep it at the entrepreneur disambiguation if the other draft is brought into main space. anyways, thank you. She was afairy 06:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just sent you an email[edit]

    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.

    Danthemedguy22 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. Could I get your advice on the propriety of adding a new page a little late (see the section note to closing admin). Could the AfD be relisted? Local Variable (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I ask you to clarify your rationale on this close. It looks entirely like no consensus to me. I see no good reason why greater weight should be given to those who believe deputy ministers do not meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, when the position is, as you yourself say, unclear. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please restore Elvira Vikhareva's page[edit]

    Hello, my name is Evgeny Galitskiy, I am writing to you on behalf of my close friend and a Russian oppositional politician Elvira Vikhareva whose page was removed and put in drafts.

    This was done after a message from a user Anatoliy Rosdashin (Анатолий Росдашин) whom neither Elvira, nor I don't know. In the piece of code that Rosdashin submitted, he added to Evira's name a derogatory word "bobroedka" (literally translates from Russian as "beaver eater" and is often used when referred to a different person, a Russian propaganda journalist Margarita Simonyan).

    Also, Rosdashin mentioned that Elvira is a "too small and insignificant politician according to WP:POLITICS". This is not true, because Elvira is a well-known oppositional political figure and political journalist based in Moscow, Russia. She ran for a member of the Moscow Municipal Board in 2021, runs her popular YouTube channel where she interviews important russian politicians, journalists and political scientists.

    In 2022 Elvira was unjustly deemed a Foreign Agent by the Russian government. Besides that, she has been many times persecuted by the Russian authorities for her political views, physically attacked by people affiliated with the Russian government and poisoned with a neural agent.

    All of this shows that Elvira Vikhareva is an important person in russian political life and her Wikipedia page deserves to be restored.

    Elvira asked me to write this message to you, because she fears that her account will be deleted from Wikipedia if she does it herself.

    Please restore her Wikipedia page.

    Thank you. Gha665 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

    Thank you for all your work as an admin. I often notice you checking the history of articles and sending friendly notes to users. I share this habit and always pay attention to article history, so it’s great to see others who respect it as well. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD advice[edit]

    Hi, I can see you are very busy so I hesitated to say something. I saw you involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Lozupone, and I am unsure how to deal with an editor who I believe is not paying attention to policy and I know another admin here [2] also told them to pay more attention when reverting changes, and you advised the user on their talk page too about closing AFDs, so I wanted to get input. I have been trying to improve the article at AFD, and the user removed some sources, some were not great sources, but also put a lot of citation needed in the first paragraph even though the second paragraph and further provide sources that show these things to be the case.

    According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section it is common to not need citations in the lead section. I saw that for clarity many pages had stuff in the first section that was backed by citations in the later body, I tried to do that but maybe I did not know the correct procedure. This user also removed some titles from citations for no reason I see, and changed some text to be say something other than what the citation says. Because I created the article even though I was not the only editor, I have been told I can not be that involved so I want another opinion especially an admin who is involved with this AFD. I do not want to edit war over this but the user left a weird message about neutral point of view on my talk page and honestly I am getting frustrated at this whole thing and do not want to act out. Thank you very much if you can offer advice. I would understand if you can not or if I did something off, but I would like to improve the article more maybe but this makes it more difficult. I will see your reply if you reply here. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nissan TD engine[edit]

    Hi, you helped me regarding this article in the past. I just submitted a draft at Draft:Nissan TD engine; just thought I ought to notify you since you deleted the original article. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalberg advisors notability[edit]


    I've seen that the page on development consultancy firm Dalberg has been deleted a few weeks ago, because I'm working on an article that linked to it (Advance market commitment). I did some google searches, and found a few sources that seem relevant: Business Daily (2010) - (2011) - (2015) - (2017) - (2019) - The Star (2023) - The Ken (2023) - Forbes India (2023) - African Shapers (2023). Do you think these sources could together plausibly satisfy notability criteria? If so, what is the correct procedure to start a discussion about this, or start rewriting the article in a more neutral way?

    Thanks a lot for your help! – Ejowan (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you restore this so that it can be merged to the appropriate article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Thank you![edit]

    Early Spring in a tiny urban garden, can you spot the elf?

    Hi Liz, thanks for answering my question on that other page re: one vs. three. That's life changing! I've been spending much too much time going through every single source at NPP, AfC and in BEFOREs. Doing reviews can sometimes get exhausting, esp. with such a big backlog or when an article or draft is massively refbombed. I was even translating sources before evaluating them. Good to know only ONE is needed. Thanks again for making volunteering a little bit lighter. Happy Spring, Netherzone (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report[edit]

    Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

    Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.


    • Introduction
    • Membership news, obituary and election results
    • Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
    • Closing words
    – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
    To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

    Draft:Korvi Rakshand to move as main atricle[edit]

    Hello Liz, following your instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 394 , I have worked with Draft:Korvi Rakshand, can you please review it and move as main article.--IqbalHossain (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All the speedy[edit]

    Is it legit moves that somebody mass removal the articles from the cat and then blank the cat page, and then you speedy it? I mean the action by user:Boubloub. Probably i have no time to investigate who is mass removing the article from cat. Matthew hk (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it is the same guy Special:Diff/1214077855. Matthew hk (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ADMINACCT demand from Rajeshthapaliya -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, -- Deepfriedokra,
    I appreciate the notice since I don't frequent noticeboards as I did in my Wikipedia youth. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, he's indeffed w/o TPA. Meh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, -- Deepfriedokra,
    Yes, I know. When deleting expired drafts though I kind of let Twinkle do its thing and post notices unless I'm aware that an editor has been indefinitely blocked. But thanks for the reminder. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991)[edit]

    You concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) by deleting the article per the apparent consensus, which was part of the series Timeline of United States inventions. This leaves a bizarre gap, e.g. Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1945) and Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991) both still exist. I was led here by comparison with List of Japanese inventions and discoveries, which also continues to exist. The consensus on the AfD seems mixed, with some suggestions that the content was just badly organized.

    It seems to me the correct course of action is instead to clean up the original article. This middle ground, where a large chunk of a timeline is simply missing, is quite glaring. Would this be possible, and what might it entail? Jemidiah (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz, I was tagging this as G11 as "userpage being used only for promotion or publicity, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted" as in the userspace of User:Charliesouz. We also already have an article at Charlie Souza which also appears to have been an autobiography. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, AusLondonder,
    This isn't the question you were asking (I'm not sure if you were even asking a question) but I don't think it is time well spent to survey old User pages, looking for pages to tag for deletion. This editor left the platform years ago, readers don't see User pages and it isn't important to delete these types of pages. Unless you have a lot of free time, I don't think it is the best use of your time. In fact, I don't know how you even stumbled upon this old page! It's much more important to safeguard content in the main space of the project and remove promotional content from that namespace. Just my opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments Liz, wasn't asking a question. Just giving a clarification. AusLondonder (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus[edit]

    Hello, I don't know many prolific afd closers as you're the only one that came to mind. I would like to ask for your assistance/input in this afd I created of a Roman fella. I asked around and the only answer I got was he's notable cause he existed 2000 years ago but doesn't pass GNG. I'm asking this cause I've never seen an afd of a person like this and would like to know the way forward. Many thanks in advance. Serrwinner (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Serrwinner,
    I assume you are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus and it looks like the consensus right now is that this article should be Kept. I'm not sure what help you are looking for. If I were you, I read the responses of participating editors and see why they believe the article shouldn't be Deleted. If it's any consolation, I think of the articles I've nominated for AFD discussions over the past 10 years, I'd guess that about half have been deleted and half have been kept. Other editors often find sources that were not in the article before and our goal is to have better articles, so that is a win-win. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of my friend, Amy Varle who wrote ending homelessness strategy[edit]

    Hello there Liz, good day to you. I was just writing an article for for Ada Lovelace army project and went to link to Amy Varle's Wiki page and see you have deleted it? Why on earth have you done this? Susan (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's hard for me to know how to respond as you haven't provided a link to the page you are talking about and when I looked at your Contributions, there were not Deleted contributions. So, you must have edited with a different IP address or a registered account. You would really benefit from creating a registered account. Once you provide me with a link to the deleted page, then I can investigate and respond to your comment properly. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted Talk Page[edit]

    I have a slight apology to offer for accidentally creating a talk page with a longer name than its article page, which was therefore an orphaned talk page. I was trying to create a subpage of a talk page, containing a draft RFC, and I left the slash character out, so it was an orphaned page rather than a legal subpage. There is no way that a reasonable admin could have guessed what I was trying to do (and following the rules is a reasonable course of action). So I think I am doing it correctly this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Robert McClenon,
    To be honest, I look at hundreds of pages every day so I'm not sure what page you are referring to. I regularly delete orphaned talk pages though. If it was a User space page, that is different but without knowing the page, it's hard for me to know what happened. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lists of deaths C1[edit]

    Hi - Just curious what the goal is here. Is it to eventually label Category:Lists of deaths by year C1? Gjs238 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Gjs238,
    I don't think it makes sense to have a "Lists of..." category when there is only one list. Single page categories aren't very useful but it looks like monthly articles were created starting in the 1990s and so these latter categories are indeed "ListS". If you want to revert me, that's fine, I'll just bring it to CFD. I just didn't think anyone would object. Liz Read! Talk!

    Hi Liz (or any other admin happening by), can you check if this draft is essentially the same as William Allegrezza which was very recently deleted via this AfD. Normally I would not ask this about a draft but given it was just deleted and the creator also reverted your close (I reverted them), I don't want time wasted reviewing it if it is the same. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, S0091,
    Well, it doesn't look "identical". The old article had been edited from 2005-2023 so it's unlikely that they would be identical unless the editor copied the content from a Wikipedia clone. This version has a lot more sources but I didn't evaluate them to see if they were sufficient. As for me, and other admins, CSD G4 doesn't apply to Dyou raft space. Editors should be permitted to write improved versions of deleted articles and often they are encouraged to. There is some disagreement about G4s and the policy doesn't specify what namespace this criteria covers. But that's my interpretation. I'd encourage you to review but it's not a good sign that they reverted an AFD closure. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz. My reference to G4 was short hand. I was primarily concerned about it being pretty much a duplicate thus a time waste to review it. Had it been a duplicate, I would have declined it as such rather than requesting it be deleted as I agree with your stance. We shouldn't cut off folks from submitting drafts to overcome an AfD, outside of pure disruption, policy violations or similar. S0091 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I am the author of one of the petitions on the Egov.Press website. It turns out that the Wikipedia article was deleted back in February. I ask you to consider the sources that provide evidence of the significance of the project. In my opinion, this is the same site as Avaaz,, which do not require proof of significance in a particular country. (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read my closure statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egov.Press? I stand by it. There might be an article on this subject to be written but the one we were looking at wasn't it. This decision won't be reverted but you can start a new draft article and submit it to WP:AFC for review. I think that would be the best route to take. You can appeal my closure by filing an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and presenting your argument there but I think working on a new draft version would be a better use of your time. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Japanese literature[edit]

    It seems inconceivable that no notable literature was published in Japan for three centuries. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Andy Dingley,
    I agree. The tool I use to look at categories says that these categories weren't emptied, article by article, but this emptying can happen if an editor changes a template that automatically fills categories. We have a week to figure that out. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was expecting to find that these were created as part of a set some time ago and have never been filled because those who might write such articles are instead discouraged by having every small step they make deleted by some nit-picking exercise. But either way, we ought to (and used to) move forwards, not forever waste time trying to find excuses to go backwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Andy Dingley,
    It was a mistake made to a new template. I asked an editor who is an expert in templates to track down the problem, it's been fixed and the categories are repopulated. That's why CSD C1s are given 7 days before deletion, just in case it's a glitch that's caused them to empty. Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinged you because you were part of the related discussion on my Talk. No action/response needed and nothing of yours being questioned, just a courtesy heads up in case you wanted to weigh in. Star Mississippi 02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Star Mississippi,
    I always appreciate notification on my user talk page as I don't track my pings. I'm not sure why this draft was singled out for an MFD discussion but the regulars there usually prefer to let drafts be handled by CSD G13 unless there is objectionable content. I have to go read your talk page archive as it's not clear to me what my involvement is. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any time, and I disclosed it at the MfD lest anyone just see it here and think I was canvassing you.
    From my re-read, we were split on whether SALT was necessary or helped because we were all playing whack-a-sock on the various titles. This one wasn't going to die a G13 death since I think it's linked off wiki somewhere hence random periodic edits. Have a good evening! Star Mississippi 02:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Star Mississippi,
    I'm always surprised when some editor can actually track down the actual Tweet or Reddit forum post where users are being canvassed. I guess they frequent those places. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Oppidum of Moulay" refund request[edit]

    "Oppidum of Moulay" could you please email me what was deleted? I fell down another rabbit-hole, you know the drill. I have hopes of coming back to this however. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Elinruby,
    Please give me a link to the page you are talking about. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty sure it would be Draft: Oppidum of Moulay or possibly [[Draft: Oppidum de Moulay}}. It would a translation of Oppidum de Moulay [fr] but I doubt I had linked it yet.

    No rush. Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Elinruby,
     Done As a stale draft, this page can be restored upon request. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please elaborate on why you thought there was a consensus to keep? We typically delete articles on political candidates, and the discussion needs a more detailed close. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, SportingFlyer,
    I read the consensus as the majority of editors wanting to Keep this article, especially post-election. If you read the second half of the discussion, almost all editors are saying that POL is met. I'm not sure how much more commentary is called for. I'd be willing to revert my closure and close as No consensus but I don't see a consensus to Delete or Redirect. I advised editors seeking to Redirect to have a talk page discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's true. Most of us quoting NPOL were explaining to keep !voters why their logic was incorrect. Redirecting after the AfD will be very difficult as well. SportingFlyer T·C 09:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    About one of the U5/G11 tags[edit]

    Hello - I noticed in your edit summary at a user page you described one of the tags as an overreaction. This is what the page looked like at the time of nomination. Didn't realize they'd edited out the article after responding to them at my talk page. That's my bad for not removing it in a timely manner.

    Though I do have a few questions coming from this - do admins reviewing the CSD category not look into the page history when reviewing, and is the onus on the nominator to remove the tag once it no longer meets the criteria? I know I've had a handful of issues with my CSD tags before, and I'd like to knock those issues out before I keep going and reviewing new user pages. Thanks! Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Phönedinger's jellyfish II,
    I didn't look at the page history when I removed the tag and offered that edit summary. Once I did, I could see why you tagged the page. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liverpolitan identity[edit]

    Hi, thanks for protecting the Liverpolitan identity page. I have taken on board your comment. Would it be possible for to move it to Liverpolitan as the system is having problems auto finding sources for – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR. The original title (Liverpolitan identity) of the page also caused friction amongst one of the users and was changed to Liverpolitan to please them and to diffuse the discussion. Many thanks. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You moved this to draftspace because the author submitted it for AfC review, but AfC is optional. Is there a requirement student editors specifically must use it? Mach61 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Mach61,
    First, I didn't know that the article creator was a student editor. I noticed it on the Move log because the page title was 1819BallonRiot. So, at first, I was just going to move the article to a proper page title. Then, I noticed that the AFC tags were still on the page. When I looked at the page history, the editor had submitted their User space draft to AFC and then, moments later, moved it to main space. My guess is that after they submitted it to AFC, they saw that they were in a line with 4,000 other drafts for review and were impatient. In case this was a mistake, I moved the page to Draft space where it was still tagged for submission. I guess that's the long story. The short story is no, unless there is a real or suspected COI or the article had previously been deleted through an AFD decision, there is no obligation for an editor to use AFC. And, if they had objected to my article page move, I would not have moved it back to Draft space. It was just the fact that they submitted the article for review and then immediately moved it before it could be reviewed that prompted me to move it to Draft space.
    But, if you are the AFC reviewer, there were no special circumstances that you need to be aware of and I don't plan on following up on this draft article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    harassment account[edit]

    Hi, I think you could notify me about this: as it's a direct personal attack to me (it means something like "cunt Tehonk"), it looks like he messaged you because he saw your messages on my talk page and thought you would block me by thinking it's my account. I have a guess about who he is but only a guess (I think he started to harass me after I opened an AfD for an article they created), should I open a SPI about it with only a guess? Tehonk (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: SHOLAASIRU/Sandbox[edit]

    Hello Liz,

    I noticed that my article on Payaza Africa Limited was removed. As this is my first attempt at writing here, I'm finding it challenging to grasp the policies and identify where I went wrong. I also received a notification suggesting I contact you before making any revisions to the article. I appreciate your guidance in advance. @Liz Sholaasiru (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey I just now noticed you closed this AfD.

    While it seems that notability is not an issue, the article still has literally zero independent references. Isn't that a reason for deletion? How can the page be allowed to remain as it is? Note that the article is also largely the work of a blatant COI editor who has since been banned. [3]

    Should probably be deleted per WP:TNT, no?

    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely this is a draftify? (at the very least). It's an unsourced BLP and last time I looked, we weren't supposed to be doing those! Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a good idea, draftifying and "marking its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors." How can that be done? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single editor in the discussion except for the nominator argued that this article should be Kept. I can't impose my own opinion on the discussion or it would be considered a "supervote", it would be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review and overturned. Of course, if you don't agree with my closure, you can take this closure to DRV yourself and try to have it overturned. But I won't revert myself when opinion was almost unanimous. I'm sorry but these are consensus decisions. Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll take it to deletion review. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly, is that the best next step for me to take this to deletion review? I don't fault your close but rather disagree with the consensus. Like I said, I don't understand how the page can be allowed to remain with zero reliable sources... IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Deletion Review: John Paczkowski[edit]

    Hi Liz

    I wanted to ask you to reconsider the deletion of this bio:

    Paczkowski continues to be very well known and respected important journalist. His reporters have won pretty much every award in the business (Livingston, Polk, Pulitzer, Mirror, SABEW). And he's completely resurrected Forbes tech reporting, which has led the industry on TikTok reporting:

    He’s an editor now, so he doe’s less reporting, but you can see him promotion his folks’ work on twitter.

    He has done a few stories at Forbes though:

    Twitter scoop:

    Day of announcement Vision Pro review:

    And when we has actively reporting, he interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook and broken all manner of news about Apple and other big tech companies.

    Tim Cook interview:

    AirPods scoop:

    Paczkowki's allthingsD archive. He was Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg's first editorial hire:

    Kara Swisher announcing Paczkowki's column:

    Buzzfeed News Archive:

    Forbes announcement:

    Thanks for your consideration. Stay well. AliceTheGoon (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, AliceTheGoon,
    I would have recommended that you start creating a new draft on this article subject, avoiding the problems that caused the other version to be deleted, rather than contesting the closure of the AFD I closed but it's your choice on what action you want to take. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review for John Paczkowski[edit]

    An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Paczkowski. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 19:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, NightWolf1223,
    Thanks for letting me know. There is supposed to be a link in the Deletion review request to the AFD where the deletion was proposed but I appreciate you helping out the other editor. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I fixed the link to the AfD. Thanks for letting me know about that. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quantity of sources[edit]

    Remember our old exchange about quantity of sources? Looks like I'm having some bad influence on you... ;) Owen× 23:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Or did I misread it, and the matter refers to sources rather than to quantity?) Owen× 10:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review for Yitzhak Reiter[edit]

    An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yitzhak Reiter. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyler Morse[edit]

    Hi, Liz. Despite creating close to 200 pages and being an AfC reviewer myself, I sent this to AfC because I was on the fence about notability at first. After submitting, there was another in-depth reference that came out and I added but instead of moving I left it there anyway. It was declined by a reviewer (and not casting aspersions) who has very little experience in article creation or AfC. I brought the subject up with them on my talk page. They initially left a response that didn't make sense to me and have failed to respond in about two weeks on my request for clarification. I would prefer to move the draft so that the history is attached as opposed to copy and paste. Of course, it is always subject to AfD if anyone feels otherwise but I think the edit history is important. If you can remove the redirect I would appreciate it. And to be fair, the reviewer declined another submission I had which I am completely fine with as I am still on the fence about that one. CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, CNMall41,
    I appreciate the explanation. I was a little surprised that you went through AFC, being an experienced editor, but I spend my time on the project reviewing dozens (hundreds?) of deletion requests and I kind of moved on to the next CSD-tagged page after making a decision on this one. I've reverted my CSD decline and moved the draft now. I hope this settles the problem. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Liz. When I first started editing I created a few pages in mainspace that I later (once I was more experienced and understood guidelines better) had deleted. Now if I have something that I think others may object to or I am on the fence about I definitely send to AfC for a second look. As ALWAYS, thanks for the help. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello Liz, I hope you are doing great! :) I had started working on a page for an article called "Kimiyo" and I believe you deleted it a few days ago? There is more information now to add to it. Is it possible to recover the draft for me to edit it more thoroughly, with articles/sources, pictures, etc?

    Thank you in advance for your assistance! Joan Million (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Joan Million,
    Can you provide me with a link to the deleted page? Then I can see why it was deleted and whether or not restoration is possible. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Liz and thank you for the quick reply! The closest link I could get to for the article discussed would be this one :
    I hope this is helpful and that we may backtrack on the creation of this article about "Kimiyo".
    Once again, thank you for your asisstance! Joan Million (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Liz, hope you're well. Were you able to retrace the page for "Kimiyo" that had been deleted? Thank you in advance for your follow up! Joan Million (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page watcher) Hi. I'm not Liz but I can answer your question. Draft:Kimiyo was deleted as a test page. There is no content to recover as the draft consisted solely of the AFC header, and a reference section with no references. You are free to just start creating a draft at the same title. I hope this answers your question. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the follow up Whpq. That's great. I'll start a new one asap. Can I submit it to you once my draft is completed, to get an approval?
    Once again, thank you kindly for the follow-up. Joan Million (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can submit through WP:articles for creation and an AFC reviewer will evaluate the submission. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! How long does it usually take to evaluate? And can I still make edits between the submission and evaluation?
    Thank you once again! Joan Million (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Whpq, hope you're well. Would you mind helping me out? I wanted to submit an article for review and it was published right away but I would need assistance to make it wiki-friendly, as there are a few issues that seem to need sorting out.
    Here is the article :
    Thank you. Joan Million (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered on uner's talk page instead of here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Hey Liz!

    I've been working on a sandbox article about Restream and have updated it with some reliable sources. It's looking a lot better now. Could you take a look and give any advice on what steps I should take to get it restored? I'd really appreciate your help! SudoKudos (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, SudoKudos,
    Wow, you have added quite a few references to this article! I would remove any that are not reliable sources. It's better to have a few really good sources that discuss a subject in significant coverage than to have a lot of sources that are either unreliable (blogs, social media, etc.) or are just "passing mentions" that don't discuss the subject.
    For an article that has been deleted through an AFD discussion, you should submit it for review to Articles for Creation. There is a bit of code that you put on the top of the page. It doesn't need to be moved to Draft space, you can submit it from your Sandbox. What the AFC reviewers will look for is that it doesn't have the same problems with the earlier version that caused it to be deleted. Even though this can take some time, there is a danger in moving a draft article immediately into main space as it will be reviewed by our New Page Patrollers who have high standards and they could tag it for deletion. Sandboxes and Draft space are a relatively "safe space" where you can work on improving an article without that pressure as long as the draft doesn't contain unacceptable content like advertising or copyright violations.
    The reason why I suggest that you reduce the number of references to the best ones is that the AFC reviewer is not likely to check all of the ones you have included and if they just check 4 or 5 and they are bad, they might just outright decline the draft. It's not that they want to decline your draft, they just look at a lot of draft every day and if they randomly check a few references and they are bad ones, they might just make a judgement on that.
    But it's important to remember that as long as the draft is "declined" and not "rejected", you can continue to work on the draft, ask the AFC reviewer questions about the review or go to the AFC Help Desk for more guidance. I hope this helps. Good luck with your work. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Airlines established in 2024[edit]

    At the time I re-created the page, the page Fly Dhaka Airlines was listed as being established in 2024. And no, it was not me or a sock-puppet that added the category to the page. It seems that somebody (else) has now removed the category from Fly Dhaka Airlines leaving it empty again. My inclination is to keep the 2024 establishment page category - regardless of what happend to Fly Dhaka Airlines, on the basis that 1 or more airlines that begin to run as a business in 2024 will likely gets their own wikipedia page(s) some time in the next 9 months - see the category with entries every year for the last 100+ years to see what I mean. There are already 3 entries in the category Your thoughts ? Pmbma (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Pmbma,
    You are an experienced editor so you know you can look at the page history and see who removed/altered categories on that article. I use a script that shows what articles are added or removed from a category and there was another article that was removed when the article was moved to Draft space as draft articles are not supposed to have content categories on them as long as they are in Draft space. As for categories, we don't retain empty categories in the event that they might be needed in the future. There are a few exceptions like disambiguation categories, category redirects, WikiProject assessment categories and categories that are being discussed at WP:CFD but we delete empty categories in general.
    We have database reports that list empty categories just for the purpose of tagging and perhaps deleting them if they remain empty for 7 days. Categories that are deleted simply for being empty, CSD C1s, can be recreated whenever they are needed. But, no, we don't leave up categories that are empty in the chance that they will be used in 3 or 4 months or a couple of years. If you want to restore a category that has been deleted for being empty that you believe will now be in use, you can either recreate it or contact the deleting administrator (or, really, any administrator) or put in a request at WP:REFUND, no problem. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Interreligious studies[edit]

    Hi. I'm creating a page for the academic discipline, Interreligious studies.

    Did you create such a page in January? Was there a problem that the page was deleted? Please let me know ASAP. ProfGray (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, ProfGray,
    Are you talking about a page that was deleted? If so, could you provide a link to the deleted page? Just put [[Article title]] between two brackets. Then I can look at the page and see why it was deleted. That would help me provide a response to your question. In general though, I don't create articles and only pages like User talk pages or pages when I move articles so it doesn't sound like something I would have done. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, hi. I got this message while trying to create the page. It sounds like there's some mistake, if you never to actually create the page:
    :A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
    If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
    15:36, January 15, 2024 Liz talk contribs deleted page Interreligious studies (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page) (thank) ProfGray (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, hmm. Maybe I mistakenly created the page, an empty page(?) and it was deleted. If so, thank you for that assistance. It's been in my sandbox and I'm about to create it. ProfGray (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John Ewing (Nebraska politician)[edit]

    Miss Liz, we need to get John Ewing (Nebraska politician) because now he run for mayor, he important. miss JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you change the hard delete to soft one (undelete history and redirect this to the target I proposed in the my op?). John_Ringo_bibliography#The_Council_Wars to be exact. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeletion of Draft:Pez Jax[edit]

    Please see WP:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Pez Jax where you were pinged. Jay 💬 16:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Jay, I replied earlier today. I don't like to restore CSD deletions but, then, I'm not asked to do this very often. I can count the instances on one hand. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Unilateral speedy deletes (some categories) are a red flag for me. Also, I see G11's would need to be fundamentally rewritten as a clause that if a single editor (or a group of them) is willing to put in the time and effort to "fundamentally" rewrite a page (in draftspace), then it should be allowed. If the editor misunderstood "fundamentally", and made only cosmetic changes, it has to go back to CSD. Jay 💬 07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied to your message[edit]

    You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Usersnipedname's talk page. Usersnipedname (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request new draft[edit]

    Will handle this page. You can help us in adding this page to Wikipedia.Draft:Ramkripalyadavge Muskang375 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 29 March 2024[edit]

    Help fixing cut-and-paste move?[edit]

    Hello Liz, based on this it looks like a user performed a cut-and-paste move between Miss and Mister Korea beauty pageants and Miss and Mister korea pageants. Are you able to help repair this? Left guide (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Left guide,
    I don't have time to look into this tonight but it's weird because the editor created both articles. I don't know why the created a duplicate. The new page title should probably be a redirect, not an article. You could choose to just revert their edits or tag the new one CSD A10 as a duplicate article. Those are my thought right now but I'm heading to bed soon. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz, hope you're well. I see you restored Category:Companies based in Stephens County, Georgia to John Carter Racing. Happy to open a discussion on the talkpage but probably won't attract much attention so thought I'd ask you directly. It was a NASCAR Sprint Cup team, not sure if that is really a "company"? AusLondonder (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Evaluating and contributing[edit]

    Hi Liz, I noticed that in this edit [4] you both relist the discussion and offer a novel suggestion for reaching consensus. In the future please do one or the other, you can't both participate and evaluate. You should now consider yourself involved in the discussion and ineligible to close it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DRAFTIFY is a standard procedural comment as a question and it is not certain Liz will close the discussion anyway. IgelRM (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Allan Nonymous[edit]

    Hi Liz, your Wikipedia editors block someone for contributing edits to suspected sockpuppet articles and participating in AFD discussions but they let an editor who behaves like this [5], calling other people idiot which is prohibited by rules and utter the racist sentence "Die, irrelevant Indonesian people articles" in here [6]. He even put speedy deletion tags on several articles without understanding terms like here [7], here [8], here [9], [10], and here [11], here [12], and there is no indication that he did WP:BEFORE before installing the tag. He even nominated several articles for WP:GNG reason even though they have been cited from various books and news, and as i mentioned earlier there is no indication that he did WP:BEFORE before doing this, like in [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Im sure that he doesn't even understand the content of the article which he nominated for deletion. Whatever it takes on this so called encyclopedia, i just wanted you to investigating this. I will leave btw and you are free to do whatever you want with my work, thank you and have a good day. (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    With Respect to User:HansWobbe[edit]

    Hi Liz, I was wondering what the best approach would be to delete articles by a blocked user for whom other articles were deleted through U5. I assumed U5 was the best approach here, but out of an abundance of cation. I am asking you, what approach you would recommend? I currently reopened an MfD on one of the articles as a sort of "test case", but I feel MfDing all the articles would just clog things up. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacek Deniz Troshupa[edit]

    @Liz:, Can you drafifty my article Jacek Deniz Troshupa so I can work on it and/or use it ass metrial to add to BalkanianActuality's draft? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz:, Can you drafifty my article Jacek Deniz Troshupa so I can use it to add materal to BalkanianActuality's draft? Das osmnezz (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackie Adedeji[edit]

    @Liz: Hello Liz - I just went to expand the article on the British TV presenter/newspaper columnist Jackie Adedeji and see that you've deleted it.

    Please let me know what's up with that - and having caught the attention of an editor/administrator as experienced as yourself, I'd appreciate your help in bringing the page up to your level of satisfaction. The subject of it certainly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Spcranger (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]

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

    Administrator changes


    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)



    • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Help me Liz, you're my only hope...not really but you're awesome so that's why I come to you[edit]

    Hey Liz!

    Hoping you can help on providing me the contents of the Ceres, Washington page that was deleted - log here [19] - that came from a new clean-up initiative, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Washington/GNIS_cleanup/State

    Are you able (and willing!) to shift the page to a User Draft article under my name, or send me a link to the article's history page so I can rewrite the page? I haven't been able to find the old article's contents anywhere - it's like it never existed...but I admit I can't figure out the logs/search/deleted page stuff to save my soul.

    Not asking to reinstate as of now - I've been compiling sources for Ceres for a couple years as I come across it but I don't have immediate time to direct attention to it fully. But over some weeks I can get around to it.

    Thanks if you can, tears if you can't. Always impressed by your efforts here and hope you're doing well!

    Shortiefourten (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Shortiefourten,
    I'll look into this later tonight and see what is possible. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Liz[edit]

    Please can you tell why delete wikipedia Argnesa Rexhepi i have good material for review again please look for this again. Thanks so muxh Liz. (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It would help me respond if you provided a link to the deleted page so I could see why it was deleted. I'm not sure, for example, whether it was in main space or Draft space. Once I see the reason for deletion, I'll know what is possible. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed this was deleted on my watch list. I would have de-prodded. What's the correct thing to do here? SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, SportingFlyer,
     Done With PRODs, CSD G13s and CSD C1s, all you have to do is make a request, either to the deleting administrator (or really, any administrator) or make a request at WP:REFUND. These are uncontroversial restoration cases. But I do have to tell you that this article had about 90 mentions on other articles that have been de-linked. I don't have the time to revert all of that de-linking but I will make sure that any mentions on templates are reverted. If you feel strongly about it, you can look through my contributions. If I find the time, I'll take care of it but I generally have a busy to-do list here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were no links on templates which is odd because most football teams are mentioned on at least one template for the league or season. So these must have been mentions on articles for other Croation football teams or for Zagreb. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and no worries, I'll start re-linking everything. SportingFlyer T·C 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Claudia Letizia[edit]

    Hallo Liz, I am writing you about this deletion discussion. In the discussion you made a request for a more deep source review and I answered demonstrating that all the TV movies enlisted in the entry about the subjects are just spam as she was not part of the cast of those movies. Nevertheless, you never answered or said your opinion about it, was the source review not enough or what? Thank you, --Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024[edit]

    Hello Liz,

    New Page Review queue January to March 2024

    Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

    Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

    Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

    It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

    2023 Awards

    Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

    WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

    Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

    Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.


    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Airline destination lists closure[edit]

    Thank you for your good and well-explained close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. I'm uninvolved (so have no stake in the outcome) but I hope you aren't taken to DRV over this as it accurately reflects the discussion as I read it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Thryduulf,
    I appreciate the support but I expected it to go to DRV and it has. This is one time where I don't think I need to defend myself. I don't mind this closure getting some extra scrutiny as I can see no closure option that wouldn't have been challenged. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of British Airways destinations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Sunnya343,
    I expected as much. Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Liz, in the deletion review some people suggested doing an RfC in the style of an AfD, where links to the RfC are left on every stand-alone list. One editor said this method has been used before. It sounds like a good idea, but I hadn't heard of it before. Would you know if this type of discussion is permitted? If it is, I'm unsure how it would be included in the different DELSORT categories. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    @Liz:, Would you be able to draftify Jacek Deniz Troshupa so I can use its sources to add to BalkanianActuality's draft? If not, would you be willing to send the sources I used in the article to me so I can use them to add to BalkanianActuality's draft? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I didn't move the page correctly and was trying to fix that. The name has changed. I attempted to put a request to move the page in and that didn't work too well. Emphasis01 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Emphasis01,
    I'm sorry if my message was abrupt but I wanted you to stop blanking the page. If the name of the school has changed, then start a move discussion on the article talk page. If you present your argument, along with a link that backs up your claim, then the article could very well be moved to the title you want it to be at. You have to realize that most of the time when new editors do what you did, they are vandals, causing mischief, especially to school articles, so that is why we respond so strongly. If the school has changed its name, that can be handled very easily as soon as we can see that that claim is true. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not understanding you. I could simply move the page if we remove the redirects. The name did change, the school district changed a number of school names. The two people who are "sounding off" know nothing of these topics. Emphasis01 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't figure out how to request a page move. See the requisite school district page for the new names. Emphasis01 (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emphasis01: Please stop. First you did a copy and paste move of Juneau-Douglas High School, and inserted a redirect to Juneau-Douglas: Yadaa. at Kalé High School into the text of the original article After I undid the faulty redirects and had admins delete the cut and paste copy you moved the article again, properly this time, but again without commenting on the existing talk page discussion questioning whether the new name was actually in common use. User:Jclemens undid your page move and commented in the talk page thread. You then blanked the redirects from the school's new name (Juneau-Douglas: Yadaa. at Kalé High School) and requested an uncontroversial page move. Clearly it was not uncontroversial since the move had already been undone, and clearly you knew that it had been undone because you deleted the resulting redirect.
    Your characterization of Jclemens and me as 'The two people who are "sounding off" ' is offensive, Don't make comments like that. We both know that the school has been renamed, but the article title goes by WP:COMMONNAME, not by the official name. Discuss the page move on the article's talk page, present any evidence for which name is in common usage, and we'll reach consensus on whether the name should be change, and if so, what the new title should be. Meters (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, it appears that even if the page should be moved, you had the wrong name. The school and the school board use the name "Juneau-Douglas High School: Kalé", not "Juneau-Douglas: Kalé High School" Meters (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello dear "Liz", negative nuances in the article have been corrected and encyclopedic indicators have been added. I also share the person's OpenSanctions ID with you for reliability. Please share your opinion with us so that the article can be improved and approved. Thanks in advance.

      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redivy (talkcontribs) 23:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] 
    Hello, Redivy,
    It looks like you just added two sources and I don't think that is not enough change to influence the next AFC reviewer. And that is who you really should be talking to as I don't review draft articles. Have you tried bringing your questions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk? There you will get a response from editors who review a lot of draft articles and they would offer you better feedback than I can. The Teahouse is also a helpful place to go for help. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am grateful to you, I have made many innovations thanks to your efforts. Redivy (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    These edits look like an attempt to game ECP, what do you think? [20] Doug Weller talk 08:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Doug,
    Sorry for the delay in responding. For this editor, I don't think they are interested in being extended confirmed because they aren't drawn to contentious subject areas. They really focused on category work which is a really unusual place for a new editor to start. But some newer editors are captivating by creating redirects and categories because they can create lots of pages that don't have to meet the demands that are expected for main space article work. What I am more worried about is that we have some sockmasters, whose usernames I can't remember, who also focused on categories. Like Brudelman, they eventually get topic bans and then they sock to get around the topic ban. So, I worry that this account isn't a new editor at all but without a sockmaster in mind, I can't really file an SPI complaint. So, that's where I'm at. They have only been active for a few weeks so if they are a sock, more will be revealed as they continue to edit, I think.
    Nice to talk with you! Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But they are wasting the time of too many editors. Maybe it’s time to stop them? Doug Weller talk 09:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re your note at Ivanvector's talk page[edit]

    Hi Liz, noticed your note on Ivanvector's talk page. Swapd came up on my radar not that long ago trying to research sources to determine reliability and kept coming across ads there for paid articles in certain publications (ex. [21]). I then started looking at Wikipedia services. They banned offering Wikipedia services back in 2020 [22] but in August last year started allowing it again on a trial basis [23]. Google search "Swapd" "Wikipedia" and you'll see all kinds of stuff. See also these YouTube videos from a SEO expert: [24] and [25] which he references in the other one. I've debated about posting something about it at AN but need to do some more research. They do appear to be legit as far as they monitor/oversee activity to ensure transparency, prevent scamming, etc. S0091 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, S0091,
    That's very helpful to know. I think the part that bothered me the most was not offering to write articles but the offer to sell a buyer an account with advanced permissions. I know that Swapd is not the only platform to offer Wikipedia services plus there are private companies that claim to be able to write articles that will never get deleted. I think a list of the "marketplaces" and companies would be useful to have in Wikipedia space. I'm not sure where but it's important that editors and admins are aware of what is going on because we tend to assume good faith of other editors, even precocious newbies. Thanks for those links. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blablubbs this might help explain in part what Divine is getting at as far as swapd. S0091 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Houbeib[edit]

    I noticed that your closure says that " editors arguing for Deletion have rejected the sources brought forward by those editors advocating Keep as being ROUTINE coverage". I have a major issue with this. The definition and examples for ROUTINE don't cover transactions. The examples are about box scores and match reports being used in articles about specific matches. You can't say that there's no leeway because of the recent RFC (unless there's another RFC I'm not aware of since NSPORTS) - it's not applicable (and besides - it never was a rule). Also, I brought forward an secondary source, and User:Mach61 claimed it was primary, and making false claims it was primary, and refused to explain why they thought it was primary, other than "I explained why I thought those sources were primary", despite never having discussed the source! When I pointed out the independence of the source, they simply refused to discuss it, and made another mistruth that "Most every source you've brought so far is primary"! When I pointed out that I'd only brought forward a single source (and that they was being uncivil) they simply said that they didn't have to explain. Surely, if nothing else, Mach61's vote needs to be discounted, given their propensity to just make stuff up. Thanks for the detailed, clear, closing statement - even if I disagree with it! Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Nfitz,
    Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Houbeib, as I said, I felt as though my hands are tied with closing discussions on these articles on athletes biograhies. The editors supporting Deletion make very persuasive arguments because, to be honest, the same editors show up to every AFD and they've made these arguments dozens and dozens of times. If I had closed this discussion as No consensus, it would have been brought to Deletion review. I am not going to revert this decision as I do believe it was correct, but you are welcome to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review and contest my closure. I won't take it personally.
    But, if you want my opinion, I think a better use of your time is to go to the relevant policy page and start a discussion to better define what is considered "routine" news and what is not. That's a step that I think we would all benefit from because, I agree with you, it's not black and white except for the examples cited in the discussion. It's not that policy has to be comprehensive but if there are doubts about certain sources, then clarification is called for. I see ROUTINE come up in AFDs for most athletes' articles so it would be very helpful to get this issue debated and decided. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Firstly, thank you for these comments. There seem to be no response from the editor, if that continues I will re-post the articles with maybe a few improvements in the next coming days. As I see no major concerns with those drafts as all of those athletes have won gold or medals at major sports events. Regards.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristen Onsgard[edit]

    Can I ask for your help with this article. You already posted on

    I'm not sure how to appeal a Draft decision. Also, I'm not sure the expected responsiveness I should get from an admin; I've requested that the decision be moved to a higher authority but no reply. It does not seem that the guidelines in WP:ADMINCOND and WP:DRAFTNOTIFY are being followed.

    A long time ago I was assigned autopatrol privileges to prevent this type of unnecessary overhead when editing pages. I don't think I've abused this privilege. It makes creating pages much more frustrating when pages get drafted. Please let me know what I need to do to appeal; this is the first time I've faced the roadblock of an article stuck in Draftspace. Tx. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    `== Sources ==

    Hello, Liz, this is the third time I am asking you a question about Jacek Deniz Troshupa, all of which you have not replied to. Assuming you would not be willing to draftify my article, would you be willing to send the links to the sources I used in the deleted article to my talk page so I can use them to add to BalkanianActuality's draft? Thank you for your time, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi! Re: your query. Yes the G4 was a mistake but the G11 wasn't. Don't worry, I won't re-tag. If they don't make a real attempt, I'll take it to MfD. Consensus was to draftify, but periodically they just repaste the same thing. Yesterday it was also in mainspace which has since been deleted. They don't appear to have an interest in improvement, just having the company listed. Le sigh. Happy Monday Star Mississippi 12:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Urban agriculture in Barcelona - deleted page[edit]

    Hi Liz,

    I hope you are doing well. I was recently made aware that you knocked this wikipedia article back to the draft phase. I was hoping you could provide some feedback on how to improve this article as it is my first time contributing to wikipedia. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Mjgirard10 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Mjgirard10,
    You're talking about User:Mjgirard10/Urban agriculture in Barcelona, right? I'd try submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. Those editors review draft articles a great deal of their time on the project and they can spot any errors that exist and provide some advice. After a review, if you have questions, ask the review on their User talk page or go to the AFC Help Desk for more guidance. I just spend my time on the project on admin maintainance tasks, not reviewing content creation so I don't have much help to offer you. You also might go to a related WikiProject and see if there is someone there who shares your interests who would like to offer you some help and advice. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 10 April 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.

    DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, DaniloDaysOfOurLives,
    It looks like you got someone else to take care of this. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okapathana College[edit]

    It is a comedic hoax created by some one in Sri Lanka. Atthanayaka M. Herath, a popular tv figure in Sri Lanka erroneously mention this on TV as if it is a real fact. Herath was ridiculed for his lapse in fact-checking. I thought I was clear in the edit summary. You can verify this with this podcast Though it is in Sinhala, hope you could get an idea. Chanaka L (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Chanakal,
    I'm not going to listen to a podcast in a foreign language I don't understand. For pages tagged for speedy deletion, the problems have to be obvious and I didn't see any problems with this page. Maybe you'd have better luck approaching an administrator who is fluent in Sinhala or familiar with Sri Lanka culture. But I didn't see any issues that warrant deletion here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have to wait till it moved to main space to nominated it AfD. Thanks. Chanaka L (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey @Liz, I want to open an AFD for Abhishek Kumar article, but on opening the AFD, the AFD has already been taken place in 2011 for another subject that goes by same name. So shall I open the AFD as second nomination because the current article Abhishek Kumar speaks of other subject i.e an Actor who debuted in 2019. Please guide me for the same. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) @Imsaneikigai: Yes, if you wish to nominate it, it should be opened as (2nd nomination). The fact that this article concerns a different person with the same name should be noted for the record, especially given that the title had been previously salted (the article only exists at the current title because an admin had moved it from Abhishek Kumar (actor)), but otherwise the procedure is no different from a normal renomination. --Finngall talk 18:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou @Finngall for your prompt response, I have created the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhishek Kumar (2nd nomination) and added a small note asking the editors to not confuse between both the nominations. Hope that helps. Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloween cake[edit]

    Hi Liz, I was wondering why you closed the Halloween cake article for deletion discussion as a merge? Especially as there were 2 deletes that pointed out that the topic has no notability. BaduFerreira (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't speak to Liz's intentions, but merged content does not have to qualify for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. It's perfectly fine to merge content about a non-notable subject into an article about a notable subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm okay, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for the clarification. BaduFerreira (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is recommended by the WP:FAILN section of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Please explain why undeleted the pages I listed on my subpage. The banning policy is incredibly clear: "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad"; "...they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." If you support allowing sockpuppets of banned users to create pages and feel the need to completely disregard WP:CSD#G5, please feel free to resign. plicit 00:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Explicit,
    These were just category talk pages. Again and again I see admins and checkusers on SPI case pages say regarding CSD G5 that admins should act in the spirit of policy, not the letter. There was no content here. CSD G5 does not require page deletion, this is up to admin discretion. I don't think deletion was called for in this instance, it seems like you often see the goal of page deletion as a solution for a nonexistent problems. It's the first and only option that you consider. You've deleted over a million pages, when will it ever be enough? It probably never will be enough. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will apologize for interfering in your User pages. That was a mistake on my part. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in WP:CSD#G5 does it say deletion is optional? And how does your opinion negate banning policy? BMB very clearly calls for all page creations to be deleted, regardless of their merits. DisuseKid's abuse was bad enough across projects that the account is locked. They have 60 confirmed sockpuppets and an additional three suspected accounts, which is incredibly prolific. If there is no content, then what desperately needs to be restored and not simply recreated by someone else?
    You seem to be very concerned about the statistics of my account. I don't even keep track of that, but it's your go-to with every interaction, like you mentioned here. You even added my subpage to your watchlist as well. Can you focus on your own business instead? plicit 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I was wondering why you closed as redirect, only 1 person !voted for that. The consensus looked like delete to me. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, LibStar,
    Well, I didn't see anyone objecting to a Redirect and a closure isn't based on vote numbers as you know. But would you feel better if I reclosed this as a "Delete" then "Redireect"? I'll admit that I do prefer ATDs when possible but I try to take challenges to my closures seriously. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one argued for "Delete and redirect", you can't assume delete !voters don't oppose redirect. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, LibStar, you do what you feel is necessary. I've decided not to close any more AFDs that you start because you don't seem to be able to accept closures that you disagree with. I hope you have better luck with other AFD closers. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, feel free to close AfDs I nominate. This is only one instance out of the hundreds/thousands you close that I don't agree with. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I didn't even nominate this particular article for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I take from your reaction of me taking this to deletion review, you are a little upset? For that, I apologize for. I think you are doing great job, as I said this is 1 instance in thousands. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review for Amy Eden[edit]

    An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amy Eden. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "no consensus"?? only one person voted to keep, and that was for technical reasons. ltbdl (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You've got mail[edit]

    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.

    — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Restore request: Category:Articles with Baidu Baike links[edit]

    Please restore Category:Articles with Baidu Baike links. Erroneous edits to the template removed this tracking category from articles. I have reverted the template changes. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Jonesey95,
     Done These are easy requests to accomodate. This seems to have happened a lot recently with template edits. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Henry Benedict Stuart[edit]

    Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Henry Benedict Stuart, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum707 (talkcontribs) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Calum707,
    I've been here for almost 11 years and have over 600,000 edits to my name. You have been here one day and have less than a dozen edits. You don't have to send me a template with a link to a Introduction page. And here I thought you were the vandal. I'm pretty sure you are socking though but if that's so, it will be discovered at some point. Newbies don't know about template messages and policy abbreviations. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter[edit]

    Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter

    Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

    Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).

    Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

    Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

    Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

    Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.

    Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.

    Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.

    To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

    Hello, Liz. Thank you.[edit]

    Hello Liz. I wanna say thanks for contributing one of my files. I know, it's just a little edit (human review and stuff, I know that lol.), but... that means a lot.

    Now, since today is my retirement day from Wikipedia, I think I might not come back and edit no more.

    If you want to ask why and stuff, just reply to me. Tell @Minorax that I say hi. Cya, Liz!

    - The silly editor, Ayzkao. Dr.Ayzkao! 04:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Ayzkao,
    I'm sorry that you are choosing to retire. Maybe consider it a WikiBreak. I took one for 6 months and then, later, another one for 2 years. I wouldn't be editing still if I hadn't taken a few extended breaks. I wish you well with whatever happens next for you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha! Thanks, Liz! Dr.Ayzkao! 05:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your edits to Talk:Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/Sandbox.

    I thought sandboxes were supposed to be out of main and talkspace? Also I don't think this is monitored. Awesome Aasim 06:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Awesome,
    First, I looked at several sandboxes that you tagged for speedy deletion as test pages, the rest of them were, I believe, in WikiProject space and I didn't notice that this one wasn't. But there was a time years ago when lots of articles had subpages that weren't archived talk pages, many of them had (and might still have) "to do" pages where editors worked out plans to improve an article. Now that you have corrected me, I don't recall seeing many sandboxes though but the tag for test edit pages specifically say that this criteria doesn't include sandbox pages. Let me think about whether there is a better place where it might be moved or if another criteria fits this page. If the page creator, User:Jerem43, was around, there opinion would be useful but they haven't edited in many months now. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe move to the user space of the OP while suppressing redirects and remove the sandbox template. Awesome Aasim 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Small cats. (not kittens).[edit]

    What's the thinking with keeping Category:Schumacher Racing Products? Both pages in it currently are the same article, and I don't see there being scope for aditional articles in that category. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, D'n'B,
    Well, it seemed like an example of "emptying a category out of process" where, instead of nominating a category for deletion, an editor removes all of the contents so it gets tagged for "speedy" deletion (which isn't really speedy) as a empty category. So, I refilled the pages that hadn't been turned into redirects. We do have thousands of categories that only hold one article so it's not that unusual. But now that you've inquired about it, I'll reconsider my actions later today. But, any way, that was the thinking behind my reversions, I couldn't say all that in an edit summary but I could have left a better explanation for you, my apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Joce Nuttall[edit]

    Kia ora Liz. I see that you moved my article on Joce Nuttall to Jocelyn Nuttall, because "This is the name the subject is referred to in the article body". My understanding is that it is common practice to put someone's full name if known at the start of their article, but that doesn't mean it is the name they are commonly known by, and articles should be under the name someone is generally known by. Jocelyn Grace Nuttall is the subject's full name but she is known as Joce Nuttall in almost all the sources I have seen. Would you please undo the redirect? I have been told previously that if a nickname is a common or obvious one not bother adding "known as" but if it would help we could have "Jocelyn Grace Nuttall known as Joce"? Ngā mihi, DrThneed (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, DrThneed,
    I don't have an opinion on the correct name for this article subject. I simply moved the article to a different page title because the article referred to Jocelyn Nuttall in the body of the article. The page title has to be in agreement with the content of the article. So, if you believe the article should be under the name Joce Nuttall then please change the article to reflect that. At the least, the lead sentence should state Jocelyn "Joce" Nuttall so that readers will not be confused. Make sense? Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done that, now could you move it back please? Thank you. DrThneed (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay. I thought you could take care of that but perhaps you can't if there is a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there was a redirect because I thought about the name the article should be under and had made one. I hate getting into a mess with redirects so I'd appreciate you fixing it, given you moved it (sorry if you think I'm being grumpy, but a cursory glance even at the title of the sources would have shown that Joce would be the correct name, and therefore the better edit than moving the page would have been to add "Joce" than to create a mess with redirects). DrThneed (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done but you do sound a little grumpy. I don't think the redirects caused a mess but then I move a lot of pages and as an admin, redirects don't cause any problems for me. To by honest, I didn't know which name is correct (and I still don't), I just wanted the page title and the article content to be in agreement. I hope you have a good weekend. Good night. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    It is considered a high point when a javanese official or politician speaks for an hour and nothing is really said....My comment at bumi yana (?) was that such a person can be a link in a chain, metaphorically speaking, and yes at face value of the article per se - the deletionists have their point and it should go - but in understanding the cultural and real life connections, a number of non notable things and people can combine to effect things of a larger dimension, and the capacity of an editor to navigate people and things between what might be considered at first view not connected, but then are... The editors quoting rules and things are in the right space in one sense, but then the larger picture can complicate the issue.JarrahTree 09:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A tag has been placed on Category:Iraqi people of Israeli descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

    If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. plicit 14:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz, I think R3 does apply. R3 states: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created (italics added and footnote omitted). Here, the moved page, DJ Dominic, was created just a few hours ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Liz {{You've got mail}} RE CitrusAd[edit]

    Hello Liz, the CitrusAd page was deleted because of "abandonment" and it sounds like it was in a "draft stage" prior to deletion, could you undo this in order for me to make any necessary edits? I apologize in advance for being new here, but learned about the page status in the teahouse- I am hoping there is a way to get a copy of what was here and and advice on anything that needs to be fixed and addressed prior to republishing. Kind regards, TLN27 TLN27 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD of Beloit and Madison Railroad[edit]

    Liz, thanks for taking a look at my speedy deletion request at Beloit and Madison Railroad. I agree with you that it was just created and when I saw the article I also thought to let the author work; however, what led me to speedy deletion was the discovery of Draft:Beloit and Madison Railroad, which is an identical article created by the same user through the AFC process where it was rejected back in January with no further edits. The article creator appears to have ignored advice from the AFC reviewer and simply recreated their own article in mainspace with no interest in improving it.

    I probably should have noted this in the AFC process.