User talk:Liz

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions: 1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

July-August 2013 September-October 2013 November-December 2013 January-February 2014 March-April 2014 May-June 2014 July-August 2014 September-October 2014 November-December 2014 January-February 2015 March-April 2015 May-June 2015 July-August 2015 September-October 2015 November-December 2015 January-February 2016 March-April 2016 May-December 2016 January-June 2017 July-December 2017 January-June 2018 July-December 2018 January-February 2019 March-April 2019 May-June 2019 July-August 2019 September-October 2019 November-December 2019 January-February 2020 March-April 2020 May-June 2020 July-August 2020 September-October 2020 November-December 2020 January-February 2021 March-April 2021 May-June 2021 July-August 2021 September-October 2021 November-December 2021 January-February 2022 March-April 2022 May-June 2022 July-August 2022 September-October 2022 November-December 2022 January-February 2023 March-April 2023 May-June 2023 July-August 2023 September-October 2023 November-December 2023 January-February 2024 March-April 2024 May-June 2024 July-August 2024 September-October 2024 November-December 2024 January-February 2025 March-April 2025

9 September 2025
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation loses a round in court UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated. In the media: Congress probes, mayor whitewashed, AI stinks Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred! Disinformation report: A guide for Congress The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance. Recent research: Minority-language Wikipedias, and Wikidata for botanists And other new research findings. Technology report: A new way to read Wikisource Tis true: there's magic in the web of it. Traffic report: Check out some new Weapons, weapon of choice With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday. Essay: The one question It's an easy one.
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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.

Hello, I'm still awaiting a response from you on this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kash_Patel/Archive_1#c-Peptidylprolyl-20250224005000-Liz-20250224001300 I would appreciate it if you could respond. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

I am part of a group of social scientists who think Brunswik's lens model and Hammond's Social Judgment Theory are appropriate topics for Wikipedia. Both of these topics are well established in the psychology and judgment and decision research, but not well represented in Wikipedia. Both of the articles we have submitted so far have been deleted ("Brunswik's lens model" and "Vicarious Mediation and Vicarious Functioning"). Others took the lead on writing these, but I edited and submitted them after what I thought was careful study of Wikipedia guidelines and other articles in the field.

We avoided reporting any original research, but apparently there is an objection to even citing original research and I will work on citing other sources, of which there are many. I do not understand the objection that "this is a personal essay." To us, the tone is not different from other Wikipedia articles in the field. We have published many academic articles, but this is a different kind of writing for us, and we need help. Any advice or specific examples of what we did wrong would be appreciated.

Thank you. TRStewart (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the Brunswik lens model fit in the article for Egon Brunswik? Peptidylprolyl (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz hope you are well, can you please protect the Constantine Bodin page, the problem is that this editor started edit warring without any discussion on tp and with ignoring sourced material adding their own personal opinions [[1]], the other problem is that certain ip did that few days ago too, [[2]], I dont know if they are the same person, but if this continues I will have to report them to WP:ANI so I was hoping to prevent that. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theonewithreason,

I recommend you posting this request at WP:ANEW, the admins who patrol there know better than I what the standards are for protecting an article and how long it should be protected. It doesn't look to me that there has been a lot of edit warring going on this article recently so they could offer you another opinion. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so far they made 2 rr, so it is not that serious but I have a feeling that they will continue. Theonewithreason (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AnonymousPurpose (talk · contribs · count)

Hello, Liz. I would like to report a copyright issue about the articles, made by the user above, about members of Federal Reserve in early 20th century. At first I found some articles like Allan Landon for example and found 100% copyvio using copyvio tool. Check the report where a source called federalreservehistory.org is used as the only source with no attribution in here. Also as of now, I found 27 of such topics are created in quick time and possibly could be of same case as Allan Landon's. The only issue I don't understand is whether this source is under public domain or not. And almost all of these articles have less references to make them notable. Can you kindly help me in this issue? ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @ZDRX: for assistance. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take care of this from next time while reviewing the new page. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 05:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CSMention269,

To be honest, I haven't dealt with copyright issues with editors before unless they are addressing articles that have been tagged for deletion CSD G12. I suggest you report your problem at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Also, if you look at who responds to the problems brought there, you'll see several admins whose work focuses on copyright and I think they are much more knowledgeable about the subject than I am and could offer you better advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, thanks. :) ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz. I saw that you deleted User talk:Koopastar under WP:U2, and I wanted to let you know that U2 does not apply to redirects created due to a user being renamed (as this one was). Thanks for all your deletion-related work. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, jlwoodwa,

I'm not sure how this happened or how this page even came to my attention. How did you stumble upon it? Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I've reverted my edits. Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion came up in my watchlist, and since I knew I hadn't watched the userpage of a nonexistent user I found it curious enough to investigate. Thanks for fixing it! jlwoodwa (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual, jlwoodwa, to get these pages for nonexistent editors but they are typically editors from the WikiEd program who are seeking to move their sandbox drafts to main space and they don't change the namespace from User to Article. We just have to move them back or to Draft space. They also occur if an editor removes the Redirect link from the page. Sometimes editors who have changed their username want to remove all trace of their former username so I oblige their request but ordinarily, we don't delete User talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

Hi LiZ, am new wikipedian seeking for grammar and format correcting for Draft:Vastav.AI , and to move on main space thank you SkyBaron (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Shoutout to a real Wikilegend. It is critical volunteers like yourself who perform so many of the thankless duties that keep this place, which we all love dearly, running on full throttle. So for all of those times, I hope you will accept one million (1,000,000) thank yous from a humble colleague. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz. Thanks for the notice on Category:Hogwarts staff. There isn't anything in there at the moment, because I've been just preparing for a training session. I wanted students to notice that there was a Category:Hogwarts students (Q9576578) but there was no Category:Hogwarts staff (Q7470930). Does that make sense? Derek J Moore (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Parks by year of establishment. I don't see why you would think this is perfectly valid category. I believe we should stick to established category schemes based on consensus. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going on five months after I requested that someone source this page, which you closed as keep. We've cut the backlog of 70,000 unsourced pages to 63,000. I'm not sure if the Orthodox encyclopedia is reliable. If it's not sourced by the six-month deadline, then I'm going back to AfD. I made a respectful request and I'm ignored. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think there are two editors with less than 200 edits, one with less than 400 edits. Those three are less than 45 weeks old. Most of the edits are contribution-boosting gnoming. Editor interaction is a rabbit-hole too with a wider web. Otherwise, no problem with no consensus - naturally I'd moan about lack of sources and lack of discussion around analysis of sources but hey :-) not bothered HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HighKing,

I hope you are well. I'm not sure who you are referring to in your comments. I looked at User:Shyam Steel who you name in the section header but they are an editor from 12 years ago with only 1 edit to their account. If you want me to look into another editor, you'll have to supply some information about them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz. I would like to read the discussion to delete Mo'mem. You didn't leave a link after you deleted the page. --Esperfulmo (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Esperfulmo,

I don't see that there has ever been an article at the page title Mo'mem. There is no page log or page history at this title. I think you have the wrong article title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=165703017 --Esperfulmo (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning! Would it be possible to restore the edit history for this article? I'm not asking that the article itself be restored, but I'd like to examine the version prior to its redirect. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bgsu98,

I'll have to consider this as the article was deleted as a closure of an AFD. We don't typically restore articles with an AFD Delete closure but I'll read the AFD over and the deleted edits. Can you tell me what your interest is? I don't think I can do this if you are just going to restore this article from being a Redirect back to being an article. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am interested in the results of the competition and any source that may have been present, as I am trying to update the tables at Spanish Figure Skating Championships. The redirect was appropriate, but it should still have the edit history available. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your recent speedy deletions of pages in IlEssere's userspace were erroneous. The account indeed was a sock of Errico Boukoura, but both were blocked at once, as a result of a single SPI, with no prior blocks. Of course, I may be making a mistake, and you could be correct here. Janhrach (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Janhrach,

I'll look into this if you could provide me with a link to the deleted page you are concerned about. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:IlEssere/sandbox/Freddo Espresso, User:IlEssere/sandbox 2, User:IlEssere/sandbox and Draft:Monopol Magazine as deleted in my watchlist. Janhrach (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz,

By 'LUGSTUB' in my PROD summary, I mean that the article, per WP:LUGSTUBS, is one of his many articles which does not belong on Wikipedia due to failing to meet our notability criteria or due to violating our policies on what Wikipedia is not (mostly not a sports almanac). NOLY in my prod summaries is shorthand for how the Olympian being prodded came nowhere close to winning a medal. I don't always link the two, to be fair.

Jay 23:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kelantan_FA#

(expected merge time expired) 93.138.222.63 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, I just noticed that Reiji Nagakawa article was deleted. I think he's notable, and found at least these [3], [4] two sources (didn't look into more). Can you please recreate the article? Or, maybe, move it to either draft space or to my sandbox. Thanks! Artem.G (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz hi, can you delete the drafts that I made, there are 2 of them...I promise I won't write English Wikipedia again...I hope you delete all the drafts...and one more thing, can you make me the MeleTOP Episode List...I don't know how to do it, please, I beg you... Muhd Affiq Affiqal (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) If you are the only one who made substantial edits to your drafts, you can request their deletion by tagging them with {{db-author}}. -- Whpq (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it cool if I be bold and redirect this to African International Documentary Festival Foundation? Does not meet any WP:R#DELETE criteria. Hmr (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[5] ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I understand the concerns regarding the neutrality of sources—particularly those tied to activist or advocacy platforms. I’ve now rewritten the Return of Roberto Gerard L. Nazal Jr. section using only verifiable, mainstream, and policy-compliant sources such as Philstar, Rappler, official Supreme Court rulings, the LawPhil Project, and the KBP Code of Ethics. The revised version no longer cites MCGI Exiters and reframes claims through documented public controversies and legal actions. Here is the cleaned-up draft, aligned with WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, which I propose to reintroduce into the article: 👉 Bagong Henerasyon (party-list) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagong_Henerasyon_(party-list) Return of Roberto Gerard L. Nazal Jr. In May 2024, the Supreme Court of the Philippines disqualified billionaire businessman Roberto Gerard L. Nazal Jr. from serving as a representative of the Magsasaka Party-list after it was determined that he was neither a member nor a legitimate nominee of the party.[1] Nazal originally assumed office in 2022 through what critics described as procedural loopholes within the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Reports also linked his entry to Dexter Villamin, a figure associated with the controversial DV Boer investment scheme.[2] Following his removal from Magsasaka, Nazal reemerged in 2025 as the first nominee of the Bagong Henerasyon (BH) Party-list. His nomination drew renewed scrutiny, particularly over questions about political recycling and the potential circumvention of the party-list system's intent to represent marginalized sectors. Legal Concerns and Institutional Response Nazal’s return to Congress through BH coincided with allegations of political endorsement involving religious organizations. Observers raised concerns about possible violations of the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 10488, both of which prohibit direct or indirect electioneering by religious institutions.[3][4] Additionally, the use of broadcast platforms with known affiliations to public service and religious programming during the campaign period raised potential conflicts with the KBP Code of Ethics, which requires media neutrality during elections.[5] Public Reaction and Ongoing Scrutiny The Supreme Court's 2024 decision to disqualify Nazal was welcomed by electoral reform advocates as a safeguard against elite infiltration of the party-list system. However, his reentry through BH sparked debate among legal scholars and civil society groups, who called for stronger enforcement of nomination rules and stricter oversight of party-list substitutions. As of mid-2025, no official statement from COMELEC has addressed concerns raised about BH's nomination process or the broader implications of Nazal's return. Drbonjing (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] References ^ "Cabatbat hits Comelec proclamation of Nazal as Magsasaka rep". Philstar. 23 June 2022. ^ "What happened to DV Boer?". Rappler. 2 February 2021. ^ "COMELEC Resolution No. 10488". COMELEC. ^ "Omnibus Election Code – Section 261". The LawPhil Project. ^ "KBP Code of Ethics". KBP.

Hey Liz, page Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. was previously deleted at AFD. Recently, there's been a spur of significant coverage, so I recreated the page over at Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. Seems like some folks disagree so have reverted my edits - I assumed they would PROD or AFD the page. How do I proceed. I'm happy to open a discussion elsewhere and follow procedure to get this right, and I don't really care about recognition for creating the page, where do I start. Cheers!@Spike 'em:@Rotideypoc41352:--Ortizesp (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually restored the "Jr." article for a merge from "Jr"; I thought that was the best way to centralize the edit history, especially since I later found out some text at "Jr" was copied from the "Jr." page. Spike 'em restored the redirect per the past three AfDs; I'm fine with that because I haven't had a chance to do a thorough WP:BEFORE search, so I can't say one way or another if the son is notable. Because the AfDs are scattered over three titles, I've tried my best to compile a timeline at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo Jr.#What's happened so far. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. has had 2 separate AfDs since a deletion review, both of which ended with Redirect. There is also an active discussion at WT:FOOTY about this. Could maybe do another AfD based on the content of the article that has just been removed (Is restoring it below the redirect viable)? Spike 'em (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, you may remember last year closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and Arabic language, which was draftified and then shortly thereafter deleted from draftspace under CSD G5 by CambridgeBayWeather. In the deletion discussion, I had expressed a desire to work on the article in draftspace but lost track of it after the G5 deletion. I see now that we have an article Arabic in Islam (an alternative title that the article had been moved back and forth from during the deletion discussion), which covers the same topic. I don't recall the deleted article that well, but I do think there are a few parts of the new one that seem reminiscent of the deleted one: a lot of citations with Bengali text, long blockquotes from the Quran, and some strange grammatical constructions. If the creator of the new article was somehow relying on deleted text, then we may have attribution issues (or a sockpuppet). Can you check on the deleted article (I think it'd be at Draft:Islam and Arabic language but it got moved around too many times for me to follow) and see if there seems to be a correlation? Maybe an undeletion and histmerge if it won't run afoul of WP:DENY? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, After thoroughly reading the policies, I closed a discussion as WP:NACD. Nomination was withdrawn with a mention for a significance which was discussed by voters. The unanimous result was keep. I added it per above as speedy keep. It passed by a few hours for a standard 7 days and nominator notified me of that with keep as their vote on my talk page. I re-opened it as the original closing editor and have closed it per their message. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yampukur Vrata [6]. I should have calculated the hours difference. I have notified of the change and conveyed my apologies to the nominator. If possible, can you take a look and let me know if it is fine now. Also, can you explain whether this might have been eligible for speedy keep if mentioned in withdrawal even after 7 days? HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Liz. I apologize to add another question about an AfD to the growing pile, but WP:DELREVD says to consider asking the closer first, and that seemed like a good idea. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaida Poilievre never really sat well with me, and if I had been in the position of closer I think I would have left it for at least another week, as the "Redirect" votes all around seemed to lack substance. One redirect vote even admitted that the sources provided sigcov. Of course I wouldn't ask you to justify yourself to me, but I'm wondering what you think the best course of action would be here? With almost 300,000 views in the month of April, in my opinion it seems clear that this was a valuable article for our readers. Thank you, MediaKyle (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) DRV is only for situations where the closer's evaluation of consensus was incorrect, not where you think the !voters were. That discussion had such an overwhelming majority in favor of redirect that it couldn't have been closed any other way and I think you just have to accept that the community consensus did not agree with you here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, many thanks. MediaKyle (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Hopefully, you are doing great. I created a page of Mario Nawfal, however, it was in my opinion, was vandalized by [[User:ElinaN19]]. I have reverted his/her edits, and commented on the talk page (User talk:ElinaN19). Kindly, check if I have done the right thing or not? and if there is any room for improvement. Thank you. RaynorRaider (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Already answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Have_I_done_the_right_thing? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz,
Dropping by to say that I created that redirect. Thanks.
Hope all's well in your life. Seeya around. Happy editing :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beni,

I didn't see a consensus for an AFD outcome of a Redirect but I don't take issue with one so I was leaving it up to an interested editor to take care of that if they thought it was a good editing decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, how's life? Would you be so kind to rename File:I Spit on Your Rave promtional poster.jpg and File:All India Bakchod Knockout promtional photo.jpg? promtional is a typo. I assume admins have filemover permission. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I've renamed the files. For future reference, you can tag the image with {{rename media}} to request it be renamed. -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in, Whpq. Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referentis (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, all I want to do, at this point, is to delete the essay. I do not want to discuss the incident that caused me to nominate it for deletion, because I assume that doing so would simply give that incident the oxygen of publicity. I would be grateful if you would just delete the essay. You are correct in your statement that the incident did not happen on my user talk page. James500 (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the essay because it appears to meet the criteria of WP:G7 in as much as the text is still recognisable as what James originally wrote, bar one copyedit. I think this might be controversial, and if there are any objections, I will restore the essay and file a procedural nomination at WP:MFD.

Additionally, if you feel you are being harassed and do not want to discuss the issue on-wiki, you can email the Arbitration Committee at [email protected] where they will discuss it in confidence.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting that page and its three shortcuts appears to have broken over 1,000 wikilinks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Please you or Richie recreate the shortcuts or ask Explicit or whoever deleted (didn't check) to do it. See the new page at the name of the deleted essay. —Alalch E. 17:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shortcuts were WP:100W, WP:100WORDS, WP:OHW if you're interested in re-creating them. I'll refrain from getting directly involved for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Novem Linguae, it did not break anything close to one thousand wikilinks. The vast majority of those were from Template:Wikipedia essays, where a non-essay does not belong. The total number of citations is probably less than a hundred. James500 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Thank you for the additional context. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects restored. There's a fair number of links all added. We're good here I believe. —Alalch E. 00:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

In this user talk entry which has since then been archived, I kindly asked to restore a missing template to my user space which I can not access because the original has been deleted. I'd like to ask if this is still possible to do. Thank you very much. Punkt64 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_Leagues_in_Singapore#Football_Association_of_Singapore_leagues

This should be merged after a week, or nominated for deletion before. Take a look, thanks. 93.140.96.135 (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marthe De Pillecyn (K3), which you closed yesterday. A less-experienced user reverted your closure and the action that was taken at the affiliated article (redirect). I put everything back in place but that user appears unfamiliar with all the relevant policies about creating articles and reverting community decisions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, as I already mentioned, you moved one of these to draft space, but at that time I contested it. Now I realized that they all have one major issue: copyright violation. So I started butchering them. Please take a look at User:Altenmann/sand: it lists all my stubs. See if the page like Byerazino, Byerazino district rural council must be draftified. Please also keep in mind that the (sole) ref in all of them was copied from be-wiki and I did not really verify it - one more reason to draftify, because I know for a fact that other interwiki may be sloppy with referencing.

BTW, this list is an evidence that I am not a bot :-) --Altenmann >talk 23:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was on my way to add some comments, when noticing this comment from you. Decided to instead add a perspective about how some can have their wrong buttons pushed, which may lead to reacting in the wrong or inappropriate way. It is also very obvious that there is a significantly long list of other people who had unfortunate and adverse reactions as well.

If a person is knowledgeable about or studying the subject in which an article presents, then takes time to contribute, they may not take kindly to its removal. Particularly if done in certain ways. Which is more of the point that I'm getting at. Because of how the policy is set up, the person who is removing, arguably does not have to be as thoughtful or constructive, and their impulse to undo the contributions of others can be satisfied more quickly. Then their "work" is done, they may be ready to quickly jump to the next, and see any back and forth as just slowing them down or taking away from their satisfaction. While that's often not the case for other editors they are interacting with.

These situations can become higher intensity when there are no explanations, given something perceived as cryptically minimal, or not the courtesy of an explanation on talk. Any heated exchanges or no attempt to deescalate, can exacerbate situations more than it needs to be, especially when people feel mistreated or disrespected. Like as if they are some kind of vandal, when that's not why they are here, or unworthy of normal courtesy.

Very experienced editors who have been through numerous heated and similarly intense situations, would also know more about or have more ways to avoid administrative actions. They can be more aware of the lines to avoid, where the less experienced or casuals do not. It's also more than just a matter of not returning, but the overall affect (especially over time) on the perceived image and mission of the site. There are, of course, different perspectives and perceptions about all of this, but maybe more empathy and understanding is needed from all sides. Wukuendo (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got your comment on my talk page. I abandoned my previous accounts because both times, I intended to leave the site forever due to mental health issues that could have gotten me into trouble. I was the one that asked for permission to return around New Years. Normally, I would just reclaim the Scorpions13256 account, but I disconnected the email, so I can't log back in again. If the WMF knows how to crack my password, I would do anything to edit under that account again. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Knowledge Pirate,

Thanks for the update. I'd recommend going to WP:AN and reading about a case there that happened this week. An editor, with much less experience than you, forgot their passwords to two accounts, couldn't remember the email addresses and editors trying to help them go through every possibility to recover their accounts. I know there was a reference to an WMF Office that sometimes helps although they refuse most requests. But given your health issues and the length of time you used one of those accounts, they might offer you a different answer. But you can see all of the suggestions that were offered. We weren't successful with this editor but you never know!

I'm glad that you are feeling better. I took two long breaks from editing this project and I'm so glad I did. I wouldn't be editing right now if I hadn't walked away when I was diagnosed with cancer. Time off was what I needed and I hope you also came back with more energy. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor I saw yesterday was convinced that I have had undiagnosed Dysautonomia for 15 years. The OCD doesn't make it easier. I have to get a tilt table test to confirm. I think Tamzin said something about the WMF recovering passwords, but something tells me she was mistaken. That sounds too good to be true. I'll give it a shot though. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just be as forthcoming as you feel comfortable being, The Knowledge Pirate, stating why you thought you needed to step away from editing. If they think you just forgot your password, I'm sure they'll just say "No". Your situation sounds more complicated than a simple memory lapse. I do recommend you enable email access for your newest account and think about using a password manager. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately used a password scrambler so that I wouldn't be able to access it. My health problems have seriously clouded my judgment at times. If this were to somehow happen again, I will request an indefinite block instead. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

You recently kindly posted this note on my Talk page: "It would be helpful to admins if, when you move a page from main space to Draft space, you tag the original page for CSD R2 speedy deletion. It's easiest to do if you use Twinkle. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)"[reply]

I'm sorry for asking such a banal question, but I cannot see any "R" options ("R1", "R2" etc) in my Twinkle pop-up window when I click on the CSD option. I've checked the Twinkle preferences/configuration options and can't see anything there to enable "R" options. Am I missing something? With much appreciation, Cabrils (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) R2 is a CSD criteria and is found when you use the "CSD" menu item in Twinkle. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if that's what they used! ^[sarcasm] Worgisbor (congregate) 21:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq R2 does not appear for me when I use the "CSD" menu item in Twinkle, that is the problem. Do you know how I can make it appear? I cannot see how to do so via the Twinkle prefs. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is a bug. You can report the issue at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. -- Whpq (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Cabrils, that is odd. Sometimes the "Redirect" options on Twinkle do not appear if there is content on the page other than a link. It's like Twinkle doesn't recognize it as a redirect. You could try just adding {{Db-r2}} to the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Liz, that's a good work-around. And thank you again for your time. Cabrils (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a file note that this issue was kindly resolved by Novem Linguae: I misunderstood your advice Liz and was looking for R2 on pages that had NOT yet been redirected. On pages that have been redirected, R2 DOES appear. So all good, and no reply from you is necessary. Cabrils (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May is not over yet. You were a little hasty, plz restore. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Rich,

Well, it's June where I'm at. We go by UTC time and I deleted the May 2025 categories at 21:00 UTC which I thought was close enough. Luckily, with maintenance categories, as soon as they are needed, User:AnomieBOT quickly recreates the category. But I'm sorry for the mixup with this one when you needed it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally clicked on your name and landed on your page. Your banner gave me a nice chuckle this morning. Thanks! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mind undeleting this again? I missed it as the G13 notification system is still seriously flawed. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I read your closing remarks on the AfD article for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash.

You mentioned "Reading through this entire discussion, I saw a consensus to Keep this article until I got to the most recent arguments which supported Merge, Redirect and Draftify.". At some point a user edited the AfD to re-order (reorganize?) all of the AfD comments in groups of Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect and Draftify. This is why it seemed as if the consensus was to Keep the article until you got to the most recent comments which supported different opinions.

While I understand this does not change the outcome of the AfD nor is it my intention to, I thought it would be helpful to clarify/point out this issue as it confused me too seeing everything reordered a week into the AfD. Like you mentioned, it makes things look like the consensus is to keep the article until you get further down the discussion. It also messes with the timeline of comments and I'm unsure whether this is against AfD policy/rules, but nevertheless I thought it might be helpful to point out in case you observe similar occurrences in future AfD reviews.

Thank you,

MSWDEV

user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 21:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I see you deleted Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar. How come it was empty? Did someone empty it, and if so did they explain why?—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall Looks to me like (primarily or exclusively) User:IJReid emptied it and replaced it with Category:Dinosaurs of India. Category:Dinosaurs of Madagascar has existed since 2021. I speculate that "Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar" was created through an incorrect extrapolation of a category from List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs, a-la WP:NOTDUP. All of this could be incorrect, haven't taken a very good look, but I think we're okay. —Alalch E. 00:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, it's impossible, using the tools we have, to determine exactly who emptied categories after they have been deleted. But for about two weeks in May, there was a flurry of empty categories involving dinosaurs, I believe there were about two or three dozen emptied and deleted. I think Alalch E has a good memory of what occurred.

If I remember correctly, I do think that User:IJReid was doing some recategorization on this subject. Many of the categories were created by User:Lavalizard101 so if you look at their User talk page, you'll see a lot of CSD C1 notifications. When I was coming across them, I also asked Lavalizard101 what was going on and you can see their reply to me at User talk:Lavalizard101#CSD C1 notices. I also keep a CSD log so if you browse User:Liz/CSD log#May 2025, you'll see some of the tagged and deleted categories. Most empty categories are tagged by me and Explicit but I don't think Explicit maintains a CSD log. Not all of the deleted categories were created by Lavalizard101 but I don't recall the other category creators. The CSD log will have some of that information.

If you have questions or objections, I would bring them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs as that is the talk page that most editors involved with dinosaur articles or categories track. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, you can also find another discussion about this change at User talk:IJReid#More on categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. This explains it, and now that I've read those discussions I'm content that the recategorization was properly thought through and discussed. I'll go away :)—S Marshall T/C 07:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I saw that you deleted an article I published about Sana Yousaf. I would like to understand why it was deleted. In the 'See also' section, I even referred to similar cases involving social media influencers who were murdered. Was the issue just with the title of the article? If the article needed improvements, why weren’t any remarks or suggestions provided? Deleting it without explanation feels like a harsh and disrespectful act. user talk:Fidjeri — Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Fidjeri,

Could you provide me with a page link to the deleted article? We have Sana Yousaf but that is a redirect to Killing of Sana Yousaf. So, I'm not sure what article you are concerned with that was deleted. I looked at your Deleted contributions list and there is no deleted article listed there. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there was a related article deleted, Murder of Sana Yousaf, but that was deleted by a different administrator because of CSD G5, it was created by a sockpuppet, User:Cydopan (see here). If you created a redirect that pointed to this deleted page, I might have deleted that page as a broken redirect. But Murder of Sana Yousaf has since been recreated by a different editor as a new redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that you created an article with a different spelling at Sana Yousuf. But since we already had an article, that page was also turned into a redirect by that blocked sockpuppet editor. You can try manually merging content from this article into Killing of Sana Yousaf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexroybro has asked for a deletion review of Ayesha Singh. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cryptic,

Thank you for letting me know about this. You are so good with DRV notifications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for moving the Userpage User:Anna Erat to Draft:Anna Erat. The two people working on that article had asked me for assistance yesterday and I was about to post a speedy deletion request for the faulty page. The article has been published correctly now – Anna Erat – so there's no actual need for the draft anymore (which is also living in the userspace of the original creator, will send her a link to the correct speedy deletion request template). Should I add a formal speedy deletion request to this draft or is it in your power to delete it? Grizma (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grizma,

I would have preferred if you had moved the draft article to main space rather than doing a cut and paste job. This retains all of the page history for the article. There isn't a speedy deletion criteria for having a duplicate draft article with also a main space version. So, there are a couple of different options: a) We could turn the draft version into a Redirect to the main space version, b) I could try to merge the two articles or c) we could just wait a few months and the draft will be deleted in 6 months due to CSD G13 abandoned draft criteria.

I'm not sure if you have a preference. I might see if I could do a merge although that can be tricky when the two articles are in two different namespaces. At least that has been my experience. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for your reply and the options! It was complicated: a move no longer possible, since the article name already existed in the article name space due to a move mistake – with a redirect to whatever twisted way that move had taken, involving a newly created user page without user. 😂 The version history was not extremely interesting anyway. ;D They would have needed to have involved an admin (which was not at hand), the article author is completely new to the WP, had no access to her account (I don't know why, I just had them on the phone) and involving administrative help would have taken a few days when they wouldn't have been able to meet again etc. etc. I totally agree that a move with version history always is the better option, if possible.

A redirect from the draft to the article is not necessarily desireable – or does that mean it'll show up on a list of redirects that should be deleted? Sorry, I know more about this process in the german wikipedia, I didn't dive in too deep into administrative work in the english. I checked the version history: the draft already does not include the original author in the version history (only her mentor and her corrections), so it wouldn't make too much sense, it's not really necessary. Thanks again for explaining! :D Grizma (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 6 § Burkinabe on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hassan697 (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure if there was anything significant on Talk:My Ilonggo Girl, but if there was, could you please restore the page? The article was improperly draftified and I've just restored it to mainspace. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) There is discussion pertaining to the article development on the deleted talk page. I've restored the original talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Station1,

Did Whpq's action resolve your questions? Thank you so much, Whpq, for your prompt response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that took care of it. Thank you both. Station1 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

Any chance you could undelete Giantslayer Records? I feel they just barely pass WP:NMUSIC as the former label of Blaine Larsen, as well as charting at #29 with "Bring Him Home Santa" (albeit credited to "Song Trust"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TenPoundHammer,

 Done Sorry for the delay. This User talk page gets a lot of traffic and I seem to always be behind in my responses. PROD restorations are an easy fix though. Good luck with your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, I noticed you deleted the page RIPfest. I would love to have this be reconsidered. This was a large film festival that involved humdreds of films over many years. I can understand it may not be cited, but I am unclear why citation would be a factor in determining the value of maintaining a record of a significant event. I know there isn't much reference available, but this is increasingly difficult for events that were popular before the ubiquity of the modern internet. I do have many posters from these festivals if this helps, and I am happy to search for additional articles and contributors too. One reason I am asking for r4econsideration is that the founders - now emmy winning producers - are considering a new, rebooted RIPfest for 2026. Thanks! 205.220.129.230 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 205.220.129.230,

Upon request, I've restored RIPfest for you. You should try to improve the article quickly as I anticipate it will now be brought to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. Good luck with your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Hope you're well.

I wanted to reach out regarding the page Sadakat Aman Khan, which appears to have been deleted based on consensus and is now extended confirmed protected.

I was in the process of drafting an article on him to contribute to the representation of Indian Classical Music on Wikipedia, but I’m currently unable to even create a draft in the Draft namespace due to the protection level.

I would appreciate it if the page could be undeleted or the protection adjusted to allow me to work on a draft. My goal is to contribute constructively and in line with Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

{{You've got mail}} Serviceeternity (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Serviceeternity,

What I would recommend is to write a draft on a User page like your Sandbox or User:Serviceeternity/Sadakat Aman Khan. Submit it for review when you are done to WP:AFC and if it is accepted, the protection can be removed. How does that sound? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Liz. I have completed drafting the article at User:Serviceeternity/Sadakat Aman Khan. Could you please confirm if it will be reviewed automatically? I appreciate your guidance and support! Serviceeternity (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz

Thank You very much for the suggestion.

Many Thanks,

Serviceeternity Serviceeternity (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, is there any usable content on Draft:Todd Kellett? —Sladen (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sladen,

There was some content from several years ago, I didn't know whether or not it was usable so I just restored those edits. You'll find it in the page history of Draft:Todd Kellett. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:REFUND; however now the last three revisions of Draft talk:Todd Kellett have now been moved on top of the old Draft:Todd Kellett creating a bit of a mess. Please could the Talk: revisions be moved back to the Talk: page? —Sladen (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sladen, I'll see what I can do. I have to delete the page again. Now that you have seen the old revisions, do you want them restored again or to stay deleted? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:HMUNDO? The original content is devoid of cites, but gives some hints of where to look—my understanding is Wikipedia policy preference is to aim to preserve previous history; had that not been the case, it would have been much easier just to re-create—which would still be an option. —Sladen (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Is there anything I can do, or anyone else we could ask to help with the untangling of the revisions? —Sladen (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not too busy could you drop by Talk:Trialeti_culture#Requested_move_26_April_2025 and decide on the page move? It's been open since 26 April 2025. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kansas Bear,

I haven't handled any RM discussions. I'll give it a look later tonight and see if there is an obvious closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK. No worries. Thanks Liz. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening, Liz! I am inquiring about this AFD which you closed. I am hoping it would be possible to examine this article prior to its deletion? I am not interested in restoring it, but am hoping to fill in some missing holes on the Spanish Figure Skating Championships results tables. The text of the AFD says that it included a source to the original competition results. If you could dump it into a sandbox or whatever, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Bgsu98,

There was not much content on the article. There was an infobox and then the following sentence,

• The 2004 Spanish Figure Skating Championships (Campeonato De España De Patinaje Sobre Hielo 2003-04) took place between 12 and 14 December 2003 in Madrid. Skaters competed in the disciplines of men's singles and ladies' singles on the senior, junior, and novice levels.

The only source was this archive page.

That was it. Does that help? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does! At the very least, it provided the city where the competition took place, which I wasn't able to document before, so thank you so much. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned here Is it contagious? I wanna get infected! Adakiko (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adakiko,

Gee, thank you for bringing that vandalism to my attention. You have a good day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was, apparently, a third-rate attempt at humor as well as an expression of admiration and envy... My apologies for my clumsy communication skills! Best wishes Adakiko (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Adakiko, I didn't mean to be humorless. Some times, I'm not having a great day and my patience wears thin. As an admin, it seems like there is always someone who is upset with me, either for something I've done or something I haven't done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, I hope that you are doing well.

Could you please initiate a discussion on the talk page regarding the category? I’ve already explained my reasons, my edits are being reverted without proper discussion nor proper checking , which I don’t appreciate at all. If anything is unclear, please feel free to ask. I’ve reverted your recent changes for now. Thanks Riad Salih (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Riad Salih,

I look at hundreds of pages a day, could you specify which talk page you are interested in? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz it's fine, here is the category, and I'm referring to the last edits here. Riad Salih (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Riad Salih,

To be honest, discussions on category talk pages don't get any attention so maybe you can just tell me why you were emptying out Category:Marinid sultans of Morocco. We discourage editor emptying categories "out of process" rather than using WP:CFD to rename, merge or delete categories. Just a short explanation would be helpful.

Also, I saw a discussion on your User talk page and wanted to urge you to never try to move a category page. If this is your goal, just go to Speedy Renames at CFD and ask for a category to be renamed. Then a bot will move all of the contents of a category. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think we already talked about it and explained that there was a problem with the gadget Move +, and I have explained my changes on all the articles.

Basically, it's anachronistic, and you can see that all the categories are linked to the mere one, Marinid dynasty not the Marinid dynasty of Morocco. The same goes for the Zayyanids and the Hafsids. Have a nice day. Riad Salih (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still principally retired from editing and don't have the time/energy to file an ANI or AIV, so I just got you off the admin-just-online list.

Just stumbled across this and saw the user was mass removing sourced categories related to in the main article Democratic backsliding in the United States that links to the articles they deleted from the cat. Hope you can take a look and revert/timeout the user as appropriate. Thanks. Raladic (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raladic,

I hope you are well in retirement. It's not obvious to me what the problem is. Is it that an editor is removing Category:Democratic backsliding in the United States from articles or is it a problem with the article that the category was removed from?

It's not uncommon for editors to recategorize articles and categories so I need to be able to differentiate regular editing and some an action that looks like vandalism to you. But I'm happy to look into it for you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the deleting admin of Stadion Františka Kloze after PROD (December 2024), I'd like to ask if you can restore this to draft space so I can work on it. The Czech version of the article appears to have enough for GNG. Thanks, C679 11:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cloudz679,

 Done You can find it at Draft:Stadion Františka Kloze. Good luck editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, You said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loic Chan that you Would be able to draftify Loic Chan, would you be able to so I can work on it? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Das osmnezz,

 Done You can find it at Draft:Loic Chan. Please remember that articles that have been deleted through AFD have to go through AFC and be accepted by a reviewer. If this draft article gets moved back to main space directly, then it can be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tea is nice. A good start to the day. Polygnotus (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Polygnotus. It's nice to wake up to a friendly message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to offer you a Wikipedia "cup of tea", Liz, and hope all is well with you? It has been quite a while since we last spoke properly, despite our paths crossing on a few threads recently! Patient Zero^talk 23:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know I'm searching for a new users with suspicious activities...so I'd like to apologize for misunderstanding. Sparkschu Itai (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Sparkschu Itai. I just know that new editors are often attracted to the drama boards but your fellow editors will respect you more easily if you work on content improvement rather than filing complaints over minor issues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know :D Sparkschu Itai (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am reaching out to you because you helped me in an ANI involving Jan55is (talk · contribs) in which you advised me basically to AGF despite the editor's WP:CIR issues when I had blown my top. However, after a hiatus on their part and a couple of advice and warnings on their talk page, I find that the user is still displaying the same questionable behavior despite repeated promises to improve on their part, which is very much frustrating considering that they insert bulks of edits that have to be cleaned up with some difficulty. Since at this stage, I no longer believe that they take issues raised against them seriously, I would just like to ask for advice on what to do with them before I end up doing something stupid or bring another ANI. Borgenland (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borgenland,

Well, first off, don't let your frustration with another editor make you lash out. Over the years, we have lost many good editors because they couldn't let go of a pointless feud rather than because there were problems with their editing behavior. That's one bad thing about the transparency of Wikipedia, once you have said something foolish, it's in the page history forever even if you immediately revert it.

On the plus side, Jan55is's attention is almost solely on the List of traffic collisions (2000–present) article so they are not causing problems in a lot of places. What I try to tell editors is that if another user has a habit that you find irksome, try to get support by moving the discussion to an article talk page. When it is dispute between You vs. Them, editors can dig in their heels and it's hard to find a compromise. Getting other editors' participation almost always helps these 1 on 1 situations.

If I were you, unless there is disruptive editing that spreads to more articles, I'd pass on filing a complaint on ANI. ANI is often a roll of the dice and you never know whether someone who has problems with YOUR editing will use a noticeboard discussion as an opportunity to lodge a complaint about you. The outcome of an ANI discussion can be hard to predict. I'd only do it if the cost to the project becomes higher, not just because you find an editor annoying. That's my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I made a stern warning to them shortly before messaging you. Will raise future (hopefully not) issues in article talk page itself. Borgenland (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well Liz,

I don't know how to put this, but just less than 11 hours after you closed the thread "User:私の少年", the OP has gotten unblocked from editing by the blocking admin. Bit of a surprising yet another twist, huh?

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AP 499D25,

Thanks for the notification. Even after reading through that editor's talk page, I'm not exactly sure what happened with them and their block. But I've reopened the ANI complaint and removed my closure rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Hi @Liz, I hope you're well! I'm unsure of how to approach this, I had a page Afd, but the user that tagged it: Lobogamio (talk · contribs), seems to have created an account just to tag the page, could this be a potential sock? Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thief-River-Faller,

I've seen this happen before. My guess is that this editor edits as an IP account but since IPs can not open AFD discussions, they created an account to file this deletion discussion. Unless they find they like having a registered account, they are likely to return to IP editing. Of course, you could go to their User talk page, welcome them and start up a conversation and you'll probably get more information. Direct outreach is usually more effective than speculating.

You could try filing an SPI case if you want to go to the trouble but to do that, you have to have an idea of who the sockmaster is. Checkusers will not randomly check accounts, editors have to make an argument and provide evidence (diffs) to associate at least two separate accounts and demonstrate why the editor thinks that they are the same editor. Unless more than one AFD comes out of this, I think you should just move on and continue with your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, as always you've explained things perfectly, I appreciate it! Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raladic,

Thank you for the message, yes, I don't check my pings because I get so many of them. I'll left a comment at HouseBlaster's User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz,

Hello, I’m reaching out to request clarification regarding the deletion of the Unity Communications article following this AfD discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unity_Communications

We would appreciate guidance on the following:

1. What specific issues or policy violations led to the article’s deletion?
2. Were there particular concerns about notability, sourcing, or tone?
3. What types of reliable, independent sources would be needed to satisfy notability guidelines?
4. What is the appropriate process to appeal or request a review of this deletion?
5. What steps should be taken to reverse the deletion or properly recreate the article in compliance with Wikipedia’s standards?

We are committed to working constructively within Wikipedia’s policies and would like to understand how to proceed in good faith.

Thank you for your time and any advice you can offer.

– EmeraldBlue21 EmeraldBlue21 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I hope you're doing well. Sorry to bother you, I am thinking to create an article for Ayesha Singh directly to the mainspace but I noticed that there is a strong history of AfDs. I think she is notable as she had played significant roles in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin and Mannat – Har Khushi Paane Ki and also found some good references about her. Due to the strong AfD and draft deletion history, I am not able to decide on what to do. Can you please share your opinion regarding this? Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Liz, I recently started a discussion on WP:ANI regarding another user's misconduct. Multiple other editors have also expressed their concerns with that particular user's behavior, though I haven't seen any admin involvement yet. May I ask if you could go check it out? Thanks! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have deprodded if I'd noticed. Seems to me it should have been merged or BLARed rather than deleted. Srnec (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I'm reaching out as an ordinary contributor — a dad, technologist, and community volunteer — seeking guidance and admin oversight regarding the Independent Together article.

It appears a small group of politically active users — including User:IdiotSavant and User:TheLoyalOrder — have been coordinating edits that I believe violate Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and potentially WP:COI policies.

- User:IdiotSavant is a known political commentator [redacted] - Both users have engaged in public commentary and mockery of the Wikipedia editing process on platforms like [redacted].

I’ve attempted to engage in good faith and have raised concerns on their talk pages. However, the editing pattern increasingly resembles activism rather than neutral contribution — and it’s having real-world impact during an active election period.

Whether these individuals agree or not, Independent Together is a non-political civic-focused group trying to maintain accurate, balanced representation. These editors are actively blocking attempts to add even our own pillars to the article or reflect both sides fairly. It's become unmanageable.

I’m unsure what the next step is, but I’m requesting admin review of the situation.

I’ve posted a screenshot below as proof of the external coordination happening around this article:

File:Idiotsav-screenshot-misinformation-campaign.jpg

Thanks for your time, DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DanMilward has repeatedly removed all criticism and replaced much of the content with information from a press release by the group he represents as a political candidate. His conspiracies that multiple editors who don't know each other are conspiring are unfounded.

I have over 6000 edits, mostly in the area of local government in New Zealand.

Idiot Savant has not added any content to the page, he has only reverted Dan's COI edits. I have added most of the content, and I have done so to the best of my ability to abide by NPOV.

Dan has not attempted to engage in good faith at all, his comment on the talk page either listed "missing information" that was already included or had bad sources (i.e. IT press release detailing candidate events, wikipedia isnt an event planner)

I don't know why he says we have blocked him adding the groups policy pillars, all of them are listed in prose. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response.

To clarify, my concern isn’t about removing criticism — it’s that the article presents a version of Independent Together that omits the group’s own stated positions (its pillars), while focusing heavily on external characterisations.

Saying the pillars are “included in prose” isn’t the same as neutrally listing them or acknowledging their source. I’ve asked for them to be added or discussed, and those requests have been blocked or reverted. That’s the core issue.

The external commentary (including on [redacted]) shows a broader pattern that should concern any Wikipedia reader — especially in the context of an upcoming election. I'm not alleging a conspiracy, but the bias is clear and ongoing.

I’m new to Wikipedia. I’m not a politician — I’m a regular Wellingtonian trying to ensure fair and accurate representation.

I accept Wikipedia’s sourcing policy and will work to suggest revisions using reliable secondary sources. I just hope this conversation leads to a more balanced, neutral article.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it’s that the article presents a version of Independent Together that omits the group’s own stated positions (its pillars), while focusing heavily on external characterisations.

The article contains all of the pillars as listed in the sources, the article "focuses heavily on external characterisations" in so far as that is how Wikipedia works, we say what the sources say, not what the subject of the article wants it to say.

Saying the pillars are “included in prose” isn’t the same as neutrally listing them or acknowledging their source. I’ve asked for them to be added or discussed, and those requests have been blocked or reverted. That’s the core issue.

The information you want is already there, your edits have been reverted because you remove other info you don't like

The external commentary (including on [redacted]) shows a broader pattern that should concern any Wikipedia reader — especially in the context of an upcoming election. I'm not alleging a conspiracy, but the bias is clear and ongoing.

What does this even mean? What "broader pattern"? The people who edit Wikipedia have opinions, that's not the same as POV pushing on wiki. You on the other hand have repeatedly reverted the article to one that removes all criticism and frames the group in the way the group wants, all of which is a major conflict of interest as you are a candidate for the group. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify my position one last time before escalating this formally.

I’m not trying to remove criticism — I’ve accepted and acknowledged it. My concern is that the article disproportionately weights those criticisms while refusing to clearly represent the group’s own publicly stated positions (e.g. pillars), even when phrased neutrally or cited.

Saying the information is "in prose" or that I’m removing things I “don’t like” is not the same as allowing space for a fair overview. I’ve repeatedly asked for discussion and compromise, and what I’ve received instead are reversions and accusations.

I'm not hiding my involvement. I’m participating in good faith and disclosing clearly. I’ve avoided making direct edits since the block and followed process. The same cannot be said for those coordinating external commentary and edits.

At this point, I’ll be taking this to ANI for review.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins do not determine article content, you should be having discussions on the article talk page to resolve this dispute. But admins do try to maintain order and that screenshot is disturbing as it shows editors casting aspersions without any responsibility to demonstrate there is any evidence behind their claims. I have quite a few editors who watch my talk page and I'd be interested in hearing what they think of this situation but I'm leaning towards an article page block for all three of you for undisclosed COI. Just a note that any further personal attack at other editors or edit-warring on this article is likely to result in a block. Please move this to the article talk page and if there is a WikiProject New Zealand, it wouldn't hurt to notify their members of this discussion on the WikiProject's talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll move this there TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheLoyalOrder, please do not remove or delete content from my User talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mispoke, I copied the thread I will not remove it haha TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Liz.

Just to be clear — I’ve never asked for criticism to be removed. I’ve been transparent about being new to Wikipedia and doing my best to work within the rules. It’s really frustrating to be accused of bad faith or manipulation when all I’ve done is request balance and clarity — openly, and on the record.

I’ve only pushed for a fairer structure that also includes the group’s official positions, and for the article to avoid framing that implies political affiliations not supported by fact. That’s not whitewashing — it’s a request for balance.

Neutrality shouldn’t be this hard. As a sign of my own sincerity: I would still prefer all three of us be blocked from the article in pursuit of neutrality than leave the status quo in place. If that is what it takes.

I’ll continue the discussion over there in good faith, as you've suggested. My goal from the start has been clarity and neutrality, not to win arguments or hide information. Appreciate your oversight on this.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my only interest in this has been enforcing WP:COI. I was alerted to the situation by a bleet from TheLoyalOrder. It was clear that the page was being edited by a user with a conflict of interest - they are a candidate for the party the page is about - so I posted the usual COI warning. And yes, snarked about it (because political candidates editing their party pages is... tiresome). The next day, when they repeated their COI edits, I reverted the changes, posted an NPOV warning, and attempted to engage them and direct them to the edit COI process. They refused to use that process, preferring to argue about article content on user talk pages, and there was another round of warnings and reversions. Rather than violate 3RR, I stepped away and left it to other editors. Who agreed that Danmilward's edits violated COI and ultimately gave him a short-term block.

I note that he is now engaging via the article talk page, and there are other editors involved who seem perfectly capable of handling things. IdiotSavant (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, IdiotSavant — and I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to clarify your perspective.

You’re absolutely right that I came in green and misstepped at the start. I’m new to Wikipedia and didn’t fully understand the COI process or norms. I’ve since taken that on board, and I’m now trying to work within the system: discussing changes on the article Talk page, supplying sources, and not editing the article directly.

I’m not here as a political strategist or spin doctor. I’m a dad, a tech business owner, and a community member trying to do something positive for Wellington. My only aim has been to help ensure the article fairly reflects what our group actually stands for — including the parts that come from reliable sources and the parts that are missing or misrepresented.

Thanks again for your time and patience — I’m learning, and I’m here in good faith.

— [[User:DanMilward|DanMilward]] Danmilward (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this a very bad redirect that you did, it would have been better to straight up delete. Are you able to reconsider and just delete? Also 99% of people would be typing in Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C. to a search engine or the search feature on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania vs Serbia (2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying) Different out come to what you did but a very similar situation. So please can you review your close, thank you. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Regarding the Selale University, could you please reconsider the "merge" closure? Given the very weak consensus you noted, I believe a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome might be more appropriate, aligning with AfD's "no consensus defaults to keep" principle. Thanks - Wieditor25 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz could you please review it? Thanks! Wieditor25 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Liz, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 01:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 01:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Liz! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

The Randy Cooper article has been up for over 3 weeks and has been relisted 2 times. I think that we have a no consensus. Could you please close it? Thank you. I appreciate your help. Orlando Davis (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, I just translated the German article about Soheila Golestani. When I wanted to start the Talk page, I only saw that an article written by you on the same person apparently had been deleted on June 4. - As I can't find the deletion discussion, I would be grateful for a link to that and for any other useful information to corroborate its notabiltiy. Thanks, Munfarid1 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! Last year, I had made an edit to Symbology (disambiguation) that consisted of two parts. Upon submitting it, I checked the history and learned that one part was identical to a change that you had reverted in 2022 with the explanation "destructive edits". I wasn't sure what this meant, but as a precaution I reverted that portion of my edit. A few hours ago, my second edit was in turn reverted (likely for the same reason that I had initially made that edit). I personally still have no objection to the most recent change, but I was hoping that you could clarify what was happening on this DAB page and/or other related pages that resulted in this (assuming you still remember). Thank you! Andrew11374265 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrew11374265,

Thanks for checking with me but you should go ahead with your editing. When you see an edit summary like that from me, it means I was doing a mass rollback of a sockpuppet, in this case, User:Kent Raul. I was undoing their editing and it was not a comment on the individual edit. I rarely do a mass rollback of edits but in some cases when a sock has been especially active, it seems like the simplest solution. I trust you to judge your edit appropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I demand the lists of Teen Titans characters and Teen Titans Go! characters to be seperated from each other as single pages. Having them being put together was a big mistake. And i’m a fan of the original show from 2003 and not the stupid 2013 show. Please seperate them at once so i can see them the way they used to be. Please write back soon with an answer. JonHaroldMeyer96 (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JonHaroldMeyer96,

First, I'm an administrator and even though I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia each day, my time is spent doing administrative tasks like handling page and article deletions, not on content creation. If this is an interest of yours, I recommend going to the correct article talk page and making your suggestion. You might find other editors who view the situation in the same way that you do.

But, please, stop with the "demands". You are not in a position to demand anything on this platform, we are all volunteers and that language will just make other editors irritated and not want to work with you. If you want some formatting change, especially a big change, your focus should be on finding experienced editors who have the right skills to help you and you should be friendly and collegial, not demanding. In effect, you are asking other people to do you a big favor and if you don't adopt a more collaborative attitude, other editors will just ignore you and maybe even try to stop your efforts. It's better to make allies than enemies.

Also, if you have general questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies, please bring them to the Teahouse. That's a noticeboard that is designed to help new editors with their problems. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, Would you able to draftify Orjuan Essam, I saw the proposed deletion but forgot to remove it, so would you be able to draftify it I can work on the article? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Das osmnezz,

 Done You can find it at Draft:Orjuan Essam as requested. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Liz:, I hope this message finds you well.

I'm reaching out regarding the repeated speedy deletions of pages related to African women's footballers. Many of these articles, while currently stubs, have the potential to be expanded and improved. Immediate deletions without prior discussion risk the permanent loss of valuable information, especially on subjects that are already underrepresented on English Wikipedia.

I kindly urge you to take into account the General Notability Guideline (GNG), especially as it applies to footballers. As outlined in WP:NFOOTBALL, a footballer is presumed notable if they have played in a fully professional league, represented their national team, or participated in a major international competition — which applies to many of the players whose pages are being removed.

Rather than deleting these articles outright, a better approach might be to tag them for notability discussion or improvement, allowing editors and contributors the opportunity to expand them with reliable sources.

Thank you for your understanding and for the work you do to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I hope future actions will prioritize discussion and collaboration, particularly when it concerns regions and topics that need more representation.

Best regards, Talk! 14:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, my page Orjuan Essam (quite possibly the most notable Sudanese women's footballer of all time) was deleted by Liz after expired PROD (which I should have removed). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunar Spectrum96 N:FOOTBALL has been deprecated and is not a guideline. All subjects must meet GNG or other relevant guidelines, not an essay. Any PROD can be contested, but there is no requirement that someone tag them in lieu. Star Mississippi 02:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I recently submitted a G13 undeletion request while not logged in, and my IP was exposed in the edit history. I've since re-submitted the same request under my registered account (JWR Projects).

The undeletion request was posted on June 26, 2025, and I'd appreciate it if the earlier IP-based version could be suppressed for privacy. Thank you.

— JWR Projects JWR Projects (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:JWR Projects,

Can you provide a link to the edit you want deleted? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. With all due respect, I just wanted you to know that I will be sending in an appeal for the AFD you closed on List of Dance Dance Revolution songs. I feel I would possibly discuss this with you before I went that route, but I noticed a handful of other users from weeks ago having an inquiry of a previous AFD, and you didn't respond or reach back to them, which is puzzling to me. But yeah. I feel the consensus consisted of a brigade of users chiming in their own opinion, and I feel my reasoning for the article serving a purpose remains. I feel I still don't understand why this article was taken down, when it serves its purpose as a list article etc.☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ☼Phrasia☼,

It looks like you didn't wait and went ahead to DRV. That's your perogative. But I wanted to let you know that I saw your message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Dance Dance Revolution songs. 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.

☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ☼Phrasia☼,

I really appreciate you for letting me know. You had a persuasive argument but you were the only editor who expressed an opinion that this article should be Kept. Maybe if you had commented earlier, more of the other participants would have agreed with you.

I'm usually open to restoring deleted articles in Draft space if that option interests you. Just know that these draft articles have to go through the AFC process and can't be moved right back to main space. Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the swift reply, I appreciate it. When the AFD was originally contested, I was away from Wikipedia on a business trip and as soon as I found out about the AFD a few days into the nomination discussion, I immediately was in support of the article standing. I would like the drafts please, thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lin Jinhong. Setting aside that the prod should've been contested (was there any evidence of BEFORE in zh language sources? Zh wiki cites sources), if an article with interwiki is deleted, it should be converted to red link per WP:RED, and preferably use Template:Interlanguage link. Can you adjust your modus operandi here (i.e. in cases where an article with interwiki is deleted)? TIA. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 00:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piotrus at Hanyang,

I don't understand what you are asking me to do or what "interwiki" is. I just review PROD'd articles and files and, if they are eligible for proposed deletion, I follow through on deletion. We have about half a dozen editors who review PROD'd articles and untag ones that they believe should go through AFD or ones where they disagree with the tagging and believe the subjects are notable. But that's not my job.

I should also add that I'm not the only admin who reviews PRODs, Explicit is probably more involved in this area than I am and there are a few other admins who help out. If you want substantial change, you need to update our policy page on PRODs. As it is right now, I do not have the time or inclination to check all WMF projects and compare other versions of these articles. My plate is very full and I already spend too much time working on the project. I can't justify adding additional hours to investigate articles that are legitimately tagged for deletion.

If you want to join the small group of editors who regularly review PROD'd articles, well, you are needed and welcomed. The primary list we utilize is User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. Thank you for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you didn't specifically ask for Lin Jinhong to be restored. Did you mean to ask for that to be done? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a need for you to investigate anything but when you are unlinking articles, you should follow policy of WP:RED at minimum (i.e. don't unlink content that's notable). The fact that our local article may be deleted does not invalidate notability of the topic, or the fact that it exits on other wikis. Best practice is to use interlanguage links. It should not be hard to set up a bot to replace links to a deleted articles with a template. But if it is hard, simply - do not delete red links to a notable concept, per WP:RED. Not doing stuff is pretty simply and doesn't consume any time. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Template:Taiwanese artists during the Japanese occupation and List of Taiwanese artists are both lists/templates that shouldn't have been left with unlinked entries in the first place. I'm not familiar enough to comment on the interwiki links, but at the very least I think it's appropriate to ask admins who delete articles to take the time to make sure they're not leaving these types of errors. All of us choose how much time we spend on editing and how much work we put on our plates, and doing a bit less work with a bit more quality control is an option that should be considered. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Liz _I hope you are doing well. I have recently created a page, Kainchi Dham please review it. Dsrprj (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dsrprj,

Congratulations on the new article. Unfortunately, as an administrator, my time is taken up with administrative work on the project, not content creation or review. If you had created a draft, then WP:AFC would review a submitted draft but this article is already in main space so an editor to participates in the New Page Patrol will review it. It hasn't been reviewed yet but User:MPGuy2824, who is an experienced editor, did put a tag on the article. It seems like a totally acceptable stub. I hope that eventually it can be filled up and expanded as an article. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I've been given an unfair warning for disruptive editing by User Paper9o11 regarding Kim Hye-yoon's page. If you take a look at the edit summary and my user talk page, I've stated my reasoning but was told that I reverted the agreed-upon version without gaining support or discussion. However, in the first place, there was no such discussion for their preferred version. I would appreciate any guidance regarding this matter, thank you.

I would also like to ask if it's possible for you to spare some time to check whether File:240902 Kim Hye Yoon (김혜윤).png, File:240925 Kim Hye-yoon (김혜윤).png, File:240604 Kim Hye yoon(김혜윤).png, File:240608 Kim Hye Yoon (김혜윤).png and File:240902 Kim Hye-Yoon (김혜윤).png are AI enhanced. I'm still a pretty new user so there might be some disagreement if I were to point it out. And also, are AI enhanced images suitable for infobox? Resurehtonatsuj (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Resurehtonatsuj,

I'm not sure how much I can help you. First, it helps if you provide a live link to an article or file so it's easy to check on it. As it is now, I have to copy the name of the file and then paste it into the search bar. But if you make it active (by linking it with "[[ ]]"), then I can just click on them. Also, I don't work much with files and so I'm not an expert on identifying images that have been enhanced with other photography tools. You can always nominate an article for deletion, (see WP:FFD) and the editors participating in those discussions probably have a better sense of that than I do.

For your interpersonal problems, I'd go ask on the Teahouse. Post your questions there and you'll find support and advice from experienced editors. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you still remember me from List of traffic collisions (2000–present) and my longstanding problems with WP:CIR users. The last user I have had problems with appears to have become dormant. However, a new user with similar WP:CIR behavior has popped up and continued populating the page with items that are too difficult to cleanup individually. I have issued a notice at their TP but given the previous experience, I do not have confidence that they will bother to listen. In any case, is it possible for them to be compelled to reveal if they have any socks in the absence of SPI, ANI or other serious noticeboards? Borgenland (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borgenland,

I don't remember having much to do with this article and looking through its page history, it looks like Explicit is the admin who has edited this article the most. I'm not sure how to respond to your request as you haven't identified the editor or provided any diffs of conduct that you find disruptive. You can ask an editor if they have socks but there is nothing you can do to "compell" them to tell the truth. If you have suspicions, the best thing you should do is to file a case at WP:SPI. It's there that admins who are checkusers can check and see if an editor is a sock of another active or recently active editor. But if you believe they are the sock of an editor from years ago, then the data will be too old to compare. But that is where I'd head next. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, I have 3 users (including the recent suspect Daddario1987 (talk · contribs) and at least 1 IP whom I suspect is eligible for SPI. I am still trying to determine which of them is the most likely sockmaster, though given my earlier talk message to you a week ago, I think this is similar to Jan55is (talk · contribs), whom I’ve warned many times for WP:CIR and WP:IDNHT in bare url insertions. I’ll try and make a formal SPI later to spare your TP from being an extension of other noticeboards Borgenland (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I have two concerns and I want to seek your advice. 1. I don't know much about the rules in Wikipedia common but when I tried to upload photo and they deleted it which was understandable because of copyright law, and was told that i should upload using the photo that I took or ask permission from the owner.

Several weeks ago, I uploaded a photo of Alden Richards in Wikipedia common for Alden and use it on his biography. Knowing the rules this time and as per advice by previous editors, I reached out to actor's manager seeking his permission and his name is Leysam (senior talent manager of GMA network talents and he manages Alden Richards career) and he replied to me on my email and was totally fine for me, it is a verified email. He gave me permission to use the actor photo on his biography but the other editor subject it for deletion. I can prove it to you and other that I have the permission. Do I have to contact an administrator in Wikipedia common? or Do you know any administrator on Wikipedia common?

Liz, I replied to the editor who subjected the photo on Wikipedia common that I have the permission to upload and use the photo on the actor's biography but someone keep deleting my messages on Wikipedia common, I don't have an option but to reply again and screen shot the whole thing.

2. How to deal with other editors. I want to improve the article by adding infobox awards on Filipino celebrities awards page and I used the same pattern with other Filipino celebrities awards and Hollywood celebrities awards articles but every time I add the infobox awards, this other editor kept removing it and found it unnecessary. I talked about this with other editor and was given that it is best to resolve it using a consensus in the talk page.

I check other articles and whenever editors have disagreement, they resolve everything by using a consensus.

Kindly advice,

Thank you, Fanblade81 Fanblade81 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) As this is a photo on Commons, you will need to resolve this issue on Commons. Having said that, claiming to have permission is not sufficient. Copyrighted material needs to have the permission verified via the c:COM:VRT team. That permission must provide an acceptably free license, and verify that the person giving permission is the copyright holder. Note that usually, the copyright holder is the photographer and not the subject of the photo, or representative of the subject of the photo. The photo has been nominated for deletion on Commons so it will be resolved through that discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I replied to the Wikipedia common about it regarding the file being deleted and someone deleted my response. I replied again and took a screen shot about it.

Whoever deleted my response, that person never give me an option to prove that I had authority or permission. I can show it to everyone that I talked to the actor management and they allowed me to post the photo on his biography.

The photo was directly from the actor himself and his team, when I tried to ask permission it directed me to the actor verified account on Twitter and Instagram, I checked with his management and his manager and they granted me permission to upload, use and put his photo on his biography.

Second, about the editor who subjected the photo for deletion, it is the same editor who keeps removing all the infobox awards I put in all for Filipino celebrities, which I patterned for Hollywood actors.

Anyway, thanks for the advice and for your time. I will try to resolve this in Wikipedia common Fanblade81 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a discussion that you participated in was recently archived at WP:ANI. See here

I was wondering with the situation with LepYd, if the discussion should be unarchived or if some solution should occur, since no resolution was reached and the user in question never did respond. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yoblyblob,

So, I think you are referring to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1192#User not responding to talk page concerns after consistent addition of unsourced and improper English skills. It does seem like it was archived a little early. Typically, discussions are only unarchived once so I'd wait and see if the situation gets worse. There is no point to unarchive the discussion and then see it archived again if no one else responds. Of course, the decision is up to you but that's my advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the problems aren't getting better. Just today: this diff shows the same level of contributions. The first unarchive was because of an accident Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 06:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in. I noticed this article was deleted with one of the reasons being it wasn't in Powell's encyclopedia. The group's only album was mentioned in a review by Ken Scott in his book “A Collector’s Guide to Vintage Vinyl Jesus Music 1965–1980” which is currently going for 148 to 340 Euros. Several years back a copy sold on ebay for over $1000. Not that this makes them notable, but I was wondering if, from your pov, it would change the group's notability? Just curious. Thanks! Hope all is well.THX1136 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, THX1136,

Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article? Then I can see why it was deleted. I usually carry out deletion requests, through AFD and PRODs, and do not actually make the decision on whether or not an article warrants deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

It was a PROD if I remember right. I had been following it as some friends of mine were in the group AND I had used the page for reference on a project I was working on at the time. I don't think I can provide a link. As I mentioned it was on my watch list and when I was deleting articles I no longer wanted to follow I came across it - Shekina Glory - in red. Since I wasn't sure what that meant I clicked on the link and was taken to a 'notice' that mentioned the PROD status and you were mentioned. Figured you would have the answers. I'm a relative novice here as far as knowing how to do 'all the things'. I'll poke around and see I can come up with the link you requested.THX1136 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a copy of what I found last night.

"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.

18:31, 18 April 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Shekina Glory (Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable band. No entry in Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 978-1565636798.<span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Encyclopedia of...) Tag: Twinkle (thank)"

Hope that is helpful.THX1136 (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, THX1136,

All that I was asking for was a link to the deleted page, like Shekina Glory. All of this additional information is unnecessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is there is no page because it was deleted. Not trying to be difficult. I did a search and nothing comes up for the group/band Shekina Glory except the notice I copied and pasted. It used to exist. It does not now. I don't know how to say it any differently. I appreciate your patience. Thanks. THX1136 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tried doing a search for Shekina Glory (band) and I was taken to 'that page does not exist' note.THX1136 (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Back to my original question. Since the 'notice' shows the PROD concern was the group wasn't in Powell's encyclopedia, would the additional info I mentioned about the group appearing in Ken Scott's book have made any difference in the deletion? As I mentioned I'm just curious and you seem to have way more experience that I so I would value you opinion. Hope all is well. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. Billoo 19:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

M. Billoo 17:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2025 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2025 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Hall of Fame: Congratulations to Dhtwiki for their well-deserved addition to the Hall of Fame last month, and thanks to GoldRomean for the nomination. Election news: Voting in the mid-year coordinator election ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page. April Blitz: 14 of the 25 editors who signed up for the April 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 92,769 words in 30 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. May Drive: 31 of the 54 editors who signed up for the May 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited 384,392 words in 216 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. June Blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 26,652 words in 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: Our July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive will begin on 1 July and finish on 31 July. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 02:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 148 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,270 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. I pinged you a few times here but was hoping you could respond. CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CNMall41,

No need to ping, I just had no response to this mess. I decided to see what another admin thought about the situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I agree itt is quite the mess. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and one from me too, @Liz Star Mississippi 13:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notifications. Unfortunately, I have two separate email addresses, one for admin work, one for arbitration work, and I think I need to recover my password for one of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the email was sent to both accounts; if you can't find the email in either account, email me from an address you can access and I'm happy to resend it there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your constant assuming of good faith at venues such as ANI and for reminding and encouraging others (myself included) to do the same! GoldRomean (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kindness, GoldRomean. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the WP:USERNAME policy and my username did not violate WP:NONSCRIPT. Can you point me to the relevant section where it says I have to change my username if an Administrator asks me to? Thanks. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 21:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Pinging them also since they asked me twice to change my username. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 21:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, TurboSuperA+. No one has asked you to change your username. There is nothing wrong with your username. You have been asked to change your custom signature which is completely different from your username, and which is illegible to many users, including myself. WP:SIGNATURE says quite clearly A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. An illegible signature is inherently confusing. Please comply with the guideline. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to overreacting to my comment, TurboSuperA+. I simply said that, when I was reading ANI on my phone, that your signature looked "smooshed" and was unreadable. Some editors agreed with me, some disagreed with me. I also said later that the signature looked fine when I was using my laptop.

I think that it would be nice if your signature was legible for all devices but I did not order you to do anything. I think Cullen328 was more assertive about changing your signature than I was but these were suggestions. I wasn't pulling out my admin stick and hitting you with it. It was just an aside in a discussion about something completely different. I think it's time to move on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TurboSuperA+, I do the vast majority of my Wikipedia editing on smartphones, but just because of this situation, I have logged in to Wikipedia on a desktop and yes, your signature appears completely normal on this computer. But on my phone, only the bottom half of each character is visible. You cannot tell that the bottom half of a T is a T. You can maybe guess that the bottom half of u is a u. The bottom of an r canot be identified as an r. The bottom half of the o and the bottom half of the S look almost identical. Maybe someone can guess that the bottom half of the p is a p. The bottom half of an e is indistinguishable from the bottom half of a c. The bottom half of the + is just a short line. Please fix it. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edit on mobile as well, and it always displays correctly. I tried several mobile browsers and it works. Perhaps a script is breaking it for you. Which is a technical issue for the author of the script to solve. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a different browser, or looked at it whilst not logged in? If a script you installed is messing it up, then that's a technical issue. Other page elements may not be displaying correctly either, more important ones than signatures. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TurboSuperA+, fuck policy. If I had a custom signature and just one person (although it is more than one in this case) said that they find it difficult to read in some circumstances then I would simply change it, not argue about it. Why can't you do the same? You weren't to know whan you created the signature, but now you do. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't say it is "difficult to read", they said it doesn't display properly. If an editor installs a script that breaks how another editor's signature displays, why should the other editor change their signature? It is a technical issue with the script (or settings or something). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already changed my signature. If the problem is persisting that means it is a technical issue on @Cullen328's end. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Turbo on this one. If only a few users are having an issue with a signature on certain devices, apps, and/or browsers, it could indicate some sort of WP:BUG within the MediaWiki software. If a bug is messing with the way HTML is rendered, as I suspect it might be based on the description Cullen provided, then this likely isn't limited to one signature and the issue could pop up elsewhere, even within articles. I suggest that anyone who experienced the issue should file a bug report, listing the device, operating system, browser/app, and any other relevant details that could be used to reproduce the issue. In the meantime, it would probably be a good idea to at least temporarily change the signature if users are still having problems with it. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, I have changed my signature. If @Cullen328 says the problem is persisting, then it must be a problem on their end, and they should file a bug report. I don't find them telling me to fix it again to be helpful. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, you should probably rule out a script issue first. If it is a script, then the maintainer should be made aware. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filed a bug report, here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T399143 TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelana_United_F.C.#Women%E2%80%99s_team

user not understanding copypaste meaning should be warned please; article made by person struggling with grammar, i often clear afterwards, suddenly someone without basic encyclopedic understanding jumps in... (big efforts and time wasting) tnx in advance 93.138.245.234 (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 93.138.245.234,

It's hard to understand your question but I gather it is about Kelana United F.C. (this is the article the link you posted brought me to). You have been the primary editor on this article so it's unclear to me what you are asking me to do or who you are talking about. Maybe work on your English and give it another try. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:Otto Dyar

Piñanana (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Piñanana,

I have undeleted two deleted edits on Draft talk:Otto Dyar but you will need to look at the page history as you have turned this page into a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you, I just wanted to kindly ask if you could reconsider removing links to deleted footballer pages from other articles. In Wikipedia's footballer article styling, red links are intentionally kept, whether the page never existed or has been deleted. For example, removing a link like [[Salimata Diarra|S. Diarra]] results in the loss of context (S. Diarra; can be anything Safiatou, Salimata etc.) or information about the goalscorer, which can affect article completeness. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lunar Spectrum96,

When I became an administrator 10 years ago, I was instructed by a senior administrator to remove red links from any article I deleted. So that has been my practice for ten years. As you might imagine, when I delete pages on a daily basis, it's a challenge to change long-standing habits.

I might be able to change my in-grained behavior if you could be more specific about the articles you are focused on. Are these footballers from a particular country? Continent? Age? Thank you for being more specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you reply to a lot of posts on the admin noticeboard, so I just want to make sure you see this deletion of my post

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1299018039 176.108.139.1 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see another admin has addressed my concern--176.108.139.1 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 176.108.139.1,

Sorry I didn't see this in time. But the important thing is that the problem has been addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz. I need you to know that @Cactusisme nominating SKIBIDI BOP YES YES YES for "blatant vandalism" was unjustified and completely ignored how there are many similar redirects due to it being a meme related to Skibidi Toilet. If they thought it was an implausible redirect, they should have at least went on WP:RFD, but no, somehow they rushed and decided to SD the redirect for "vandalism" and keep in mind. Vandalism does not describe my intentions with that redirect. Vandalism has a very specific definition, and my redirect was made in good faith, considering there were many similar redirects (see that whatlinkshere). I contested that speedy deletion on Talk:SKIBIDI BOP YES YES YES and yet you deleted it without even reading my rationale. It is a redirect from a related meme, and there is NOTHING about it that should be considered vandalism, given my previous points. Please, either restore the redirect for being falsely accused of "vandalism" without even reading my rationale for contesting the speedy, or if you did read my rationale, explain what exactly was wrong. I will never tolerate people falsely accusing me of "vandalism" because every single edit and redirect I make is in good faith. Vandalism accusations can also be interpreted as personal attacks and harassment, by the way. Thanks SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Have you read this? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 01:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Cactusisme. My redirect falls into the Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.) rationale. The Skibidi memes that predate Skibidi Toilet specifically are covered on the ST article in the production section, and I quote. 'Dom Dom Yes Yes' gained popularity in 2022 through viral videos of Turkish TikToker Yasin Cengiz dancing to the song holding platters of food. TikTok user Paryss Bryanne parodied this meme, complementing it with her style of jerky acting with rapid cuts. So yes, I have read that project page you linked many times in the past, and I understand what is plausible to be a redirect and what isn't. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, [SeaHaircutSoilReplace,

I decided to restore the page and let another admin offer their opinion on it. I still see no value in this page as a redirect but admit that you created it in good faith. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
• WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!

---

Hi Liz,

Thanks for your notice. I'll explain why I marked some pages that are in other people's userspace as CSD U1. This is because the user requested to move pages in their userspace to another title without leaving redirects. I used pageswap; this tool doesn't allow removing redirects, so I tagged CSD U1, on behalf of the requestor, to delete these redirects. I have encountered many cases where editors tagged CSD U1/G7 on behalf of users; I helped a user in this way before. Annh07 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Annh07,

I know you were acting in good faith but could you see if there is a way to include in the CSD tag a link to the editor's request to delete the page or to not leave any redirects? Because, technically, we should untag those pages where someone other than the user or page creator tagged them for U1 or G7 deletion. I'm not sure how to do this but I know I've seen a link included in a CSD tag before. Thank you for the explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, I added a link to the user's request to the CSD tag, which wasn't difficult because the CSD U1 tag supports a parameter called "rationale", which allows specifying an additional explanation for the request. Annh07 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Liz! I am looking for some help to restore a page you removed in February of this year. Could you help me understand any possible next steps for reinstating the page? Would it be best practice to submit a new page for creation, or is it possible to restore the page to a previous version so that I can suggest edits to the content to remove first-party sources and suggest appropriate sources?

Including information from the page below.

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. 17:45, 5 February 2025 Liz talk contribs deleted page Hammel, Green and Abrahamson (Expired PROD, concern was: Nothing here to suggest that this firm might meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. The text is sourced almost entire to its own publicity materials.) Tag: Twinkle (thank)

Thank you very kindly for your help 🙏 Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted page in question is most likely Special:Undelete/Hammel, Green and Abrahamson. –EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan, the page can be restored, because it was deleted by the WP:PROD procedure without discussion, but it may then be nominated for a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. Paid editors, and those with a conflict of interest, are tolerated on Wikipedia, but only insofar as they familiarise themselves with our requirements, such as WP:CORP and WP:COI. There are plenty of editors without such advantages who have more claim on the time of experienced editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, thank you for this information. I understand the COI now. The goal is to suggest edits that remove first party sources and suggest second-party sources that validate HGA as a notable corporation. Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team,

As Ed states, an article that has been deleted through Proposed deletion can be restored upon request which is what this message is about. Thanks to Ed for providing the link. An editor can send it to Articles for Deletion for a week-long discussion on what should happen to the article. It's not a forgone conclusion that it would be deleted but, frankly, the article needs some work. And thanks to Phil for pointing out our policy regarding Conflict of interest so your activity should primarily occur on the article talk page.

Ethan, if you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies and guidelines, I recommend taking them to the Teahouse where experienced editors like the two who replied here can provide advice and support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Liz. COI and using the talk page to suggest edits is now clear to me. How do I request the page be restored? Thank you for sharing the Teahouse as well. This will be a helpful resource! Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to include a few examples of sources that would be used to suggest edits:

-Wall Street Journal, 'The Jackson Hole History Museum’s Western Essence':

"To build a home for those and other items, the institution chose HGA, a Minneapolis-based firm of architects, working in conjunction with Prospect Studio, a local firm. [...] But the architects of HGA wanted to evoke culture, not commerce, which a boxy storefront building implies. They broke up the museum into two volumes. Holding the corner is a two-story wing that contains the gift shop, classroom, offices and small gallery for temporary exhibitions."

-The Business Journals, 'In Her Own Words: Now CEO, Mia Blanchett began as an intern at HGA':

"I wasn’t even out of college yet when I started my journey at the organization I now lead. I was an intern — curious, capable, but not the most confident. [...] Fast forward to today, and I have now done hundreds of models, led teams and clients across HGA and all over the country, and started my newest role as CEO of the same company where I started my career. And today, HGA employs more than 50 percent of women across disciplines and roles, including 78 percent on the board of directors as of 2023."

-The Architect's Newspaper, 'HGA faces University of Arkansas’s Windgate Studio + Design Center with corrugated metal':

"This new academic district is anchored by the Windgate Studio + Design Center, a hub for university arts programs designed by HGA. The building’s boxy volumes are faced with white corrugated metal, a material selected for its cost, and resonance with the region’s vernacular architecture."

-Architectural Record, 'In San Diego, HGA and Akustics Revive a Historic Theater as a World-Class Symphony Hall':

"The symphony selected HGA, in part because of “its enthusiasm for the historic fabric” of the old movie palace, says Gilmer. [...] One of the most ingenious aspects of HGA’s design was the way it “found” 15,000 square feet of space between the concert hall and the 1980s structures built around it." Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz:! I saw that you can close article deletion requests. Can you close the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lohgarh, Phillaur as I've withdrew from the discussion. FujaFula (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FujaFula,

 Done That was an easy request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to know why? 103.187.94.231 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 103.187.94.231,

If you are talking about an article, could you provide a link to it? I'm not sure what you are upset about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This seems to refer to Ferit Şahenk which was recently deleted as an expired PROD. The rationale for deletion (according to the log summary) was because an editor believed it relied too much on primary sources, self-published sources for living people, and interviews. Left guide (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Left guide, for tracking down the article. Does this information help, 103.187.94.231? The deletion rationale is stated at the top of the article, Ferit Şahenk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Deletion logs don't automatically appear on red links when logged out (at least for me), so for 103.187.94.231's convenience, it can be seen here. Left guide (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is news to me, Left guide, and I've been editing here since 2013. They always show up for me at the top of the deleted page just like the block log shows up on every blocked editor's Contribution page. Is it because I'm on a laptop? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; like a lot of accessibility-related things on Wikipedia, it might vary based on browser. Left guide (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you blocked this IP for disruptive editing? I don't see any disruptive editing. PRODs can be removed for any reason (and it's not required to give a reason). They did give a reason in some of their removals. It's safe to assume their line of reasoning applied to the other PROD removals as well. The IP didn't even edit after the initial warning by A.B. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiOriginal-9,

This IP account's only editing was to go straight down the list of today's PRODs and remove all of the PROD tags. They went down the list of all of today's tagged articles and removed the PRODs tags! They did no other editing. They didn't look through other PRODs from later on this week. This wasn't considering whether or not an article should be deleted based on the deletion rationale. This was straight-up trolling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, you blocked this IP for disruptive editing after they rapidly removed the PRODs from 20 articles (sometimes once a minute, sometimes twice a minute). They only left edit summaries for 4 of these edits.

I had looked at most of these and found most of the deletion proposals correct.

We're not normally allowed to restore PRODs once removed but given that these are quasi-vandalistic, I think it would help Wikipedia to restore them. In other words, WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.".

I'm always wary of invoking IAR unilaterally; usually that's the first step towards a fiasco.

What do you think of this?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., thanks for blocking them.

P.S.S. If I understand this report correctly, they're editing with a proxy.

Hello, A. B.,

I'm not sure what you are asking of me. Are you saying it's okay to put the PROD tags back on the articles? Another admin might say "Yes" but I'm not going to do that. If the editor who PROD'd the articles still wants them deleted, they can take it to WP:AFD. I don't want to make special exceptions to a rule I generally enforce all of the time. If you look at the comment above this one, you'll find an editor who doesn't think this troll should have been blocked. I think reposting the PROD tags would cause more disruption than just accepting these edits as valid. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observations / advice. I trust your judgment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm the opposite of a "cowboy admin". I'm probably overly-cautious especially regarding blocking. Some actions, like page deletion, can be easily reverted but I think of blocks as personal and while editors can be unblocked, it's a bit of an assault to find oneself blocked so, in my mind, I have to be sure it's deserved according to our policies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cautious" is my kind of admin. Someone somewhere said admins should be more like Mayberry's Sheriff Andy Taylor and less like Dirty Harry. We have too many Dirty Harrys. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, at WP:Articles for deletion/(679997) 2023 RB, I was in the middle of closing it as redirect, but we edit conflicted and your relist was accepted. Is three unanimous supports for redirect (target identified by nominator) with no opposition not enough to count as consensus? Left guide (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Left guide,

I only saw two opinions, I overlooked the third. You can go ahead and close this if you want. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Left guide (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I wanted to bring to your attention a pattern of disruptive editing by user Vofa. I’ve opened a discussion regarding this issue here, and several users have already voiced concerns about the nature of his edits.

In my own review, I’ve observed that Vofa consistently removes reliably sourced content related to Mongolic elements - for example, the Mongolic component in the ethnogenesis of the Hazaras. These removals contradict reliable academic sources and are made without proper justification or consensus.

More recently, I’ve noticed that this pattern of editing has continued in other related topics as well:

Removed mention of the Baghatur title as used among the Mongols.

Removed the note that the Barlas tribe originally spoke Mongolic.

Removed mention of the Merkits as one of the Mongolic tribes.

Removed material on the Mongolic lexical component in the Hazaragi dialect.

I would greatly appreciate it if you're able to take a look at the situation when you have a moment. KoizumiBS (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KoizumiBS,

I am aware of this discussion and have already participated in it. I would think you'd be aware of that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply - and yes, you're absolutely right. I do remember your participation and appreciate your engagement there. My apologies if the message came off as redundant - I just wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the new examples that have emerged since. Thanks again for your time! KoizumiBS (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know I've reverted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianna Westrup prior to your relisting it to remove the LTA stuff. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pickersgill-Cunliffe,

That's fine, I appreciate you letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this incident too, and have restored the re-list status. Left guide (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect WazirX 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/2025 July 12 § WazirX until a consensus is reached. Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Saw your comment on ANI [7] and would like to hear some advice(and clarification) on what I should do regarding said situation. I have chosen to stop reviewing Nghtcmdr's edits(because of my vacation, the drop the stick comment, and that I simply no longer want to deal with said situation anymore as it is costing too much time; Though I have responded to some discussions), but I genuinely would like to hear what I should have done instead outside of WP:DROPTHESTICK.

I don't enjoy biting newcomers nor do I think edit reviewing is a good idea(on both ends really), but as I explained on [8], this dispute heavily involves good faith WP:ICANTHEARYOU disruptive editing. I would like to hear what I am supposed to do if a similar situation ever arises ever again as I really don't see any other way to handle this type of situation outside of trying to explain policy or going to ANI. I don't think just quitting(however i will do so per recommendation on ANI) seems to be a good alternative either, as that's like telling a traffic cop "stop giving traffic tickets, the guy hasn't gotten anybody killed yet". Yes, the disruptions seem to be relatively minor, but I seriously hope policies are explained to new editors who misinterpret or are unaware of them.

(This will be my last post regarding the situation, sorry for disturbing you, I needed some clarification) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hope everything is well. I stumbled upon this page and noticed it was being deleted, which I'm not fully understanding why. The deletion request reason was that it fails WP:NMUSIC, so I read WP:NMUSIC, and it actually meets it according to the criteria. The first thing it says that Musicians may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. It meets requirement #2 which states Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. (Charted at #91 in the Billboard Hot 100 with his single "Nope Your Too Late I Already Died").

Regarding sources, besides primary sources and chart history sources, they were indeed published after his death and were primarily focused on such, however there was still valuable information about his career written throughout the different sources (not exclusively the ones that were on the deleted page). He meets notability according to the criteria and there are enough sources that cover him. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz. I find that you are active with deletions. I just deleted the user page for User:TimothyBlue per his request for speedy delete of his page. However, after the delete was complete, there is a full user page, without the expected view history tabs, etc. When I look at my user logs, it shows that I deleted it. Can you help me figure out what happened? — ERcheck (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Never mind. The page is now blank. I've never seen that happen with a deletion. Have you? — ERcheck (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a userpage on meta, it overrides a blank user page. Once the CSD here was finished I had the meta page deleted.  // Timothy :: talk   // Timothy :: talk  18:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothy - Thanks for that info. I was so confused! :-o — ERcheck (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was going to say, ERcheck. If you have a User page on Meta and your local User page is deleted, your local User page will show the Meta User page. Now, there is nothing showing so Timothy must have had the Meta User page deleted as he states here.

By the way, ERcheck, just noticed you helping out with some CSD deletions (specifically some G13 stale drafts) and I haven't run into you before on the project. So, hello! I hope you are having a good summer or winter depending where on the planet you reside. Is there an area of the project where you spend most of your time? I work with CSD G13s, PRODs, CSD C1s, often the day's AFD discussions and also help out on noticeboards when the need arises. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an admin for a long time, but took some time off a few years ago, then returned to edit and creating articles (mostly biographies) and doing some DYK reviews. Just recently have I stepped back into admin tasks. I figured CSD would be a good place to start.

Do you mind if I ask questions on your talk page to get back in the swing? So much more is automated these days, and so many more templates are available (though the bones are the same.) I tried using the XfD tool, which I'll need to figure out a little better. — ERcheck (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the Arbitration Committee at your earliest convenience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,

I will do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. There is a situation regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLM Flight 1204. It appears user @Ohok12 accidentally redirected the article in question: here. Based on User:Ohok12#Problems date: I think this new user may be struggling with the concept of his articles being nominated for deletion. They also did a similar thing here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAL Airlines Flight 2259. I have attempted to reassure them they this is just a mistake and that he has nothing to apologise for. My reason for leaving this message on your talk page is regarding the KLM redirect that will need reverting back. I am sorry for bothering you and wish to thank you in advance! I have seen some of your messages left on other talk pages where you offer advice to people and that is something I really admire and respect! 11WB (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this has been sent to WP:RMTR. I hadn't seen this when I left my message originally. I apologise for this. 11WB (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick actioning on this situation! I understand now that these matters, even when accidental, are taken seriously with zero tolerance applied. I've also learned that RMTR is preferable in circumstances such as these. I wish the best for Ohok12 and hope this outcome doesn't deter him from contributing to Wikipedia in the future! 11WB (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I recently closed this AfD discussion as keep after it had already been relisted once and still received only one unchallenged (weak keep) vote. No policy-based delete rationale was offered. Another editor has raised concerns at my talk page and subsequently opened a deletion review. Since you were the relister and have extensive experience with AfDs, I would sincerely appreciate your input, particularly if you think I have made a mistake in assessing the consensus or applying policy. Thanks so much in advance! Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 01:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameremote: I replied to this on your Talk page. Cheers! Owen× ☎ 12:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, I'm starting work on a draft article of Julio Vaqueiro, he's the main anchor at Telemundo and currently redlinked on their page.

As I opened the article wizard it warned that a draft of the same name had previously been created and deleted, appears that you had moved to delete it in 2021 after it sat untouched for a while.

The warning asked that I reach out to you first before proceeding with my draft, and I wanted to check in.

Is there anything I should be on the lookout for, any things I should keep in mind with working on this draft?

Should I request undeletion, or am I good to just go ahead and start a new draft from scratch?

Wanted to check in before I moved forward. Thank you! JulioCesarSalad (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! I was working on categorizing some Ukrainian art organization and created empty subcategory:Ukrainian dance companies with the aim to connect the category tree to the upper level. But then I was distracted (as usual) and left it hanging. Now I hope it is better, with at least one subcategory and two sub-subcategories. Have a great day. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz!

I just went to resume work on a draft page and found that it had been deleted. I sent a request for undeletion, but wanted to make sure that you saw it. Fingers crossed that I can resume editing my draft soon!

Thanks for all your work! :) Forgive me, I'm new to all of this... I hope I did it right!

JustAskMilo JustAskMilo (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page was recreated since you last salted it (though now deleted again), would an indefinite protection be necessary? Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selangor_F.C._Under-23&diff=prev&oldid=1299107662

this should be reverted, unexplained vandalism of user with limited language/writing skills 93.143.88.44 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thank you for reviewing the page. I wanted to kindly note that I made significant improvements to the draft originally created as part of the student editing assignment. Prior to publishing, I edited the article to improve its sourcing and content. In particular, I located multiple years of InsiderNJ’s published “Insider 100: Millennials” and “Rising Generation” lists which consistently recognize Zachary Dougherty as a notable leader in New Jersey politics (2018–2024). Based on this coverage, I updated the subject’s description to “American political activist” and included reliable references from both InsiderNJ and university publications to support this. I’m happy to work collaboratively to improve the article further. Please let me know if there’s any specific feedback you'd recommend to help meet notability guidelines. Thank you again! PatrickPanhandleWV (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this page deleted? Was there any discussion? Did you notify any of the editors who are involved with amusement-park-related pages? Did you post a notice to Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks and invite discussion prior to deletion?—JlACEer (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JlACEer,

If you look at the deleted page, National Roller Coaster Museum and Archives, it includes most of this information. I assume that is how you found my name. This was a proposed deletion. No notification is necessary if you review Wikipedia:Proposed deletion you can see that.

My involvement was deleted PRODs when their time comes due each day, I had no involvement with tagging this article or evaluating it except to see whether or not it was PROD'd correctly which is was. PRODs are supposed to be uncontroversial deletions so if you disagree, you can ask for the article's restoration at WP:REFUND. Everything was done correctly here, I'm not sure why you are so outraged by a regular Proposed deletion. We go through several dozen of them every day as you can see by looking at our daily list at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everything was done according "to procedure," but I don't think pages should suddenly disappear without any discussion. If the policy is that one disgruntled editor can drop in a PROD, and then poof, the page is gone, perhaps we might want to reevaluate the procedures. I think this page had potential had it been given a chance. If a notice had been posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks, there might have been some valuable input prior to deletion.—JlACEer (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I know why the 2008-09 Mohun Bagan FC season was deleted? Every match had its match report. Starting from the squad everything had its source too. Aban0050000 (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok i got it, the page has not been deleted, it has been moved to the draft space citing less sources and ai text. Aban0050000 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aban0050000,

I'm glad you found your draft article. Many times, I'm deleting a cross-namespace redirect, usually from main space to Draft space, not an actual article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you contested this proposal for deletion twice before. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bearian,

Thank you for the notice but I was not the article creator, I just removed the PROD tag when it was tagged inappropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons, I believe that the creation of SundostundBots (talk · contribs) was directly inspired by my username, and I don't like that at all. I'm never happy when someone mocks me, especially when it comes to my username, status and work here. That particularly applies to newly-created accounts, obviously used for disruptive editing only. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, [User:Sundostund|Sundostund]],

SundostundBots has since been blocked so I assume this issue is resolved. Sorry not to respond to you more promptly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz. I appreciate all of the work you do in WP:AFD and WP:PROD! However, I disagree with your close at the Abdul Hamid Tajik, as while AfD is not a vote, both numerically and from a pure strength standpoint, the consensus appeared to be to redirect the articles, seeing as only superfical reasons not based on any policy were provided by the "procedural close" voters, while redirect voters cited multiple policies in their votes. I'd appreciate it if you would be willing to relist for another week.

Thank you for your consideration, and have a great day! Let'srun (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to understand why this was procedurally closed when there was a clear consensus for redirecting all. In contrast, no weightable arguments had been made out at all by the minority for procedurally closing the discussion on the basis of it being a trainwreck: merely the (clearly untrue) assertion that biographies cannot be bundled, and the (unsubstantiated) claim that there might be sources which might make it a trainwreck. FOARP (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that is my closure is how I interpreted the consensus of the discussion. But since you are lodging an objection, I will revert my closure and allow another closer to review this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out please: [[9]] Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aldorwyn of Rivendell,

Just letting you know I saw your message here. My issue is probably too stale to be useful. But thanks for letting me know about the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, please could you check your emails? Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will, HJ Mitchell. I'm sorry for that and for the delay in my response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Liz. Can you restore Paradha as a draft so that I can update and then republish. There is now a release date[10][11] as well as a streaming rights deal[12]. The second comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradha (2nd nomination) stating that principal photography had not begun was incorrect, it had been completed. The only real issue was that the movie had no release date and now it does. Thanks. Jahaza (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jahaza,

 Done You can find it at Draft:Paradha. I hope you understand that you can not just change a release date and then move it back to main space. It will be deleted again as a CSD G4. You must submit it for review with WP:AFC, pass the review and receive a reviewer's approval. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jahaza (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz! I'm hoping to have Britannia Pub restored to the draft space. Since you closed the AfD discussion, I'm asking you before I submit a request at RfUndeletion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Another Believer,

 Done You can find it at Draft:Britannia Pub. Remember you need to get approval from an AFC reviewer before it is allowed back in main space. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like, because I am likely to be indeffed, InsanityClown is going open season on me... SPIs, AfDs, snarky comments on my talk page... What the hell? _pbp 22:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purplebackpack89,

This is a rather last minute cry for help. Admins have been waiting for three days to pass so they could impose a community ban on you. Your "defense" didn't help things and you should have spend the last few days apologizing and demonstrating that you won't make the same mistakes again but you haven't done that. I'm not sure what you can do at this point except for don't go crazy on your User talk page so you can retain talk page access which you will need if you want to file an unblock appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember earlier I said that it wouldn't do any good to apologize because people wouldn't believe me? I'm not sure even I would've believed me.

What I am concerned about now is that there's somebody targeting me. Because I'm about to be C-banned, will no one care? After I'm c-banned, is he going to try and delete or undo everything I did, and nobody do anything about it? Nobody really has complained about my mainspace edits, so why would I rate what I've done being undone by an unabashed insane clown? _pbp 23:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I realize now that that's probably what they should've done, it's just being undone, being undone AGAIN AFTER SOURCING, and then all those editors piling on me made me defensive. _pbp 23:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89,

You kept attacking Magnolia677, even today with your own ability to edit on the line you implied that they would attack you even though they had never done that! You didn't see in this long, long discussion that editors were sympathetic to Magnolia677 and they didn't believe your accusations. Editors are sympathetic to Magnolia677 because of the horrendous harrassment they have received this year and even if Magnolia677 isn't the perfect editor, they were the wrong target for your harrassment. It's like going after Elmo. You were always going to get a BOOMERANG unless you backed off of your attack but you didn't, you kept it up. This was clear a few days ago. I tried to offer an alternative but there isn't a consensus for it, unfortunately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that I overdid it with Magnolia677! I got that days ago! But, since I'm going to be indeffed, I AM going to speak my mind about how I feel about things. What I'M not doing is making bad mainspace edits.

Now what I'm most concerned about is not me, not Magnolia677, it's being targeted by Insanityclown1 (who was the antecedent in the previous post). What will happen if he nominates more things I created, for example? I know you and other editors have warned him and he's backed off for a bit, but...

Related: did you see the Elmo and John Stewart post? _pbp 01:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm not targeting you. Second, the only reason sixshooter was nominated is because it is a non-notable topic. I've said my piece here and will not involve myself any further on this page unless Liz has questions. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just pure coincidence that you nominate a topic for deletion shortly after someone your quarreled with declined a PROD? You realize it would probably still have been AfDed without your participation, and you'd have avoided looking vindictive? And will you commit to not targeting pages based on the fact that I'VE edited them? You've been blocked for something like this before, @Insanityclown1, if you go down this road you might be blocked again. _pbp 02:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The whole "Magnolia677 is Elmo" thing sticks in my craw

1. No user should be unblockable, no user is Elmo
2. Magnolia677 specializes in REMOVING OTHER PEOPLE'S content, sometimes even removing it again after it is sourced. That is an activity that inherently irks editors and probably has driven at least a few off the project. And Magnolia677 has likely removed things that are accurate.

if anything Magnolia677 reminds me of The Rambling Man... _pbp 20:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to request you reopen the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles final which you closed today. There are 2 extremely similar AFDs for the men's 2024 and 2025 finals still active and they both have several keep votes. The AFD in question also had 2 keep votes and I believe it should have been relisted in order for more people to express a view. Bearing in mind all the keep votes in the other 2 related discussions it seems that, unless Wikipedia is just biased against women's sport, many people did not see the discussion so, as I said, I would request you reopen it to allow more time. If this is not possible please advise me how I can appeal your decision. Please note I am not the creator of the now expunged article so have no particular "axe to grind" over this, I just feel fairness and equality have not been given a full airing here. Yours respectively. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anxioustoavoid,

It always helps to include a link when you are referreing to a page or article. I assume you are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles final. I will consider your request and go look at the other AFDs. But I'm not going to have an immediate response to your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your time and apologies for the lack of a link. I thought I'd copy and pasted one but obviously failed. Technology is not my strong suit. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz Have you had chance to consider my request yet? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anxioustoavoid, I've searched for the 2025 Men's singles final and I can't find it. Can you provide a link? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link...I hope.[13] Anxioustoavoid (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way we form a link is just the page name surrounded by double brackets. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final is due to be closed tomorrow, I'm going to see how another editor closes that discussion and that will influence what I do next. I'll place a comment on that AFD avout this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and apologies for my technical deficiencies. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you, Anxioustoavoid, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final closed with a Redirect ooutcome so I'm letting my closure stand. If you wish to continue with this though, you can file a deletion appeal at WP:DRV. Just so you know, this DRV process isn't a judgement of the article, it's a judgement on whether or not I closed the discussion correctly so it's about me, not the article. But it is an option you can pursue if you want to. Sorry not to have better news for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz No problem. Thanks for your time. I'm perfectly happy with the outcome. My concern was the women's final being expunged and the men's remaining which seemed unfair and sexist. That has not happened so I will not pursue this any further. Also please do not think I was questioning your ability as a closer. I would not be so disrespectful. My rationale was always to seek equality and that cause has been served. Best wishes. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, could you revise the draft history of Draft:Tara Isabella Burton? I created a draft for the article a few years ago and forgot to restore the draft instead of creating a new one. Best, Thriley (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thriley,

 Done You have the full editing history of Draft:Tara Isabella Burton. I hope it helps you if you are looking for an old source. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thriley (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Software's Game Heartbound is Under Attack on Steam and Wikipedia You closed the afd, ergo... Upset fans might appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång,

Thanks, I guess. They didn't mention me by name so I think I'm okay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, the canvassing tag was placed at that AfD because the article author explicitly asked several editors on their User talk pages to oppose the nomination. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zanahary,

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. I think you mixed up messages. At User_talk:Rafaelthegreat#AFDs, you said this:

"Hello, Rafaelthegreat,

If you are going to participate in AFD deletion discussion, please do so seriously. Evaluate the article and look at all of its sources and whether they comply with Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources and notability. Look for other sources that other editors might not have seen. You rejected one article because it was "short". The length of an article doesn't matter one bit. We have important articles that are only two or three sentences. Please use Wikipedia's standards for notability when you are evaluating articles or spend your time in other areas of the project besides deletion discussions.

If you have questions about AFDs or Wikipedia's policies, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you." I only tried doing a deletion project twice and were both proposed and I don't reject articles. I also didn't "reject" an article because it was short. I think this mixed up this message, it might be for someone else, not me. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Rafaelthegreat,

Your "vote" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzan Mutesi was Delete. You are right, and it is also very short, that is why I said I thought you were advocating deletion because the article was short. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Liz, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DaniloDaysOfOurLives. I thought I'd get a notice on the anniversary of my adminship but first edit is good, too! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, I just noticed you posted a "First Edit" notice on June 21st, too! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, would you mind relisting this instead? I know it's two deletes to me, but I'm not sure the deletion rationale is correct, and it'd be good to get some more eyes on it. (The problem is I'm not sure the deletion rationale is wrong enough to !vote keep yet.) Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 17:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SportingFlyer,

Do you want to work on this article? I'd feel more comfortable restoring it to Draft space. I don't see the consensus changing with another week of relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the article to work on it, but it's clear there is some sort of topic there and even if the consensus doesn't change I think another week might allow additional discussion. Bearian's comment specifically shows the trouble of figuring out if this is WP:OR or a valid topic... SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to pass on reopening this AFD discussion and relisting the conversation for another week. I can't see the outcome changing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You responded to me kindly to a message I sent you. You deserve this! ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rafaelthegreat, this is very kind of you. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you deleted the page for Jonathan J. Breene on June 3rd, 2025, for the reason of an expired PROD. Please help to restore it. He is a notable figure in the hospitality industry, has been knighted, and has been an important developer for over two decades, shaping the city of Miami Beach. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_J._Breene

Thank you! Bcoppelman (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bcoppelman,

Jonathan J. Breene has been restored upon your request. Good luck editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you respond to my message, can you respond on your talk page as I don't check my email very frequently? Feel free to ping me when you respond. Interstellarity (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Interstellarity,

I have received your email message. The policy guidance I can give you is to please review Wikipedia:PROXYING. You shouldn't be editing at the behest of a blocked editor. Unless you have a preexisting relationship with a blocked editor, I can't think of anything positive to come out of continuing your email correspondence with them. Let me know if you have any other questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin took care of it and revoked email access so it’s all good now. Interstellarity (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am back after the wikibreak. So, I want you to return my revoked perms. Thanks VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VortexPhantom,

I don't know the circumstances of you losing your permissions. It looks like this process was handled by User:331dot so I think you should discuss this issue with them. And you might say "please" instead of making demands. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will not let this happen again. But, you can see that User:331dot has mentioned "as per request" in the edit summary. Also, he said that you can ask any admin to regain your perms. You can see full conversation here to clear your doubt. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are doing great. Please check this page Chandr Bhanu Satpathy there is a spelling mistake in first name, correct name is Chandra not Chandr Thank you, and I am a big fan of your work CreepMentis (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the history. Polygnotus (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polygnotus,

What's your point? The editor who blanked the User page is not the editor whose User page that was. You shouldn't be going around blanking other editor's User pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We editconflicted and yes it was.[14] I forgot to add that URL to the editsummary. Polygnotus (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, what I believe Polynotus is referring to is that from this edit summary diff it appears that User:Rexophile is claiming to be the blocked user Nolan MacLellan - beyond blanking the userpage you restored, they have also blanked the Nolan userpage. If true, given that Rexo has been editing beyond blanking their old user account pages, would appear to be block evasion. (TPS) TiggerJay (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what is going on here, but I did file a claim with Oversight on this. I am not block evading and I can't even block evade because one of my alts was BillClinternet and then one of those alts was IP banned for one year until Christmas Eve of last year for a series of copyright vio's. I don't care about getting blocked or unblocked or evading a potential block, I care about my privacy. Rexophile (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a previous account and you care about privacy, you shouldn't be posting about this on a variety of talk pages. I'm going to let others sort this one out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz, and FYI I have only mentioned the specific names of the previous users themselves in one post. And it would have been in your best judgement to let the proper groups handle the situation in the first place. Rexophile (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was busy all day with another article and only just now was able to get to the Olympic PRODs, and so it looks like you accidentally deleted one I had redirected last-minute. Hopefully it could be restored? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeanieFan11,

I didn't "accidentally" delete it, it was tagged as a PROD and I deleted the article. Try WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you deleted it about one minute (00:29 UTC to 00:30 UTC) after the PROD tag was removed in Special:Diff/1303432629. I think this is a bug in WP:Twinkle, it could be fixed by re-fetching the page source immediately before PROD deletion to verify that the prod tag still exists. --Habst (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz!

Just a little curious regarding the deletion of this draft, which fell under G3: Blatant Hoax. Why did it fall under that category? (Curious because I kinda forgot about the draft and I didn’t create the version that was deleted if I’m not wrong. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’d like to create an article about Fatemeh Masoudifar. I noticed that it had been deleted in the past. I have several high-quality sources, and I’ve already written articles about other Iranian actresses. Would it be okay if I recreate it? MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please restore this expired draft to draftspace for improvement, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Atlantic306,

 Done Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since another admin requested: I found sources to demonstrate notability for Raef Ftouni, which was deleted after an AFD you closed. Would you be willing to restore this and move it to draftspace to allow me to improve it? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And deletionists act like it's so simple to get stuff refunded (lol) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Do you have any thoughts on this? I deferred to you at RFUD as this was a hard delete. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeanieFan11, WikiOriginal-9 and UtherSRG,

I generally don't have an issue with restoring a deleted article from an AFD to Draft or User space when there was such low participation as in this AFD and new sources have been located. I'd feel differently if there had been 4 or 5 editors arguing for Deletion and the situation regarding sourcing had not changed but that's not the case here. I'll restore this to Draft:Raef Ftouni, UtherSRG, and, as you know well, BeanieFan11, you can't move this article to main space without an acceptance from an AFC reviewer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, thanks for all of your ongoing work closing AfDs. May I please ask for an explanation of how a "no consensus" decision was arrived at for your close of WP:Articles for deletion/Akshay Bardapurkar? To me, it looked like more of a "no consensus" situation early on with keep arguments lacking in strength, but after a source assessment table was provided and following the last relist, it seems like the final participants pushed the consensus into delete territory, but perhaps I'm missing something. Any clarification would be appreciated. Regards, Left guide (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Left guide,

I don't have much to say about this AFD. Some editors argued that the subject passed WP:PRODUCER while others disagreed with that conclusion. The discussion seemed pretty evenly split and my role as the closer is to assess the discussion, not assess the article myself. If I was judging whether or not the subject passed WP:PRODUCER then I'd be a participant in the discussion, not the closer. I can't let my own opinion on a subject color my assessment of the discussion. It's not uncommon that I end up closing discussions which Keep articles that I believe should be deleted or that Delete articles that I think should be Kept.

If you would like to challenge my closure, feel free to take it to WP:DRV, I don't think I made an egregous mistake here so I'm unwilling to relist again or revert my closure of this AFD. I'm pretty used to this process after 5 years as a closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I've opened a DRV at WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 August 1#Akshay Bardapurkar. Left guide (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike DRV but I appreciate you letting me know, Left guide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Left guide, I will tell you that I was very surprised that you took me to DRV. It's your right, of course, but it can be an adversarial and unfriendly place and I don't use it unless I feel very strongly about a closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, I can understand that and I appreciate the candidness, but this is one of those times I feel very strongly about the closure, and we seem to have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, which happens to all of us sometimes. It's not meant to be personal; I would've challenged this close from anyone. Left guide (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, Left guide. I won't let things get personal then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eagles—Falcons rivalry. 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. 40.128.69.240 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 40.128.69.240,

Thank you for informing me about the deletion review. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. Thank you for your prior handling of the RevDel request on my previous upload. However, I seem to have done it again with this file, uploaded the full-size version instead of the one resized to meet fair use criteria. Could you kindly delete the first version of the file? Thank you in advance and sorry — I try to be more careful next time! Tupsumato (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mpen320 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mpen320,

It took me a while to understand why you left me this message but I see that I closed the previous AFD involving this article. Thank you for the notification. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz - Thanks for your note on User talk:Dolphish. I've seen a few newbie editors tagging with speedy delete tags with questionable reasoning. I appreciate the recommendation to spend time learning and contributing to article improvement. — ERcheck (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ERcheck,

Well, I thought you did a great job explaining the situation regarding CSD criteria to them. Most editors just stick a template on a User talk page and don't take the time to actually write a personal message. I think a personal note is much more effective at getting a message across. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was working on the DNS resolvers page and noticed you deleted the CleanBrowsing page. I was trying to add it back with references, but can't find a way. It seems only you can un-deleted it? It is part (and included) in the Chrome browser, Microsoft Edge, Unifi routers, so a pretty big resolver now. Can send you the links or just included there when back. Nzlp1kkiwi (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nzlp1kkiwi,

I'm not sure what you are asking of me but could you please leave me a link to the deleted page? Then I can look and see why it was deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanBrowsing Nzlp1kkiwi (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can just write CleanBrowsing and that is a link to the page. I see this was deleted as a Proposed deletion (WP:PROD). That means that the article can be restored upon editor request. Is that what you are asking for or did you want to write a new version of the article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, asking if you can restore, so I can improve it and add the additional authoritative content / links. Nzlp1kkiwi (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nzlp1kkiwi,

 Done Let me know if you have any other questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Added many more links and cleaned up the content. Will add a bit more later. Nzlp1kkiwi (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted the page per an expired PROD. This page had previously been deleted and undeleted, and a page shouldn't be PROD if it had been tagged before. Refer also to Justlettersandnumbers 's summary in the page logs, that the page had significant history. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the history of this page, it does not appear to have been PRODed before. The only previous deletion was self-reverted by the deleting admin due to incorrectly using a CSD criterion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CyberTheTiger,

You are not correct. An article can be PROD'd if it has been deleted before, it just can't be PROD'd more than once. If you would like it to be restored, you can make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the request Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Hope you are doing good. You just removed my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramakrishnan Sivaswamy Iyer. Is there any specific reason? Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raj Shri21,

I'm so sorry. I had this discussion page open to edit and then my computer crashed. When I rebooted my laptop and returned to the open page, in that intervening period you must have posted your comments. Can you repost your remarks? I apologize, it was completely unintentional and had nothing to do with the content of your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all — I completely understand. These things happen! I’ll go ahead and repost my comment shortly. Thanks for letting me know. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I see you have deleted the page (Public Media Solution) I created for the reason of expired PROD which I strongly believe that the subject fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements and has multiple independent media overages within the page as well newer overages in case needed. Here is the link: Public Media Solution G Hiruja (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, G Hiruja,

 Done Public Media Solution has been restored. Just a head's up but often when this happens, the article is brought to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion so be aware that this can happen. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you have deleted WT:V5AE under G8 for being a talk page with no corresponding page. I ask that you restore this page, as the intention was for it to be a shortcut to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and everyday life, as the other four corresponding talk pages have them. These talk pages exist because the project was too large for a single talk page to handle all discussions. A shortcut would be very helpful for this page, so I kindly ask that you undelete it. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can request its undeletion at WP:REFUND. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, but I wanted to give Liz 24 hours to see and respond to this first, as a courtesy. Since no response appears to be coming, I will go make an undeletion request. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QuicoleJR, it looks like this situation has been resolved. It was an orphaned talk page and so eligible for CSD G8 speedy deletion but given your explanation, I tagged the page as exempt from CSD G8 rules. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Poutine
	In Canada, where I live, poutine is very common and tasty. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects

It looks pretty ooey and gooey but I appreciate the gift, Rafaelthegreat. Thank you for the well wishes! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I found your username under the list of admins willing to help with revdel requests and I believe I have one here, would you mind taking a look? Edit: also I just realized the original version of the article from 2023 also contains the same problem (as well as a new one). Thanks, Zzz plant (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zzz plant,

 Done It was only those two edits, right? Taken care of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did actually find more - all of the revisions from the creation date until it was fixed here. Thanks again, Zzz plant (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzz plant: Thanks for reporting this. In the future, when the content that needs to be removed is non-public personal information, it is highly recommended to avoid posting about it publicly on-wiki, even on user talk pages. Since many editors have admin user talk pages on their watchlists, posting about it here might inadvertently draw more attention to it. Instead, I would just stick to off-wiki methods like emailing the oversight team (which I know you did in this case—thank you for that).

@Liz: Just to let you know, I have elevated your revision deletions here to oversight. (I presume that may have been what you intended, but looks like you did not check the "suppress" checkbox when you redacted these diffs.) Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, I have no issue with this. I used to be able to suppress edits but I've run into problems with establishing the 2FA permission so I know longer can oversight. If you have any ideas how to master 2FA, it would be appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, since I have an iPhone, I am just using the built-in Apple Passwords app that should be there if you're using the latest iOS software. I just followed the standard instructions at H:ENABLE2FA. Is there a part of the 2FA procedure you are stuck on? I guess the biggest point of friction is probably installing an authenticator app on your phone to begin with. Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, you have to scan a QR code and either my phone doesn't scan it or it does and the QR code isn't recognized and is rejected. And without accomplishing that one step successfully, you can't move "forward" in the process. I last tried this two weeks ago so maybe I'll try again and see if I run into the same problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which app are you using the scan the QR code? Make sure you are using an app specifically designed for 2FA to scan the QR code. Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that was necessary so I did download a special app to do this. Again, it's been a while since I tried so I will need to try again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that- I’ve finally connected my account to email so I will utilize that going forward for anything oversight-y. Thank you both for your attention to this~ Zzz plant (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you asked me to provide diff's at ANI however I had to go to a funeral so never got a chance to reply at ANI and it seems that the conversation I started has been and gone, C'est la vie, :/ Govvy (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Govvy,

I'm sorry if you filed a complaint and it wasn't addressed. That sometimes happens and we have fewer admins who patrol the noticeboards than we did a few years ago. You can always "unarchive" the case if the problem still exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Liz! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DaniloDaysOfOurLives,

I do appreciate this greeting. I get the date mixed up (I always think my RFA was in July because it was a very hot week) so this is useful for me to keep track. Thanks for undertaking this project of yours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I mentioned at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dolesbang/Whatever the Plan 9 shows, you have to let the Chinese firefly go which is about the crooked talk page like Mush Yank used (now Eva Ux, but had several alts including Dolesbang) . I don't think you need to participate but wanted to let you know I did note you complained about it. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

I appreciate the notification. I've left a comment at the MFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This person has starred in three films: Koogle Kuttappa, Naadu and Surrender (2025 film). Sources: [15] [16] [17][18]. Can you treat this as a request for undeletion since you deleted the article (they sometimes restore articles deleted via AfD) and restore as a draft? DareshMohan (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

---

I'm heading out, but can you take a look at this set of diffs (which is at Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting)? It looks like LLM/AI text on a talk page, which I think is discouraged at WP:AITALK. Regardless, it's an RM that isn't posted correctly and we just had one closed a few days ago. Anything you can do if there is an issue would be appreciated. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ex-admin I was referring to is Tinucherian (signed in that discussion as "Tinu Cherian"). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, * Pppery *,

I appreciate the information, I didn't recognize the name. I'll adjust the closure statement. Very thorough deletion nomination statement by the way, I wish we had more editors who put the time into putting one together instead of just writing "Not notable" or "Fails GNG". Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put that much effort in because I was expecting the AfD to be disrupted by weakly-argued keep votes like Deanne's was, so wanted to make my case up front. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be republished, since the editors involved in the discussion you closed didn't consider that international tours are within the notability standards.

So I believe you could restore the deleted article and protect it from the same error.

^[1][2]

2804:3DF8:500E:E500:75F0:9315:4B37:2D62 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) WP:MUSICBIO says Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour; this is a stricter condition than simply having gone on an international concert tour. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2804:3DF8:500E:E500:75F0:9315:4B37:2D62.

I decline to revert my closure or reopen the deletion discussion. If you disagree with my closure, you can file an appeal at WP:DRV. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you on the AfD talk page. Hauskasic (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hauskasic,

No one looks at AFD talk pages so thanks for telling me. I'll consider your request but there were no editors arguing for a "Keep" so it seemed cut-and-dried to me. I'll think about it overnight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this "what links here" page. Is it the deleting administrator's responsibility to remove transclusions of deleted template pages? I don't know enough about deletion to know. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonesey95,

This is why I usually stay away from templates and closing TFDs. I've restored the page. Maybe an admin more familiar with templates can address this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, too confusing for me too. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't related to TfD.

Please see the global rename log and the resulting pages, which were deleted by User:Extraordinary Writ using XFDcloser on 9 August, following Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blitziko/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump

On 1 January 2025 Robertsky globally renamed Sangsangaplaz to Blitzkriegswunder – the moves of userspace pages following the rename caused the redirect User:Sangsangaplaz/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump to be created; it was G8 deleted.

On 2 January 2025 Robertsky globally renamed Blitzkriegswunder to All Tomorrows No Yesterdays – the moves of userspace pages following the rename caused the redirect User:Blitzkriegswunder/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump to be created; it was G8 deleted.

On 23 March 2025 Cabayi talk contribs globally renamed All Tomorrows No Yesterdays to Blitziko – the moves of userspace pages following the rename caused the redirect User:All Tomorrows No Yesterdays/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump to be created; it was G8 deleted.

The user is named Blitziko – the name User:Blitziko/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump is where the page was, and it was deleted per the MfD. The above redirects all pointed to it.

It is this page that Blitziko-then-Sangsangaplaz had moved on 4 December 2024 from Template:User Against Donald Trump to User:Sangsangaplaz/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump, i.e. to their userspace, citing WP:UM. This move left a redirect at "Template:User Against Donald Trump" and this redirect was replaced with {{User UBM UBX to}} (diff), creating a temporary and dependent sort of page.

It is this residual, temporary, and dependent templatespace page which Liz correctly deleted on 10 August. It is eligible for deletion under G6 (per the MfD) and G8 (dependent on a deleted page). It is understandable that Extraordinary Writ missed it.

The page should be deleted again. For the question of what to do with red links on user pages, they should be removed. This can be done after deletion, and anyone can do it. This is not a situation where something might break if a transcluded template is deleted. There is currently a transclusion redlink even of the actual Blitziko userbox and of "User:All Tomorrows No Yesterdays/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump". —Alalch E. 01:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alalch E.,

This is very kind of you to respond and provide all of this detailed information. I have a lot of daily tasks I'm involved in so I'll add this to the list. This doesn't seem urgent so I'm not sure when I, or another editor, will get to it. But I appreciate the time it took for you to pull this together.

Over the 10 years as an admin, I've made a couple of poor choices deleting templates so I usually stay far away from them because of all of the complications from transclusions. If you know of a quick way to take care of those links, I'd love to hear about it. If the only way is manual editing, then, as I said, I'll get to them when I can. Thanks again, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did miss Template:User Against Donald Trump, so you were right to delete it, Liz...feel free to redelete it when you get a chance. On the delinking question, I don't really have a firm opinion: it's fairly common to just leave the redlinks when a userbox is deleted, but I'm not sure if there's a specific reason for that. In this case I can just remove them manually. (Liz, the only automated way I know is to list the template at WP:TFD/H, where Primefac and Plastikspork have bots that can remove the transclusions.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusions of nonexistent pages in template space are most definitely not left as redlink transclusions. Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates is processed a few times per week, sometimes multiple times per day, to remove all such transclusions. The presence of this template page on that template was how I ended up here; admin-deleted template pages are rarely on that report, presumably because admins tidy them up, but I didn't know if there was an exception of some kind in this case. Hence my post. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How I wish -all- template discussions were at TfD and not split over several different venues... Anyways, regarding the templates, if there are many pages that need editing, just list the template over at WP:TFD/H and only delete when unused. Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello can you merge David Onama and Draft: David Onama? 109.245.196.169 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 109.245.196.169,

I haven't had any success merging articles in two different namespaces. You might try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was made person then made article without knowing there was draft already how can't you just merge them and history etc.. 109.245.196.169 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz hello? 109.245.196.169 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz hello? 109.245.196.169 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, why did you delete the page history for Coldplay jumbotron controversy? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jax 0677,

The closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldplay jumbotron controversy was Delete. In these situations, we typically delete the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re:": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CAx companies

In my past I used to edit CAD subjects, until I realized I cannot write on subjects where I am a professional: I thoroughy recognize my ignorance :-)

Please restore List of CAx companies in my user space, to let me see whether there is something salvageable in older versions, before it became spam magnet. CAD industry is massive and we do have numerous items in Lists of companies#By industry. an I am sure that List of CAD/CAM/CAE companies is no less deserving than List of food trucks. --Altenmann >talk 23:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Altenmann,

 Done As this AFD closure was a Soft deletion, I can restore this article which I have done. I don't feel comfortable moving it to your User space though as that would be seen as an act arising out of the AFD which is not the case. You can do the move yourself or perhaps ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to get an "official" approval for the move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Draft:John Hewitt Jellett Poole - Physicist from a redirect from mainspace nominated for speedy deletion. Found puzzling results:

• Though a claim of publishing over 40 papers, I find no mention of him or his papers in a Google search.
• The only references provided are to

1. Trinity College Dublin Calendars and
2. Finch, Eric (1992). Three Centuries of Physics in Trinity College Dublin. Hodges Figgis. ISBN 978-0951706213.

• This isbn links to White, Richard (1990). How Not to Deal with a Hoaxer.

I left a note on the talk page for the page creator, User:Gukecavoran (who has disclosed a paid relationship with Trinity College Dublin)

What do you make of this? I'm trying to take a wikibreak, so, won't be having much time to followup. — ERcheck (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird stuff going on there with the ISBN, but see [19]and [20] seems he actually did exist. Jahaza (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Report in Nature on the award of the medal.[21] Jahaza (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ERcheck,

I was just looking at this editor because I had to delete a broken redirect from a move of one of their articles. I believe their paid articles involve past faculty at College Dublin so I would need some real proof to believe they are writing a hoax article. But you have looked into this more than I have. I'll ping User:David Eppstein as he is our resident authority on articles on academics and he could probably easily judge whether or not this article is factually true. Any opinion on this, David? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, traveling today and no time to edit, so just a quick reply. Jahaza's Nature link checks out, so he existed and likely passes WP:PROF#C2, but the bogus ISBN suggests that the draft may be AI-created and TNT/WP:CSD#G15-worthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, thanks for taking time out of your travels to check in about this. Have a safe trip! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, you deleted Space invaders (film) as an R2, but this was a redirect from 2017. ColeFrye had moved it without leaving a redirect to draftspace, without explanation, resulting in the cross-namespace redirect. The ideal course of action should have been to revert the move, and not deletion. ColeFrye should have used content from the pre-redirect history for the draft, instead of the deletion that happened. Jay 💬 10:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I considered raising this at the draft's current deletion review, but it turns out the redirect was only ever in mainspace because of series of moves by Starzoner (talk · contribs · logs · block log). So this was a valid, if accidental, G5. —Cryptic 11:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jay and Cryptic,

It didn't look controversial to me since I see these every day. I should have looked closer. I've reverted all of the edits and page moves. I'm kind of busy at the moment but I'll leave a note for ColeFrye. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but once moved to mainspace, it wasn't reverted and was getting pageviews from 2020 (though not exceeding 1 per day). A page move without leaving redirect is equivalent to delete, and may be done for new pages, as part of the new page patrol, but not for existing redirects. Jay 💬 03:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I don't understand this, every day I delete cross-namespace redirects leftover from editors draftifying main space articles. Just straight up CSD R2s, from main space to Draft space. Are you arguing that we leave redirects from main space to Draft space? If not, what was special about this cross-namespace redirect that indicated that I shouldn't have deleted it? Any explanation would be welcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they're saying is that part of the R2 patrolling process is checking whether the draftification was improper. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages may be draftified, as I said. Pages older than 3 months should not, per WP:DRAFTNO. If an old redirect is being draftified, we would need an alternate (non-draft) target in its place, or be discussed at RfD. Jay 💬 03:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just acted in response to Jay's comment without reading through this entire discussion and reverted all of the action that have been taken. I'm not sure about the deletion review but have left a message there. I think I might have made things more complicated but I don't know how this all came out of a CSD R2 speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Humaira Hasan. 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. Ike Lek (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ike Lek,

Thank you for the notification. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your work, big dawg. I just compulsively created these pages to reduce red links—no deeper work intended on my part. Keep it up! Caramelia14 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caramelia14,

I'm not sure what you are referencing, are you talking about the categories you created? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Caramelia14 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That IP User (2605:B40:1302:6C00:4D2E:E922:7ACB:4B02 (talk)) removed edit to redirect the article 1304186269. Already same massage in talk page but no response. Please, I request the redirect to restored the Pathaan (YRF Spy Universe). Panda 🐼 Arun (Talk) 08:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Panda Arun,

I don't understand what you are asking me to do here. Could you explain it further? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pathaan (YRF Spy Universe) was kept after AfD (Result: Speedy keep).

An IP user removed the redirect in this edit.

Since the article was kept, I request that the redirect be restored. Panda 🐼 Arun (Talk) 04:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I am a new editor, I have removed my point I added on puppycorn's talk page, I would also like to say thanks for making sure this community sticks together, we love to spread correct information, and when Puppycorn was vandalizing Wikipedia pages, as well as doing fake apologies, I got mad and quickly without thinking made a bad decision, I hope you understand and I don't want this to hurt our friendship in the community in the future. Sorry for the late reply I have been busy even all summer, with some hobbies and plans, and have not had the time to contribute as much as I hoped when I created this account. Nebulaz (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nebulaz,

I have reverted your edit as it is improper to remove content from talk pages after there have been responses to it and you also removed my message. If you no longer believe in your remark, the appropriate thing to do is strike the content, like this <s>Comment</s> which will make the comment look like this Comment.

You don't need to apologize to me and I had to go back a few months to see what this was all about. I was just commenting that you were a very new editor and shouldn't be "correcting" others until you yourself learned more about how Wikipedia functions. That's all. Any way, that was 2 months ago so welcome back and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the redirect deletion in my watchlist. Looks like the move was inappropriate on Thilsebatti's part. In fact, considering the reason given in the move was "no sources", which is blatantly false on its face by a single glance at the article, I would just consider the move outright vandalism. Particularly since the mainspace name is still full protected (for some reason?) and thus the move can't be undone without an admin. Could you please move the draft back to mainspace, Liz? Silverseren^C 04:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The creator Behappyyar is blocked for UPE. Some of their creations must go through AFC process. Sometimes we have to ignore all rules. Thanks and regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And? The article has been massively rewritten by multiple editors since its creation, particularly by Alalch E. Unless you're accusing them of being a paid editor, then you have no standing for this action. Especially when you lied in your move reason. Silverseren^C 06:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you’re coming from, but my decision was based on the article’s creation history and the fact that the original creator is blocked for undisclosed paid editing. In cases like this, I believe it’s safer to put the page through AfC so that any lingering promotional tone or COI issues can be caught before returning it to mainspace. On the point that other editors have since worked on the article — I do acknowledge that, but experience has shown that pages with COI/UPE origins can still retain subtle promotional bias even after many edits. AfC review is simply a safeguard to make sure we’re meeting neutrality and sourcing standards. If consensus is to restore it, I’m fine with that, but my priority here was ensuring the content is clean and policy-compliant. I also want to be clear that I don’t appreciate the suggestion this could be “vandalism.” I acted in good faith, with the sole intention of protecting the encyclopedia from possible UPE-influenced content. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts are appreciated, but you should have looked at the talk page and page history. Alalch E. 06:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I should have double checked before moving to draftspace. Apologies for not doing that. Thanks for acknowledging my efforts. Will be more careful from now onwards. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Reverted: Please move Dananeer Mobeen (actress) to the intended name Dananeer Mobeen.—Alalch E. 06:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Silver seren, Alalch E., does that take care of things? This page title was protected because of previous sockpuppetry and UPE attempts to create an article here which is why I "re-"protected the page after the article was moved to Draft, apparently mistakenly. It is no longer protected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Liz. There was a big kerfuffle about the article a couple months back because of that, leading to Alalch E. rewriting the whole thing. I think we'd all thought that would be the end of it, especially since notability was no longer in question due to the subject's increased public prominence in the past year or so. Hopefully we are indeed done with this sort of thing now. Silverseren^C 18:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is good now. —Alalch E. 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the rewriting the article, Alalch E.. After 12 years here, I think more confusion arises out of undiscussed article page move than any other form of wayward editing. It's one of the first skills that new editors try out and a lot of editors use this function too spontaneously. I'm not sure what happened in this particular case but, overall, we see a lot of disruption on the project because of page moves in all namespaces. It's helpful for experienced editors to check on the Move log on a regular basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I mentioned in my {{PROD2}} didn't reappear when you deleted the article. Whew. Narky Blert (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Narky Blert,

Between hundreds of CSD G13s, dozens of AFDs and PRODs, I review hundreds of articles every day, you wlll have to refresh my memory on what you said or provide a link to the article so I can go see what was put on the article. I don't remember any one particular article at the end of the day. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the details, but 5 or 6 years ago there was an intractable DABlink error involving that subject and both a template and Wikidata, and the only way I could think of clearing it was to write that worthless article. Both are notorious among DABfixers for causing headaches. Narky Blert (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, on this AfD I'm concerned that the close didn't factor in how SportingFlyer provided many sources and an analysis thereafter that none of those advocating for a redirect rebutted. I simply don't see a consensus for the redirect. Can you please consider re-opening? Perhaps with a statement nudging participants to address SportingFlyer's source analysis, thanks. Left guide (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Left guide,

I don't think there was anything wrong with my close but I already have two closes at Deletion review and you have shown you have no compunction about bringing a fellow closer to DRV which I think is abominable, personally. But you don't care about collegiality. So, I've just reverted myself so I don't have to make third trip to DRV. And please only come to this User talk page to post obligatory messages. Good bye. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that when I challenged the original close, I had misread the consensus not having noticed SportingFlyer indicated they were fine with the redirect at the end of their comment, which IMO tips the scale of consensus to a redirect. It was a huge mistake on my part for which I am very sorry, and it has made me learn to be more careful and thorough with reading the full discussion before considering a challenge, especially from an experienced AfD admin like you. If this incident caused you any distress, it's 100% my fault and I deserve a {{trout}} for it. Left guide (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, hope you are well. We met in 2018. I also met your colleague/partner at Starbucks just before. I have a question about the Ron Mueck suits that have taken over every aspect of public life in London. Is this part of a trial test for a teck startup company or are they wearing these suits to hide their identity whilst they are robbing their own family community members? Zoe the original? (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

90 percent of London housing stock regardless if social housing estates, Leasehold or properties owned outright have been vacated/stolen and are empty, apart from pretend tenants whose job is to make the real inhabitants lives totally miserable and unbearable, including "actors" working for businesses surrounding these properties. The 10 percent left are still being hounded to death. I am one of those 10 percent.

When is this situation going to come to an end?

Surely the period of halving well over it's population is over by now. And it's time for everyone to start living again?

I recently discovered that Cadillac Fairview real-estate management company for Alberta Teachers Pension Fund have collaborated with Stanhope Foundation.

How exactly are the teachers of Alberta county going to raise funds for their pensions whilst all these properties remain empty? Zoe the original? (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed way more than these awful greedy coerced and brainwashed who have been robbing their own family and community members. I have contributed since I was a small baby to both Britain and America never ever having to go through another WWII or Vietnam situation. I have also contributed to the situation of the threat of global warming. I don't demand for money or jobs or privileges in return but simply to finally be able to live my life free from exploitation and abuse. 2A02:6B67:D0A5:E700:9E8:86A:E163:71AD (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I say I have contributed to the situation of the threat of global warming I meant not that I have contributed to global warming but the scientific exploration around combating it. Not contributing to it. And yet here I am being pushed to suicide by once human beings who have done the opposite. Zoe the original? (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These "actors" here in London still targeting innocent members of their own communities in London to make more empty housing aren't doing it because they care about the threat of global warming. Or that they have ever contributed in a way I have to global security but because it's the only time they have ever felt relevant. Or more to the point it's about absolute greed. Zoe the original? (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that they not only refuse to acknowledge, or are able to understand, and have since behaved even more appalling towards me after I wrote the last message, while trying to go about my day bashing physically into me on the street, and hounding and tormenting me even more whilst standing outside where I am currently staying proves my point about their state of minds. Zoe the original? (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zoe the original?,

I mean this with the utmost respect, Zoe, but I have absolutely no idea what on Earth you are talking about. We have no article on a "Ron Mueck Suits" and our article on Ron Mueck is on a sculptor, not a clothes designer. I don't live in London or the UK so have no opinion on whatever political or social problems are occurring there.

Wikipedia is also not a forum for discussion or debate, we are building an encyclopedia here, so if you are interested in discussing this situation, i encourage you to find a news website or try social media and you might find other people who are as interested as you are in this situation and want to enter into a debate. But it's not appropriate here. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate if you (or any watcher who’s an admin) can delete this page for me. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Reading Beans,

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz. I really do appreciate the swift response. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I'm sorry it took me so long to respond to your message at AN/I- I have been having technical problems, which I hope are now resolved. I had indeed notified Ssr on their Talk page in addition to my ping, as per the instructions.

Since the thread has since been archived due to my delay, I was hoping you might reinstate my original merge proposal which was reverted almost immediately without explanation. Ssr did include two rather cryptic links to discussions which occurred years ago and didn't reach a consensus, but hasn't engaged further. I am worried that additional attempts at discussion would be similarly unproductive due to what appears to be an extremely passionate history both on English Wikipedia and beyond. I was and continue to be very concerned that my efforts to get this reviewed fairly will fall flat due to lack of neutral editor engagement, and would really appreciate it if editors such as yourself could get familiar with the situation and chime in in a more definitive manner- all while including Ssr in the conversation, of course. Thank you for your attention here. MarcusEllington90 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MarcusEllington90,

It's not clear to me what you are requesting here. If you wish, I can take the brief discussion which was archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#Merge tags deleted for Burlakov case and put it on the current ANI page. But I can not guarantee any further action will be taken, editors are volunteers and they might or might not respond to the reposting of your comment.

By the way, when I went looking for the discussion you are referring to in the ANI archives, I found an earlier discussion from 2023 that you might be interested in reading over to put the discussion about this article into context. You can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Burlakov case and Oleg Burlakov multiple rules violation. Let me know how you would like to proceed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. If you think reposting is the way to go, I'd be happy for you to do so. However, I was hoping you might reinstate the merge request yourself after review, and perhaps even leave a comment with your opinion on the matter.

Thanks for the link you shared to one of the old discussions- Ssr actually shared that one with me as well. I'm struggling to identify how much of it is relevant or what my takeaways should be, as it focuses rather heavily on the editors in question and less on the content, sources and Wikipedia policies which have yet to be addressed by neutral editors. Through that discussion I stumbled upon this, as well- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive352- so it does seem that this issue has been raised at length before, but I wasn't involved and haven't found any sort of resolution or consensus across these various discussion boards.

Having disclosed my conflict, I believe I am working in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and would really like to get a policy-focused discussion started within the community. If you have guidance beyond reinstating the merge proposal, I'd appreciate that as well. Thanks again for all of your assistance with this! MarcusEllington90 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

We have been updating the Wikindx software page for years, just like the other 15 software programs on the Comparison_of_reference_management_software page. I also contribute to the latter page often. I don't see why Wikindx is being deleted. Isn't your reason in logs "This is clearly WP:YESPROMO and a violation of WP:SPIP. This software does not have anywhere near the WP:GNG to be considered for a wikipedia page." applicable to the 15 software programs on the Comparison_of_reference_management_software page. If so, delete them too, otherwise restore the Wikindx page. It is useful to users.

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

-- S. Aulery 85.115.60.201 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz deleted the article as an administrator because of an expired WP:Proposed deletion, however, it's likely that another user was the one who proposed the deletion. You can request that the article be restored at WP:REFUND, but it's likely that whoever proposed it for deletion will then seek its deletion via the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process.

Additionally, you should be aware that "it's just as notable as other thing X that has an article, which we refer to by the shorthand "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is considered a bad argument in a deletion discussion.

Finally, if "we" refers to the maintainers of Wikindx, be sure you're aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Jahaza (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 85.115.60.201,

Yes, Jahaza is quite right (and thank you for stepping in to explain, Jahaza), with PRODs, an admin will do the actual deletion of the page but it's the article tagger who supplies the deletion rationale so I didn't write it myself, I just carried out the deletion when the 7 day period had passed.

Also, as Jahaza states, Proposed deletion are a unique form of deletion on Wikipedia as an article can be restored upon request, either to me or by making a request at WP:REFUND. This is not true with most other forms of deletion although admins will sometimes restoring deleted articles and move them to Draft or User space (see the request below this one).

Would you like Wikindx to be restored? This is possible but you should know that the editor who requested the article deletion can always choose to nominate it for an AFD deletion discussion. But if that should happen, you can always make an argument that the article should be Kept or request that it be moved to Draft or User space. Let me know what you would like to happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

First, we, the developers of WIKINDX, are not the original authors of the Wikindx page but we update it on release time after discovering it with a lot of rotten content. And we also update Comparison_of_reference_management_software page (existing before our contribution indead) if needed.

The administrator isn't just there to follow procedures. Use your common sense. If I filed a deletion request with the reason WP:YESPROMO on Zotero, wouldn't you think twice about what you were doing upon expiry of the deadline?

There is a near certainty that most of pages about software on Wikipedia are updated with a conflict of interest. So this is not an argument.

If this last reason were really a serious issue, you would have to delete all the software pages, software comparison pages, and many others.

Invocing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not serious. Fairness exists. Not for me as the software author, but for the treatment of the material. In this case, if Wikipedia must have pages listing bibliographic management software, then Wikindx is a well-established player for 20 years that does not deserve to be deleted. At worst, you could restore an old version of the page that you consider acceptable, before our conflicting edits (if you could untangle the history!).

I consider your arguments to be unserious, both with regard to the reason for deletion and with regard to the possible elements unfavourable to restoration. There is even a coercive maneuver in the way you answer me, don't you think?

However, I am not here to force your hand but to appeal to your judgment, which is why I will not file a request for restoration. You are in charge, as you like to let people know by intervening to answer me instead of letting your colleague speak. Take responsibility by deciding for yourself.

Second, and this point is the most hurting, I don't understand why removing Wikindx page implied removing all citations of Wikindx on Comparison_of_reference_management_software page.

Comparison_of_reference_management_software is actually good stuff helping users and this correction is absurd. Anybody could recreate the Wikindx page later and contribute as expected, supporting the description of Wikindx in this page.

The text on this page contains no passages that could be considered a WP:YESPROMO reason. And if you claim that this is justified, then I will respond that your actions are absurd, that you have not taken the measure of your duties, and that you should delete the page and pages of all the software it cites, because it is clear that the mere fact of citing software on this page is a reason for WP:YESPROMO.

Your administrator duties would also require you to reserve the same fate for all similar pages to satisfy what I believe to be either an error of judgment or a flaw in Wikipedia's editorial policy.

Therefore, I ask you to restore the text describing Wikindx on the Comparison_of_reference_management_software page, as I think it's just a matter of mistake on your side.

Although I also think you should delete all these pages because I suspect your editorial policy is definitely flawed to the core.

Regards,

-- S. Aulery 82.216.149.47 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please userfy TheoretiCS or email its deleted content to me? I expect that in the coming year or so the journal will have been added to Scopus etc. and will meet the notability criteria; it will save me time then. Thanks! Jean Abou Samra (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jean Abou Samra,

 Done You can find it at User:Jean Abou Samra/TheoretiCS. Remember, you can not move it back to main space without first submitting it to WP:AFC for a review. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jean Abou Samra (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That gives me seven days to make template:cite bairds work and get used. Glad to get the external pressure to get it working. :)Naraht (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Naraht,

Well, good luck with that! What's important to remember about CSD C1 speedy deletion is a) it only takes one page to prevent a category from being deleted as "empty" and b) unlike other forms of deletion, categories that are deleted for merely being empty can be recreated whenever there is a use for them. You can just recreate the category yourself, ask an admin who deleted it or make a request at WP:REFUND. So, they are really a low risk type of deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete. this revision on the page Sheep? Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CyberTheTiger,

Well, there were more than a few to revision delete. But I think I got them all. Thanks for alerting me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, could you also remove this log from public view that falls under RD2? Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CyberTheTiger,

I don't think that would be appropriate as NIGGERS is a valid redirect page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey Liz, it looks like that was my mistake on that one. Even though the redirect is very old the article itself was created out of a redirect within the last week or so. Andre🚐 00:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andre,

You are correct, I just looked at the article creation date and time saw 2006, and didn't examine the entire page history. I still don't believe though that draftification was appropriate for such a developed article. What would you like to happen next here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a short discussion at the talk where @Kseni-kam has requested it be re-draftified. I personally agree with you that it is ready for mainspace and they should fix it there. Andre🚐 01:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I deproded that one about a half-hour ago. Sorry that I keep doing it so late, there's just an editor who nominates way too many of them which makes it very hard to get to them in a timely manner. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BeanieFan11,

You're right, you snuck in there and de-PROD'd the article a little while before I deleted it. I really, really wish you wouldn't wait until the very last moment to untag a PROD'd article. Is there a reason why you can't review them all the day before they are due to be deleted instead of a half hour before deletion? Then mistakes like this wouldn't happen. Thank you for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's just too many of them. There's like, at best, two others decent at this who look into some of these PRODs, and thus I'm left to spend hours and hours searching while we have one editor who can make as many nominations as he likes within minutes. Normally I'm busy with other tasks during the day – when there's up to 10-15 more from the same editor on a daily basis, I try to do what I can, but its hard for me to get to them all on a timely basis, especially given the many other tasks I'm usually working on. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BeanieFan11, I can think of 3 or 4 other editors who review PRODs, at least semi-regularly, but they are not all focused on sports figures like you are. I'm very busy, too, I think all of us who edit on a daily basis have our routine of tasks we attend to. You know that I have supported your work with PRODs, you just have to have to give patrolling admins so lead time and review PRODs 24 or 48 hours before they are coming due. Let's work together along with editors that have legitimate grounds for tagging articles for deletion. We do have a lot of crappy articles to clear out, we just have differences of opinion on which ones they are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's frustrating in this case is that I never see any effort to find sources or improve articles by this user. I don't know if I've seen one time where he said something like "here's what I found in a search" – its always the mass copy-paste "Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY" or explaining why my improvements aren't good enough. Sometimes I've even found extensive sources on the first page of a Google search, and whenever I ask about the extent of BEFORE searching I get some rude reply or accusations of "playing games"; repeated requests to slow down have been ignored. Once I spent like three hours researching and was able to save about 10 of them, only to find that he nominated even more new ones within minutes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deprod an article at 23:18, and within five minutes there's two new ones from the same user. This happens repeatedly – when I spend an hour translating e.g. questionable Iranian sites to save a few articles, then see twice as many new noms made within minutes of my deprods, it really feels like a big "f you" from an editor whom I've never seen evidence of BEFORE searching, who's never attempted to help out with these and only leaves rude replies or ignores pleas to slow down. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore Communist League (Nepal). I believe I was the creator of the article, and was never notified of any prod. -- Soman (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

actually, on a second look, seems like it was not on my watchlist. --Soman (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Soman,

 Done Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: I received a request today to restore Australia–North Macedonia relations which I deleted for G5 about 2 weeks ago. (I undeleted for easier review.) A diff of the "current" version and the last edited by the sock agrees with the comments made by the nominator (see below):

You recently pointed out to me (see my talk page) that CSD#G5 should not be applied if substantial edits had been made since creation by a banned user. About a week earlier, I deleted Australia–North Macedonia relations, which had a G5 tag. On the talk page, the nominator had left a note: "I've checked, and all non-sock edits to the article seem to be ref fixes, AWB runs, copyedits, or else really minor."

Would you please take a look at the restored page and weigh in on whether it qualifies for G5 deletion? — ERcheck (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ERcheck,

I'm flattered that you are asking me for my opinion. Judgment about tagging for CSD G5s can be subjective, I think. There are some editors who tag all page creations by sock puppets for speedy deletion if there is a single edit by them that started the article or draft. Maybe because I have been petitioned often by editors complaining about the deletion of these articles, I'm more liberal by what I judge to be "substantial contributions" by other editors. Typically, it means adding content to an article or draft and not adding a solitary reference, fixing a typo or adding a category to the page. I would think that this edit would count as a contribution to this article but it's true that there are no large edits here that are adding entire paragraphs of new content to this article.

But there is an even bigger point that makes this article not valid for a CSD G5 speedy deletion. The page creator was ZaDoraemonzu7 and, according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZaDoraemonzu7, ZaDoraemonzu7 was not a block-evading sockpuppet but a sockmaster. The purpose of CSD G5 is to discourage editors from evading their blocks by creating sockpuppets and editing the project. But it appears that this editor was not evading a block at the time of the article creation. Some editors believe G5 is for tagging articles by any editor who socks but that's not true, at the time of the article creation, the editor making the first edit has to be evading a previous block. Generally, creations by sockmasters and even recently discovered sockpuppets aren't eligible for G5s because these editors aren't evading any block at the time when they created the article.

This is why CSD G5s are trickier than they appear and why you have to be careful if an eager editor just goes through all of the page creactions by a sockmaster and fills up the CSD G5 category. You have to look at each article or draft and ask yourself: Are there substantial additions to the article by other editors? When was the article or draft created? Was the page creator evading a block on another account at the time they created the article or draft? Unfortunately, there have been times when patrolling admins have been less than careful and just batch deleted the entire CSD G5 category of pages but this goes against the guidelines of the criteria and also isn't fair to editors who might have contributed to these articles.

Sockpuppetry is peculiar in that it is a misconduct that some editors can get overly zealous about. I trust the folks working at SPI to be careful about their article and draft deletions but some editors who do the tagging are still learning the ropes and I have also had to revert a lot of CSD G5 taggings over the years. And you can always do what some admins patrolling CSD categories do and just work on those criteria that are more clearcut to you. Let me know if you have any other questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse things more, I just rechecked my comment and I was incorrect. ZaDoraemonzu was the page creator and ZaDoraemonzu7 was the sockmaster. So, they WERE evading a block at the time of article creation. This kicks things back to the first point I was making. I wouldn't delete this article as a G5 because I think the other editors' contributions were significant enough to count but, I must admit, that other admins would disagree with me. So, it comes down to your own judgment and, frankly, if you want to get into a debate about it with the article tagger. I'm sorry for my response being confusing but I thought for transparency sake, I should leave my original remarks because they do make an important point even though I was wrong, wrong, wrong on the identify of the article creator. The names were nearly identical and I confused the two accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz - Thanks for your thoughtful and informative response. I'm happy to learn something new. — ERcheck (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is me to thank you dear Liz for your kind interest in my draft. I hope it would be accepted this time. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofreader 02 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proofreader 02,

If you are talking about Draft:Mu'taz Zaki, I just posted a standard notification that it had been deleted as a stale draft because no one is currently working on it. We do this if a draft has been inactive for 6 months or longer. It can be restored if you plan on working on it again either by asking me or by putting in a request at WP:REFUND.

If you are talking a different draft or version of that draft, it should be submitted to Articles for Creation for review. If you have questions about any of these points, you are welcome to bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors are around to help you with advice and support. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz; I hope this finds you well. Actually the following is a link to the draft that I mean. A friend of mine and I have been recently working on it, and it is being reviewed at the moment. I hope no confusion is there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moataz_Zaky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofreader 02 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the reason for deletion is that the place was not an "unincorporated community", I don't see how it's appropriate to redirect to a list of supposed communities unless someone shows that the deletion rationale was actually incorrect. In this case that wasn't even attempted. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hrllo, Mangoe,

I was swayed by User:The Bushranger's comments. I'd rather not revert and relist if possible because I don't see other outcomes happening here. Would you consider taking this to RFD instead? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's where it's headed. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. You left a message on my talk page yesterday - I am hoping you have had a chance to see this and this for context on why I returned the article to draft. Another admin (Sergecross73) had expressed his disapproval of the prose and had added a copyedit banner to the article. Having discussed this on the talk pages I linked above, it was agreed that sorting out the prose ASAP was the best thing to do, as otherwise the public would be reading an article that wasn't yet ready. I take responsiblity for accepting the draft at AfC before it was ready. You directed me to the Teahouse, however now that the issue has been resolved I do not feel I need to go there. I am also currently completing NPP/S, so I appreciate your linking me to WP:DRAFTIFY. Unfortunately, that page does not explain what to do in the exact scenario that played out yesterday (an admin disapproving of an article that had been approved through AfC). I understand you are busy, however an explanation for future occurrences should they happen, would be appreciated. I don't expect a reply here, so in the event you don't see this or choose not to reply, I wish you the very best and happy editing! 11WB (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 11wallisb,

Thank you for the lengthy explanation. I didn't know the history of the article, I just saw that it was created in 2023 and you draftified it so I wanted to inform you about our policy on draftification. It looks like this is an exception to the rule. Thank you for the work you are doing, working with draft creators. You are clearly giving it a lot of care and attention. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz! I actually hadn't fully read the draftity policy in full yet, I was hesitant to move the article back to draft as I don't yet have NPP rights, however after reading WP:DRAFTONCE, I decided to go ahead and do it! I had some assurance that Sergecross would likely immediately see what I had done in response to his edit to the article. I want to apologise for pinging you in multiple places, I realise now your notices and alerts are very likely overwhelmed - thought that leaving a direct talk page message would be the best chance of you seeing a message from me! You have my complete respect for the sheer amount of you do on the project, you are without question one of the largest net positives on the entire site! I also appreciate your words on care and attention, I believe that communicating with the authors of drafts and articles whether declined or accepted, is important - otherwise we wouldn't make any progress at all! All of this is a learning process for me at the moment, so any help and advice I receive I am truly grateful for! Cheers! 11WB (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in 2023 in draftspace; it was only moved to mainspace less than a week ago. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, while this isn't as relevant, the initial 2023 version wasn't even about Sonic at all; it was only in 2024 that it was turned into a Sonic fandom draft.) jlwoodwa (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just as a quick explanation, I moved an article I accepted too early through AfC back to draft - from this edit by SC73. Liz then reverted my return to draft as it was against procedure. SC73 is aware of this, and is planning to re-review next week to see if it qualifies for the copyedit banner to be removed! All of this is resolved now, this talk page discussion was simply to let Liz know the details! The main mistake here was me accepting the draft through AfC before it was ready! 11WB (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to ask what to do if this scenario occurs in the future! I think if this were to occur in future, I won't move anything and instead leave it to the admin managing the situation. 11WB (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don’t understand why I’m a SPA when I stated my goal on my user page ruefully was to focus on editing hulk hogan and wrestling pages. HHH Pedigree has very much the same biography, and I had used his biography as inspiration when I wrote mine… yet you didn’t bring accuse him of being a SPA. These and various reasons is why I was shocked to see how slanted your replies were and I’d like to discuss with you why you didn’t see any similarities in the accusations you took to my edits with HHH Pedigree, LM, and Random’s Edits. Ok the talk page I gave many specific examples where they treated positive information not to the same standard as negative information. Even deleting positive information and adding unnecessary negative quotes and comments. Clearly a truly unbiased admin would also notice this pattern? I also would like an apology still for the tone you used in your replies to me also, subjecting my edits as less than because I have not been a member for as long as HHH Pedigree was rude. HHH Pedigree clearly didn’t like my challenges to the consensus they were trying to build on Hulk Hogans page and where I pointing out how the appeared bias. Instead of thanking me and fixing his edits to appear not bias, he went on a witch hunt and tried to begin an edit war on multiple other Wikipedia pages… DELETING THOUSANDS OF WORDS OF CONTENT excessively deleting what I wrote. It’s clear if his edit intentions were good on the other two pages, then he would have edited my content and not deleted every single word on two separate pages. He clearly was hoping I would restore to the latest revision to entrap me in a edit war. Hoping I’d go back and forth and delete his content 4 times to get me banned. I never did that, I have not gone back and added any of my contact back after I realized his plan. That’s why I reported his actions to admin board. Did you investigate this? I feel if he didn’t like my content then he should have edited it down or added contributions for clarity, it doesn’t seem like good Wikipedia decorum to delete all of my contributions not leaving behind even a single letter. Wouldn’t you be upset if this happen to articles you spent a long time researching and contributing for? Clearly that can’t be proper for Wikipedia? All of my edits were well researched and included legit citations from media and books; not overly relying on blog posts. The only mistake my coach says I made, is I composed it in google docs and not directly into the editor; and that statistical info (which I didn’t post anything but dates when events happen and stats about the records broken for Andre matches; which I still think deleting those is rather obsessive but I’m not going to argue with this statistical precedent Wikipedia has about dates and record stats. This is odd to me, because stats and records are normally part of athletes sports encyclopedia. If a movie sold record breaking tickets, I would think Wikipedia would encourage to listing of how many tickets were sold for the record to be achieved.)I’m also just really curious why you felt the need to degrade my edits because I’m a new member? I’m looking forward to your replies and please only use polite responses. Thanks you. Edit4Peace (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hello, Edit4Peace, I recommend you look over Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. It is not against policy to be a SPA. Many editors start out as SPAs. And your User page specifically says that you are here to work on the Hulk Hogan article and correct what you believe are its deficiencies. You don't seem to have interest in editing articles on subjects other than Hogan and wrestling. Correct me if I'm wrong. You accuse other editors of bias but you are an unabashed Hulk Hogan fan so I don't see how you can see yourself as neutral. You want more positive content on Hogan's page about his career achievements and less content focusing on controversies in his life. This is not a Neutral point of view which is what we strive for at Wikipedia. There is a tag on the Hogan article stating that it was seen as "too long" and editors are responding to this situation by paring down the content and removing repetive or unnecessary content, a step which you object to. It seems like you don't want any content removed from the article unless it reflects badly on Hogan and his image. We are all volunteers here on this project so I'm not obligated to investigate any particular situation. I'm an administrator, I have a lot of maintenance tasks on my plate plus I also serve on the Arbitration Committee, all of which take up a lot of my time. I spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia but I do not have time to review the conduct of every editor who has been accused of misconduct or look at every article where there is a disagreement. I only came across you because of the complaint on ANI, otherwise I would probably have never crossed paths with you because I have absolutely no interest in articles on wrestling or its celebrities. I'm sorry if you feel your edits have been targeted. I can't confirm or deny that this is the case but I'm sure that is frustrating. All I can say without knowing more is that you are a very new editor to the project and perhaps you need more experience so that your edits aren't reverted. I'd ask, in a neutral way, for more information from editors who work on this articles. Approach the situation not as a battlefield but as a collaborative venture. I recommend visiting the Teahouse with your question. When I was a new editor, I thought a lot about quitting because I was so frustrated with other editors and some of Wikipedia's policies and I went to the Teahouse a lot and found it a very supportive environment. I have to get back to my daily tasks but I hope I've addressed some of your concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hi Liz thanks for your reply, but it appears to me you have not looked into this situation with any detail. Because any who is neutral would discover that I have not deleted negative information about hulk hogan. However the other editors are guilty of minimizing his accomplishments and amplifying his negative aspects. Just look at how the lead to his page ends “In 2012, the media company Gawkerpublished portions of a sex tape, which later had portions leak in which Hogan was heard using racial slurs. Hogan sued Gawker, which was found liable and subsequently declared bankruptcy. Despite this legal victory, Hogan's reputation has been described as "permanently tarnished", a view reflected in the mixed public reaction to his death in July 2025.” which is not true; Hogan did successfully recover his brand. Also the scandal happened in 2015. It appears to any reader leaving hulk hogans page like this that he did nothing of importance for ten years. When you can find many citations showing this scandal wasn’t the final note that HHH Pedigree, LM, and Ringerfan23 are so desperate to make as the final impression readers should receive on hulk hogans Wikipedia page.the last paragraph is too long and full of unnecessary information the day they want to trim, which they have if it’s a positive reflection of hogan. This actually isn’t my main concern. I will follow up with why I brought a administrative post and IT Wasnt to debate what hogan did and did not do; it was to stop a edit war which I feel you have only helped escalate. Edit4Peace (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] After joining the Hulk Hogan talk page discussions, user HHH Pedigree took issue with my comments about other editors’ contributions. Soon afterward, he deleted all of the content I had added to two unrelated wrestling pages. I believe this was retaliatory, excessive, and not in good faith, seemingly aimed at provoking an edit war. He gave minimal edit summaries and stopped engaging with me entirely. They also never explained why all of my edits across multiple pages were removed in the same hour. Rather than restore the content and risk escalating things, I opened a discussion on an administrative noticeboard to resolve the issue peacefully. Unfortunately, the discussion became one-sided. Another user, Ringerfan23, followed the same pattern, removing all of my contributions from the Virgil (wrestler) page and labeling me a “problem user” in the edit summary, again without prior discussion. These mass deletions seem retaliatory and targeted. I’ve responded respectfully, answered every question, and provided reliable sources to support my content. My replies were detailed and in good faith. This seemed to only frustrate these two users further. I’ve also observed edits that appear intended to cast Hulk Hogan in a negative light, possibly in bad faith, but I acknowledge that proving intent is difficult. What I can show is a pattern of retaliatory bulk deletions, a refusal to engage collaboratively, and behavior seemingly intended to push me into violating policy. My concern is not about content disputes regarding Hulk Hogan. I understand editorial disagreements happen. What I am objecting to is the mass deletion of my edits, many of which were properly sourced, across multiple unrelated pages. These were removed without sufficient explanation or discussion. I’m asking for a fair opportunity to contribute. Please ask HHH Pedigree and Ringerfan23 to stop blanket deleting my work across multiple pages. I welcome revisions and constructive feedback, especially since I’m still learning formatting and editing guidelines. But removing all of my work without review is not constructive and undermines Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit. I’ve spent considerable time researching and contributing to these pages. It’s unreasonable to believe that all of my content was invalid. I’m seeking a fair path forward, not conflict. Thank you for your time and help. Going to the admin page clearly didn’t help, my issues wasn’t even discussed and just escalated into a twisted hulk hogan debates unrelated to the reason I brought it up to the admin talk page. what is the next step forward? Because it’s clear these users are going to continue to excessively delete all my future contributions on other wrestling pages and continue a edit war. here are links so you can see there timeline of edits and the massive excessive deletions of all my content. HHH Pedigree NWA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NWA_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history HHH Pedigree WCW: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WCW_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history Ringerfan23 Virgil: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_(wrestler) Ringerfan 23 Hogan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_Hogan&action=history Edit4Peace (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hello, Edit4Peace, Let me put this discussion into perspective. I have made 840,757 edits on this project and I look at hundreds of pagea every day as part of my job here. I am a very, very busy administrator. I'm not going to spend any more time looking into this situation. I took some time to respond to your messages as a courtesy but, as I said, I have a lot of work to do and no interest in wrestling. I tried to point you in the direction of some resources but that's the extent of my help. Again, as I've said, we are all volunteers and it's time for me to fix dinner. Good luck with your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Wow! You won’t even read my statement and reply? I knew you were a biased individual. I strongly suggest that if you feel you don’t have enough to time to quickly settle conflicts that you retire. I used to be a teacher, and when I heard responses like this when reports of bullies were brought to my colleagues attention I knew who I was talking to someone in the wrong job. hour reply send one clear message, you know I am right, what HHH pedigree and Ringerfan23 are doing is against Wikipedia policy and YOU HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO ACT. shame on you! I suggest you retire to a job where the basic functions of a admin don’t hassle you. shame on you! To think the ams belittlement you have heaped on me. What hypocrite. Edit4Peace (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] And I remind you, you wouldn’t have been hassled by this at all if you had just simply did 2 minutes of investigation and asked HHH Pedigree to stop deleting all my content. yet hear you are, still avoiding conversations with me. the irony of lazy people! What could have ended in minutes because you “don’t have time” has not cost you perhaps 10 to twenty minutes of your time. Which actually the irony now makes me laugh. Edit4Peace (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] I’m disappointed by your accusations you are making on the hogan talk page and hope you will set a better example for Wikipedia in the future, and not further escalate the arguments and instead take a neutral view and settle them. I don’t believe your story anymore that you are to busy writing about slugs. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Edit4Peace: I would strongly recommend that you make a few thousand edits entirely outside your area of personal interest in order to gain an understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia before returning to edit in your area of interest. BD2412 T 16:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 76.8.171.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Liz :) Do you think the IP user you blocked at the Hulk Hogan talk page might be a good fit for an IP address hardblock? It would also mitigate any potential loutsocking. Take care --tony 05:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TonySt,

To be honest, I'm not an admin who gives out a lot of blocks and when I blocked this account, I just went with the default Twinkle settings. I wasn't sure what to do because it's only a 31 hour block and typically our NLT blocks are indefinite. Maybe a TPS can offer me some advice on what next steps to take. Can I assume you think it might be a sock? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TonySt,

It turns out that it wasn't that complicated after all. Now, all editors from this IP address are blocked, at least for 31 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response :) And to answer your earlier question, yes, that was my motivation for the suggestion (potential loutsocking). Take care --tony 05:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your suspicions are correct, and I feel they might be, that will give us a bit of a break from the relentless arguing. And if we're wrong, we haven't lost much. What I'm not sure of is what to do after 31 hours if the IP account hasn't retracted their legal threats. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BING BING BING! After my reading of the Edit4Peace contributions, I lacked a couple of offenses to complete my card. The legal threat (from an ip) gave me the rare double bingo. Hang in there, sis. Wrestling promotes a wide variance from normal fighting. Lots of it just for show, but contact is still made. BusterD (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz. Sorry to bother you. Remember the user who complained about the Hulk Hogan article? Looks like the user is back as IP on the Hulk Hogan talk page --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. I'd like to double-check with you whether, after an article is deleted via the PROD system, it's OK to create a redirect in its place after the event. I've been assuming it is, since there is nothing wrong with creating such a redirect while the PROD is still live, but don't want to find myself in the wrong for some obscure technical reason that I'd overlooked. Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ingratis,

I don't see any problems with creating a Redirect unless, at some point, an editor asks for a deleted article that was PROD'd to be restored. In that case, the deleted edits would be restored and the article "rolled back" before the Redirect was created. That's just a guess as I've never seen this happen yet. But, no, I don't think you're doing anything wrong in creating a redirect where there was once an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful - thank you! Ingratis (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz,
Thank you for taking the time to review the matter. After giving it further thought, I would still like to share a few points for your consideration.
Generally speaking, when someone brings a concern to ANI, unless the situation is very clear-cut — such as cases involving TPA abuse that clearly warrant revocation — it may be more appropriate to allow the sysops to assess what kind of action, if any, is necessary. Alternatively, it could be helpful for other experienced editors to offer suggestions on how to handle the situation, rather than the reporter directly requesting a block.
As far as I understand, you are a sysop, so when you mentioned that "it's not clear to me what action you are seeking by opening this complaint" I was a bit surprised. Even a response like "no action is necessary in this case" might have provided more direction or clarity. My intention in reporting the issue was to raise awareness and to see how others — including sysops or community members — might think the situation should be addressed.
That said, since some time has now passed, I want to understand if it’s concluded that no further action is required. Still, I appreciated the chance to bring it forward and get some perspective on it from others. -Lemonaka 09:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lemonaka,

I think we see the purpose of ANI differently. It sounds like you want it to be a forum where editors can consider and discuss different conflicted situations. I see it as an "action board" where editor bring complaints about "urgent, intractable behavioral problems" that need to be taken care of right away to prevent further disruption on the project. I think asking "what do you expect/want to happen?" is a legitimate question to raise. Are you looking for editors to be sanctioned? Pages protected? ANI is not the Village Pump page for consideration of proposals or problems. Ideally, complaints brought to ANI are handled promptly unless it's important to get a consensus from uninvolved editors.

I'm sorry if my blunt responses were seen as unfriendly as that was not their intention. Sometimes, when a complaint isn't getting much of a response from noticeboars watchers, I'll pose a question to the OP in an attempt to nudge things along so the discussion starts moving forward. I assume what the OP DOESN'T want is no response at all and for the complaint to be archived without anything happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LightlySeared (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz. I rejected this draft due to it being LLM output and the references being "example" webpages that don't exist. The author who submitted this [22] only has 1 edit which is the AfC submission and appears to be a similiar IP to this [23]. The IP was originally partially blocked for disruptive talk page edits. This user User talk:Mahezama also submitted that draft to AfC, I suspect that may be another account that belongs to the partially blocked IP. If I've got this wrong I apologise, though it looks like it is the same editor. Would appreciate if you could take a took? Thank you! 11WB (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft article excluding the IP question should not be rejected. Even if it is LLM written or has broken links, unless there is no further improvement (continuous), you should not have rejected it. Even many experienced admins keep away from straight away rejecting LLM articles to allow new users some space to understand. It appears part of your another wrong review similar to this one [24] where you have conflict of interest given prior not so heart to heart discussion and your comment for another reviewers review which was expected, but again you went ahead and declined it with same unreflective proportion of not so guidelines based review. As per the conversation done here, this was closed with further review agreed upon by another reviewer as was agreed upon before as well but now with the admin involved here. Rest is valid.

New editors or any drafts are not presumed not notable just because a reviewer feels like it and you have to be serious on the work as a reviewer to go through links and search for it yourself as part of reviewer tools available, "mentioned in the guidelines". Not every draft will be fully sourced or will it be in the best of grammar but we guide as reviewer and not get into being adamant on our review is the right one as you have done on my draft and I am not sure about others as well. Liz if available will guide you better on this. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 08:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to @HilssaMansen19's message above. They are correct that draft rejection at AfC is done on the grounds of the draft subject not being notable. I should have clarified that this draft was rejected for this reason, as the references—which were generated by AI—do not link to any actual webpages. This means notability cannot be proven in any way from this. My reason for posting here is due to the potential IP block evasion I saw in the drafts' edit history. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great that you shared that. I did a search myself and the subject has no significant coverage or any at all that is easily available. Given the circumstances, you can also reach out either via commenting, declining it or direct talk page (in case Notability may exist for example, the full name might not be the right one to search with; thus, the confusion and writer may provide better context). Increasing use of LLM is truly not so good in the articles as I had to double check some articles given that they look perfect but tools suggest LLM; again the tools themselves are not perfect either. If proper use is done unlike the ones with "the not working links" and are per Wikipedia guidelines, no issues arise with accepting that but check strictly per LLM guidelines). Understanding from the submitters or writer's point of view is the very normal choice given many confusions and if it is truly something that is not per the guidelines or is not "positively acceptable and readable" (long to explain; guidelines-in short), the idea of rejecting it exists. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would I become one of the administrators exactly, I am considering nominating myself to become a administrator. shane (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I recommend reading Wikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, shane,

Well, over the years, a lot of policy and guides have been debated and created to answer this exact question. jlwoodwa has provided a link to a very brief advice page that you can start with (thank you, Jlwoodwa). I'd recommend reading all of our policy pages on Administrators to know about the position and Requests for Adminship (see also Guide to requests for adminship to know about RFAs, which is typically how an editor becomes an administrator although we now have Administrator elections which are held several times a year.

There are pretty minimal requirements that have been set to qualify but I'd say the average successful admin candidate has at least two solid years of regular editing experience and at least 10-20,000 edits although there have been a few successful candidates who did not had this much editing experience, usually because they had a track record of excellent work. It helps if you have done some content creation but are also familiar with the different administrative areas of the project. Once you have acquired enough experience and you believe you might be successful in an RFA or an election, it's wise to try out Optional RFA candidate poll where experienced editors tell you what they believe your chances are to be successful in an RFA. Even if they think your odds are bad, it can be useful to get their feedback so you know areas of the project you might work in to get more valuable experience.

I'll be blunt and tell you that the process of becoming an admin can be grueling, my own RFA was divisive and I remember it being a painful experience but there have been other editors who breezed through their RFAs so you never know. The RFA poll can be a helpful indicator of whether you can expect your fellow editors to support you or be harsh with their criticism. After you read all there is to read over, if you have more specific questions, come back, talk to another admin or go to the Teahouse for support. Happy reading! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Nice to connect with you!

I am writing to you about a draft page I was working on, Draft: Storm Ventures, which you deleted under criterion G13 for abandonment.

I am an employee at Storm, but I am working to create a neutral, well-sourced article that adheres to all of Wikipedia's guidelines. I understand and have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page.

I was not involved in the previous draft, and only found out it was deleted as an abandoned draft when I was ready to submit my new draft. Before I submit the new version, the submission page advised me to contact the deleting user.

Would you be ok if I submit my new draft for review? I am committed to following all of Wikipedia's policies and want to ensure I am doing so correctly.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Sincerely, Stormie Stormie weather (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stormie weather,

Sure, you can submit a draft for WP:AFC review or if you had a previous version that was deleted as a stale draft (CSD G13) I can restore than for you. Please read over WP:COI and make sure you tag your User page as you are considered a paid editor (see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz! Stormie weather (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, asking you as an admin who closes many discussions. This was closed on 18 August but it hasn't been merged. Do you know how to get it merged? I vaguely remember closed CfDs for merging/deletion need to be listed somewhere. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LibStar,

It's only August 21st (where I'm at) and this discussion closed on August 18th? It can take weeks for CFD decisions to come to reality. CFD is a very peculiar area because there are probably less than 10 editors who participate there as discussion participants and they also help with closures, the closer doesn't handle the actual renames and recategorizations. There is a bot that handles the recategorizations but if you look at the working page, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, you can see how backlogged things are. That is why CFD participants often just handle simpler recategorizarion projects manually themselves. Things are much more swift in AFD and RFD areas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, please could you userfy the recently prod-deleted Institute for the Encouragement of Scientific Research and Innovation of Brussels so I can have a look at it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andreas Philopater,

 Done You can find it at User:Andreas Philopater/Institute for the Encouragement of Scientific Research and Innovation of Brussels. Sorry for the overly long page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to know what the 55 revisions that were undeleted were. This page is of interest to me as I discovered the undisclosed COI that led to the bad-faith AfD. (And a whole, whole lot more.) Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sammi Brie,

Oh, just look at the page history and you can see it there. The editor who sought to have the article deleted this year had PROD'd it in 2022 and since there were no objections, it was deleted. That's why I felt comfortable restoring the old edits to the current article. As a point of curiosity, the same editor PROD'd the new version of the article at least two more times so they were not well-versed in our deletion policies and didn't know an article can only be PROD'd once. They were very determined to see this article gone though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am incredibly not surprised, given what I know and told COIVRT when this whole saga kicked off (but can't put here because it'd be outing the editor). Egregious, malicious, bad-faith dealing where the pot called the kettle black while being made of vantablack. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sammi Brie,

They tried out all of our forms of deletion--first CSD, PROD and then AFD--to get rid of that article. When they turn their back on an organization, it's all of the way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without saying much more, there is a paragraph in the current revision of this article that is particularly relevant. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to get a WP:REVDEL of Special:Diff/1307361549, and maybe a block of the IP? Looks like someone's personal info. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Locke Cole,

 Done Thanks for the alert. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, sorry in advance about bringing up again the Hulk Hogan article drama you and a few admins were involved in last week. Recently on the talk page you blocked an IP user for making legal threats. Today they have come back and are doubling down on their earlier statements in the thread ("I stood [sic] by my earlier comment. I've also Contacted TKO Group Holdings, (James Ray Hart)Jimmy Hart, Sky Daily and World Wrestling Entertainment to get word around,"). Please could you review? I worry this is going to be a recurring problem.

Edit: I believe blocked user Edit4Peace is using a new IP to get around his ban here based on this comment left by a new user.

Best wishes, RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks for the keen eyes. BusterD (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BusterD. At least we now know that a lot of this activity is coming from a Facebook group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response both! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Verma got deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (3rd nomination) later came into spotlight after the rerelease of the film Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film) as it became the highest grossing re-released film in List of highest-grossing re-released Indian films. and his Iconic Theme melody made headlines, like [25], [26], [27], there are many articles available that clearly shows his work are borderline GNG as there are sources available which shows he has worked in films like Prem Ratan Dhan Payo, Action Jackson (2014 film), Saansein etc, There are also headlines which show him making dent as an indie artists like GQ[28], The Hindu [29] & [30] and others like This, This & This, I wanna reconstruct the article and make it ready for the mainspace, please lemme know what is your opinion over this.

Thanks Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 16:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) For the record, Suryabeej is a good-hand sock of the Vivek k. Verma UPE sockfarm, who's been, for reasons requiring an essay to explore, allowed to hang around and probe our defences for a way to sneak this one article through, instead of the usual insta-block and investigation of their contribution history. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool, Surya was reported in connection with that farm, but the evidence provided was so unpersuasive a CU did not even make a check. Accordingly this looks like an aspersion, and I suggest you either strike it or file an SPI with clear evidence. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of what you're thanking me for. Accordingly it reads quite aggressive to me. If that was out of a presumption of compliance, I will have to respectfully decline for it could not possibly be a casting of aspersions to bring up for the first or the second time ever the possibility that someone who's been repeatedly trying to get published the one article that's the signature of a well-known sockfarm, and of comparably passionate interest to conceivably no one else, may in fact belong to that sockfarm, in a thread that was started by the same someone in yet another attempt to get published that same article. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool, you said, to quote, Suryabeej is a good-hand sock of the Vivek k. Verma UPE sockfarm. You said this with zero evidence provided. That is absolutely casting aspersions, and I am shocked that you would do so, as I know you to be quite familiar with SPI. Again: if you think they are a sockpuppet, file an SPI. If you do not, please retract the statement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the bluelink in the sentence you quote? I have provided plenty of evidence, both direct and argumental. That you can not identify them or find them insufficient or unpersuasive does not equate to me having provided none. And it is perfectly reasonable to bring SPI/ANI business to an admin's talk page (esp. when it's pertinent to something already under consideration there); in fact, that's where most such business is conducted. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, you may not refer to users in good standing as socks unless it is to report them for sockpuppetry. Doing so is casting aspersions, and is blockable. The SPI you link to ended with no sanctions: it is not evidence of misconduct on Suryabeej's part. If you have evidence for a fresh SPI please file it.

Suryabeej, this retaliatory nonsense needs to stop. That is also disruptive, and will earn you a block if you persist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, @Vanamonde93, you too? What do you think I am doing here? I am reporting them for sockpuppetry to an admin. This can't possibly be the first time either of you have seen a sock being reported to admin talk instead of SPI. I guess I need to reset.

Let me try again. The evidence isn't the botched SPI filing that has a whole story in itself that's relevant but not necessary here. The evidence is that the SPI is for "Vivek k. Verma". The second piece of evidence is that the WP:DUCK test for that sockfarm is the article Vivek Verma, half a dozen of its alternate titles and AFDs. The third piece of evidence is that Suryabeej has been persistently trying to get that article reinstated as evidenced from this very thread. These three pieces are what in my opinion make enough evidence for a positive behavioral finding though there's more. Since I think it's a DUCK case, I hope you can see how I would have thought it would be perfectly suited to this thread which was created about the article that's central to the case. And I would have expected Liz to decide whether she wishes to take this on or ask me to file at SPI.

It clearly wasn't clear to both the admins who responded here. So, that's obviously my fault. But I did not make a baseless accusation, nor did I make it without providing any evidence. And I did not do it somewhere irrelevant with the intention to damage.

Am I getting anywhere here? In case I'm not, yes I do agree that it would be an aspersion for me to have accused Suryabeej of socking so definitively if I was indeed doing it on the basis of the evidence presented at that botched filing and out of a dogged rejection of its outcome. As my post was read as just that, I can see how it would read as an aspersion, but I assure you it was unintentional. I guess I should be flattered Asilvering said they were shocked to read it from me. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool, your initial comment was both baldly certain ("is" a sockpuppet, not "I suspect they are a sockpuppet") and so rhetorical it involved praeteritio. Yes, you missed the mark, and I think I know Liz well enough to guess that she doesn't have the slightest interest in handling an ad hoc sockpuppetry case herself. Please just file the SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering, if you'd said where you were coming from, instead of leaving me to wonder why you were butting in into another admin's talk page when you had no interest in engaging with the substance of the issue, I might have approached it differently. I certainly don't claim to be perfect. You may be right about what Liz will and will not be interested in, but I don't think she needs you to speak for her. I didn't bring this here out of the blue, I was forced to by its pertinence to what was brought here by someone else. Anyway, I think I am done with this. I have put the evidence in view of at least three admins, whose Wikipedia this is, no less than mine. I have nothing personal against Suryabeej that I should feel compelled to go through all the hoops just to see them get sanctioned. I bow out. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely do not know what you mean by if you'd said where you were coming from, instead of leaving me to wonder. Where I am coming from is pretty simple: saying someone is a sockpuppet without providing evidence is an aspersion. Wherever I see that, I'm going to tell the person doing it to knock it off and take some evidence to SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading it several times I cannot interpret your first comment as anything other than "this user is a sock, I don't care what previous investigations have found". I can't see it as a request to investigate. Regardless, I am unwilling to block as an obvious sock when they've been the subject of multiple CU investigations that found no evidence to block them. A behavioral link, aka meatpuppetry, is possible, but it will require more evidence that I will not compile. I once again recommend SPI. And I think we've taken up enough of Liz's talk page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT Suryabeej was only brought to SPI once, and that was closed with no action (and no CU check) due to the filer not providing sufficient diffs. On the other hand, their account was active up to a month before the next SPI case so would have been caught by the sleeper sweep if it was a technical match, and it didn't come up there. I wouldn't be surprised by meatpuppery, but that's something that indeed would need a new SPI filing with lots of behavioral evidence rather than vague socking claims. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take my word as a CU that there have been multiple CU investigations of this editor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize you were a CU now! JoelleJay (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, that's perfectly reasonable. Thank you. I have been considering retiring soon, but I will certainly consider filing an SPI before I leave, even if CU would be of no help. I guess my goal here was to make sure Liz's response to Surya's request would be informed even if a block does not result, which I suppose this counts as a success much I managed to make a hash of it. Let me note the existence of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suryabeej/Archive, as I follow your cue. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this is exactly why Wikipedia is ethically and morally one of the best communities, because neither wrongdoing is done here, nor is it allowed to happen. Regarding the repeated DUCK (and what not) arguments and other allegations raised by Usedtobecool, I understand that their intention may have been to prevent anything inappropriate from happening, but the way they made their claim was certainly not right (as other respected admins have already pointed out above). My only purpose in starting this thread was that I felt Vivek Verma may be borderline notable under GNG, and I wanted to hear the deleting admin’s opinion directly.

I truly appreciate everyone who has engaged here. At the end of the day, our shared goal is to strengthen this community by adhering to its guidelines. If the deleting admin feels that even with the new sources the subject is still not notable enough, then I will simply leave it at that. Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 00:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just getting around to reading all of this discussion. I feel like an entire 19th century Russian novel has been revealed over the past three days on this page, with subplots and layers of characters and a minor revolution throw in there in the middle of the action. Getting back to the original question that started this, if you feel like you want Vivek Verma to have a main space article, write an awesome draft, submit it to WP:AFC for review. That is the only way I know of to overcome an AFD deletion outcome.

Just to end things on a pleasant note, I had no idea I had so many helpful talk page stalkers and I want to applaud all of you who came and brought in your insights and attitudes while this discussion was evolving, oblivious to me who was only looking at the very bottom of her User talk page and didn't see what was happening above the midway flap. Your help is appreciated. I always learn from you all and I think you answered some of the questions better than I could. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Haha, I agree with you, this thread certainly took an interesting turn. Thanks to everyone who has shared their valuable input here. Liz, I would indeed prefer to proceed through AfC, as that is the correct approach which also allows other editors to provide their views and guidance on the draft. Could you please unsalt Draft:Vivek Verma so that I can begin constructing a draft for Verma? Thank you in advance. Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 16:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, it was unsalted before on Suryabeej's request, and resalted again. AFC has washed their hands off it, or so I interpret Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma; succinct summary by AngusWOOF on just some of the main issues. Leaving aside the question of if a good-faith user's time wouldn't be better spent doing literally anything other than revisiting this well-known UPE sockfarm topic every few months, unsalting would obviously result in recreation of a draft deleted by consensus, and we don't have the Draft:Draft: namespace. If things have truly changed in the past couple years, which I doubt based on the more recent AFD, perhaps a better path would be WP:DRVPURPOSE#3, but I'm not sure; I have no experience with that venue. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool While I sense from your comments that you may be involved in some degree of edit warring regarding this subject, or perhaps hold a personal bias against Verma (pardon the light hearted remark), I would like to clarify my perspective. Since my main interest lies in Indian music and music in general, I believe this subject goes beyond the scope of WP:BLP1E and is at least borderline notable under WP:GNG. This is primarily because Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film), which was a major hit in India and ranked among the country’s highest-grossing re-relerased films List of highest-grossing re-released Indian films See Here, had its theme music composed by Verma fact that is both notable and well-sourced. In addition, his credits in earlier films as well as his contributions to the independent music scene are supported by multiple reliable sources which I already have mentioned in the starting of this thread. Therefore, I feel that your remark suggesting that user's time wouldn't be better spent doing literally anything other than revisiting this well-known UPE sockfarm topic every few months comes across as dismissive, as it overlooks the availability of newer and more relevant sources and focuses instead on casting aspersions. That said, as fellow editors, we have both shared our viewpoints here. Ultimately, I would prefer to rely on the guidance of Liz, who was the deleting admin in this matter.Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 19:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryabeej, if you were to make a userspace page that listed the sources you were going to use, that might help Liz or some other admin make a decision to overturn the earlier salting. But basing it primarily on a 2016 film won't help you at all. That film was already out when the previous discussions happened. If you think the subject is notable primarily because Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film), I wouldn't advise trying at all. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:asilvering Thank you for your input. You are right that the film Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film) was released in 2016, and that was indeed prior to the earlier deletion discussions. However, the point I would like to emphasize is that Verma has only recently received notability and significant coverage following the film’s re-release, which brought renewed attention to his work. The coverage and recognition that are now available were not present at the time of the earlier AfDs, and I believe this makes a material difference in assessing his notability. In addition, several new sources have appeared since those discussions, ranging from Verma’s inclusion in GQ India’s 2024 artists list to coverage in The Hindu and other reliable publications. WHich shows his notability as an Indie Artiste too. It was primarily on the basis of these newer sources that I was considering drafting a userspace article. Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 20:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Ma'am, I was very surprised to see lists relating to two of the more-important BC government ministries. What do you know about how our government works and how its geographic structures are laid out? The Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment are two of the very most-powerful parts of our government. - I'm not happy about US interference in Canadian Wikipedia subjects. the Regional District categories you deleted are equivalent to U.S. counties and their division into regional categories is following two major natural divisions of our province; Vancouver Island, part of the second Coast region, is - was -not given its own category as a couple of its RDs bridge to Mainland parts of the Coast. Stay on you own side of the border, please. AngryOldCanadian, 2604:3D08:5776:7900:5512:9E22:A36B:CE88 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2604:3D08:5776:7900:5512:9E22:A36B:CE88,

I can't really answer this rant of yours if you don't provide me with links to the articles you are talking about. If you had, then I ccould look into this and see why these pages were deleted. But if you just showed up here to post some diatribe against a fellow editor (who hasn't lived in New Jersey in 10 years), then you never actually wanted any resolution to this and I can just ignore your message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please notify WikiProject College Football about the AfD via their Wikipedia talk page? Thanks! NotJamestack (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NotJamestack,

That responsibility falls to the AFD nominator or you are free to do so yourself. I'm not sure why you came to me to handle this task. I've got kind of a full schedule. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I wasn't sure if I could do it or not. Thanks! NotJamestack (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you have depopulated Category:1st-century novels? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, jlwoodwa,

Okay, first, I have reverted all of my actions regarding this category. Secondly, I had recently tagged some categories in Category:Novels by century for other centuries as Empty Categories that led me to think that maybe the phenomena of "the novel" was a modern invention since most of our categories involving novels occur after the Renaissance. There is also a gap of many centuries between these 1st century novels and when these categories involving novels start to appear which is Category:11th-century novels. So, I thought "book" might be a more appropriate category than "novel".

In hindsight, I should have discussed whether "novel" was a anachronistic term in the ancient world first, maybe on Talk:Novel, but the problem with categories is that there is no general noticeboard where you can bring questions as there is almost zero traffic on category talk pages. I'm sorry for my mistake here but I will state that it is very unusual for me to do any editing regarding categories that has to do with their page titles or category definition. It's almost all editing involving organizing articles and subcategories, either dividing large categories or merging smaller ones. I'm sorry for this lapse on my part. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean my question as an accusation; I was just wondering what your reasoning was. I've taken a look at Ancient Greek novel § Terminology and it's definitely not clearcut either way. Thanks for all the work you do with categories. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I'm not sure if it's maybe a bug in XFDcloser, but as a result of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Church of England instruments you seem to have removed a lot of links to other articles. The edit that brought it to my attention was this one. The only commonality I can see across the edits are that the links were to titles of British Acts of Parliament that are redirects. - htonl (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came here with the same query, prompted by such examples as this and this. These links have nothing to do with Church of England instruments, and the articles are poorer without them. GrindtXX (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I have rolled back many of your edits. You need to edit more carefully. If you were not an admin you'd be getting warnings for false edit summaries and either WP:CIR or vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think user used a script or bot that may not work properly! Hughbe98 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughbe98: Users are responsible for the scripts and bots that they employ. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but when there are bugs in a commonly-used admin script (without which the already-onerous task of closing discussions would be an order of magnitude worse), I think "taking responsibility" means listening to concerns and helping to resolve the issue, not that the random admin who has the misfortune of encountering the bug should be admonished for carelessness and compared to a vandal. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, htonl, GrindtXX, DuncanHill and Hughbe98,

XFDCloser does that automatically when we close an AFD. I don't know why it would remove links from terms other that the subjecct of the article that was deleted through the AFD. I'll make a post on the tool's talk page. Feel free to revert my edits. I appreciate the clean up and I'm sorry for the inconvenience to you and the project. I've been closing AFDs since 2020 and this has happened to me before. It sometimes has occurred with PROD'd articles but not ones that went through AFD and were handled by XFDcloser. Again, my apologies and I'll contact the tool operator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all the problem edits now. the wub "?!" 21:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The wub: Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eg revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil%20List%20Act%201837&diff=1307697083&oldid=1304480232

Has something gone wrong with the bot? Hughbe98 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hughbe98,

Sorry about that, maybe the tool, XFDcloser, should be reported, I don't know why it would remove this link from this word. I'll make a post on its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...clearly thinks you're great. Look at that face!

Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's adorable, Fred Gandt. You've given me my "Ahhhhhhh" moment of the day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take no responsibility for the goat. Good luck!

But I hope it and the penguin get along... Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Pygoscelis non carborundum
	You've been awarded the Pygoscelis non carborundum in honor of your ability to keep penguining on without letting them grind you down. Jahaza (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jahaza,

This is the most unique "award" I've been given. Thank you and have a great weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make the most "absurd" socking claims, claims no other dares to utter. See e.g. what Tamzin wrote at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease/Archive#10 February 2022, and then see why Korvex got indeffed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, tgeorgescu,

I've looked into both of the diffs you link to and I don't understand what connection you are trying to make between the two of them or with me. Are you trying to make some point here or are you asking me to do something for you? I don't get it. Thanks and I hope you are having a nice summer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was a reply to criticizing me at WP:ANI for suggesting socking: my hunches about WP:SOCKS are often right. Even if when looking at my claims from outside, those look like rubbish. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it sounds like your messages are in response to this edit that I made. That provides some context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for leaving that summary on reverting my PROD tag on an article, Plympton, Inc., referring me to the AfD page. I had reverted several other edits that deleted my PROD tags on similar articles, and was confused as to why it kept happening, and it seems that.. if I understand correctly, deleting a PROD tag on an article makes it completely ineligible to be proposed again, and that I have to take it to WP:AFD

The article deletion policy here is so complicated, and another person only said "it can't have a second PROD" in their summary, and the article had never had a PROD before, so I didn't realize it was referring to my initial PROD, thinking they were saying the article was PROD before when it very clearly wasn't before I added the tag.... ugh...

But yea, you helped me clear up a lot of confusion. Thanks for actually pointing me in the right direction, appreciate it. Nerfdart (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nerfdart,

First things first, the deletion policies at Wikipedia ARE confusing. Basically, you have CSD, speedy deletion. There are about 15 well-defined criteria for when they apply to an article or page. The criteria are intentionally limited and specific to only apply to a small set of circumstances. Any editor but the page creator can remove a CSD tag but you should provide an explanation for the tag removal in your edit summary. Proposed deletions are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. No article or file that has been PROD'd before or taken to AFD can be PROD'd again. Any editor can remove a PROD tag for any reason at all or no reason at all! It's considered appropriate to also provide an reason for untagging an article but it's not mandatory. As for AFD/RFD/MFD/CFD, these community processes take at least a week and the tag can not be removed by anyone until the deletion discussion has been closed.

I hope that this brief explanation is helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Kinldy block the IP editor 49.142.17.100 as they are mass vandalsing Wikipedia pages. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 07:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cassiopeia,

I'm sorry that I didn't see this message last night. It looks like they were blocked by Lofty abyss. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Thank you for replying. The editor vandalized more than 30 pages until they were blocked by an admin. Many times there is no admin online during 2 a.m. to 7 a.m. ET, daytime in my country, and vandalism would go rampant without blocking actions. Thank you, Liz. Regards. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you move forward with the deletion. Mariano(t/c) 11:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mariano,

Empty categories sit for 7 days just in case they are only temporarily empty. If you are the category creator and you want the page deleted, you can tag a page for speedy deletion, CSD G7 if you use Twinkle or you can put {{Db-g7}} on the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Liz, hope all is well. Thank you for taking care of my PROD on this article. I realize that I forgot to ask for it to be salted afterwards. I see that it was also created in 2020 and A7 quick deleted at the time. Nothing has changed since then. Would it be possible to please salt it as well? Thank you in advance, m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mamani1990,

Regarding Tolulope Oginni, it looks like this article has just been created twice and we usually don't SALT a page unless there is a problem with repeated recreations. I think recreation would have to be a bigger problem before I decide to SALT this page title. Another admin might have a different threshold but I'd like to see at least three recreations over a few years to SALT a page title. Sorry for my decline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was seeking a intervention and I was hoping, although in my experience I thought unlikely, that people might actually be able to see what was going on and beyond what was being selectively presented.

There weren't 3 people editing. There was just me and two other people making minor corrections or changes.

(The point that I had created this page was related to the absurdity of being the person who had added the content that I was being policed about editing by people who weren't making substantial changes themselves, and who had both indicated they had no subject matter expertise, but claimed their broad knowledge of creoles qualified them to make generalisations.)

After 3 sig edits, I came back after half a day to find a unsourced edit by someone who had previously said they had no subject knowledge. I didn't argue with him, I simply continued my edits from the night before. After my significant edit, he responded with a comment accusing me of 'steamrolling his edits' and ordering me to discuss things with him on the talk page.

There was no dispute and I don't need to seek permission to edit on Wikipedia, anymore than anyone else does. Particularly, to discuss a factual sourced change with a person who had made an unfactual unsourced change.

Also, how was I streamrolling his -53 character change with my two 2479 + 294 character changes? What was he talking about? And why should I bring a discussion to the talk page?

Also what dispute was he eluding to? He had made a comment on the talk page of another page days earlier and we'd had no discussion since. Was he referring to his change on the other article de-capitalising a word throughout? How did that transfer to this article, or rise to the level of a dispute, and how was I supposed to know he objected to me editing on either page?

But why should I clear my edits with him and another user who I had been having a running discussion with?

At the same time, the other user kept going on about trying to get me to move a discussion about a proposed name change to another forum when I told him I was happy to leave the discussion on the talk page. He even proposed making a requested move himself because I wouldn't.

Yes, I was sarky in that talk page discussion with the second user because he kept giving me unsolicited advice and kept coming back to a point - the naming of the language/language varieties - even after it had been discussed.

Except that the first user's edits did seem to be related to the second user's edits because they both seemed to be assuming that my changes were in aid of moving the second page rather than making the page an accurate reflection of what it was currently about.

I'm only explaining all of this to you because I've found you to be fair in the past. After being on this platform for 20+ years, I don't need to be told to go write on my own blog if I'm not happy with people making changes. I created that page in 2006 and I certainly haven't been policing it. But I've asked you before, in a situation like this, besides walking away, what exactly do you want me (realistically and reasonably) to do?

MmeMaigret (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sobia Masood was moved around to make things confusing and to avoid the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobia Masood. I've got it back to Sobia Masood and page move protected it until the AfD is done. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CambridgeBayWeather,

I have forgotten what my part in this article or page move or AFD was yesterdat but I appreciate your explanation. Thanks for visiting my User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have deleted this. Rajesh Ramanath is the article title. Move Category:Films scored by Rajesh Ramnath to the correct title. DareshMohan (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DareshMohan,

Category:Films scored by Rajesh Ramanath was deleted in 2022 because it was an empty category (CSD C1). Empty categories can always be restored if there is a need for them in the future. If there are suitable articles, feel free to recreate this page or make a request here or at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Liz, trust you are doing very well today, please I wrote an article on the subjects Blue Seal Energy group and Doyle Edeni, you moved them for deletion because the articles weren't having enough verified reference, how can I get the articles back on wikipedia since there are more verifiable references now? Stephen Ini (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stephen Ini,

I can't look into this until you provide me with links to the articles or to the deleted articles. I look at hundreds of pages every day and I don't have time to search for what ones you might be talking about when you can easily provide me with links to these pages so I can see why the pages were deleted. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Seal Energy Group and Doyle Redotelojor Edeni Stephen Ini (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stephen Ini,

Thanks very much, that's what I needed to see. Both articles were deleted through WP:AFD discussion among the community. These articles can not be easily restored. This is not true for all forms of deletion but it is true for AFDs. The only way I know to overcome a Deletion closure in an AFD is for there to be a new draft version of the article, which avoids the problems that caused the article to be deleted. And once it's created, submit it to WP:AFC for review and, hopefully, approval. You might review the AFD discussions for these articles which are linked to the deletion notice at the top of the page for Blue Seal Energy Group and Doyle Redotelojor Edeni. If you have any questions after reviewing the deletion discussions, let me know. Alternatively, you can always go to the Teahouse which is a friendly forum for new editors to go and ask questions of experienced editors who can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much Liz, I appreciate your response. Stephen Ini (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz! I'd like to request for Israfil Bek Jedigar to be restored. I have given reasons why separately here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_410#Israfil Bek Jedigar. Thanks in advance! Yousiphh (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Please do not ignore my request. Yousiphh (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I'm not sure you want yet another entry on this subject. But it now turns out that Landpin was a sock puppet and not necessarily the best example of "acting in good faith". This was a useful List which went through AfD, objections were raised, and it is now difficult to recreate as a new item, there were hundreds of entries. Any suggestions? ChrysGalley (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Church of England instruments

ChrysGalley (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this revision on Dookie (disambiguation)? Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are decades old. I guess they can be removed but the way you are presenting the diffs makes it difficult to take action. I have to go back years in the page history and try to find them. If you could just provide a link to the diff, that would be more useful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz, This inquiry is about a page you removed of a non-profit that I work with. There was no single intention of the wiki page but to educate people through medically reviewed material on many conditions involving asthma, allergies, or related conditions, and share resources. We are expanding in advocacy and our Trusted Messenger program is vital to many in underserved communities. Additionally, our research work includes many DOI links of papers we've authored or co-authored. Will you consider restoring this page? Our name has changed to Allergy & Asthma Network and I came her to change that noticed the page was gone. Thank you kindly.

~~~~ Kshallcross (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1189#Poor_English_from_User:Grubisz440, from June 9, 2025.

Grubisz440 has contributed a lot to Mao Mao: Heroes of Pure Heart; however, most, if not all, of their edits have introduced grammar and spelling errors to the point where these issues have become systemic to the page. Notice the sloppy work:

• "Alongwith his personal experiences with family and friends, like the inspirations of Mao Mao's family and his nine siblings was loosely based of the real life with Parker's family where he was the youngest of all of them. But the one that became more revelant was himself as series development continued."
• "Tommy Blacha, Chris McCulloch or Debra Wilson, who previously voiced characters in shows that Parker was involed on prior to the show, they also voiced characters in Mao Mao as well. The inspirations and influence of the series that Parker took was a media that he grown up with like Batman: the animtaed series, Akira Toriyama's manga and animated series like Dragon Ball and Dr. Slump, as well Super Nintendo roleplay videogame, Chrono Trigger.."
• "As of result, many shots, backgrounds and action-related elements were considered to be polished or cut. As well, many retakes of episodes were made by various staff artist, to improve quality of the animation and shots. Which was doable thanks to openess of Adobe Animate. Per episode, over 50 of them were made by Parker himself."
• "It was received positively from critics, getting prase for narrative, stroytelling, action and character dynamics. It got 5 nominations and one of which been won, one of the last outstanding Performer in an Animated Program by Paker Simmons for his voice acting performance."
• "Following a postive feedback from the audience and intrest from Chris Prynoski, a 7-minute pilot titled I Love You Mao Mao: BAO BAO's Revenge started it's development for the following pitch from the Cartoon Network in 2017. It was greenlited for the 95-week deadline for the television release schedule. Making in time, where it was annouced for a full series alongside Tig n' Seek in May 20, 2019."

I have raised the issue on the article's talk page; however, Grubisz440 has continued to edit the page, and has shown next to no improvement to their grasp of English grammar and spelling. As I had stated back at ANI, I have major concerns about the editor's competency, and so far they've done nothing to alleviate those concerns.

Pinging Phil Bridger as an editor who was also involved in the initial ANI discussion. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 21:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miss Liz At first I wanted to move the article Sureshjan, Isfahan to (Soroushjan) but also there is another article named Sureshjan that I wrongly moved it instead and now the system doesn't move.Could you please move? Thanks.Jumberidze (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jumberidze,

I don't know what you were trying to do but it caused a mess. Sometimes new editors work on an article when an older article with the same page title already exists and they do crazy things to get the older article deleted off of Wikipedia so their new article can be at that specific page title. These chaotic moves can end up with the editor blocked because it is very disruptive editing.

There are several different solutions that can be made when more than one article has the same page title. In this situation, tell me exactly what you want to happen but it is still unclear to me. Tell me the names of both articles and where you want them to be moved. It might be that they are renamed to an alternate page title but that can happen after I understand what pages you are focused on. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of title of article Sureshjan, Isfahan is wrong and related to another article.The correct pronunciation is (Soroushjan) and I wanted to move.Could you please move Sureshjan, Isfahan to (Soroushjan)?Jumberidze (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I hope you're well and having a good weekend. I'm just checking the reason you've deleted the above page as WP:G13, Abandoned draft or AfC submission? The page in question isn't an abandoned draft, it's the user talk page of a formerly prolific user who's been blocked for a few years. Was this done in error? I'm not seeing a pressing reason to delete this page, and I don't think it is usual to do so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was also coming to leave a heads up -- looks like you just deleted a bunch of user talk pages. Something somewhere has gone wrong. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the recent ones deletions here were done in error; I tried to restore User talk:Haoreima ( 1,284 revisions) but got a data base error doing so. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning this up right now and using partial undeletions for the larger pages. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me, Asilvering, HouseBlaster, and ComplexRational have cleaned this all up now; please be careful in the future. I think you know that, though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here for the same reason re User talk:John Broughton. BD2412 T 16:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, Amakuru, Moneytrees🏝️, and BD2412. I screwed up massively this morning. I was half-asleep, grabbed my phone and mixed up User:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts page with Wikipedia:Database reports/Unusually large user talk pages and then went back to sleep. When I woke up two hours later, I had the feeling that I did something wrong, because G13 eligible drafts lists Drafts and the page where I did a batch delete was a list of User talk pages but I found all of the deleted pages had already been reverted. Many, many thanks to asilvering, HouseBlaster ComplexRational and every other admin who helped restore the pages I mistakenly deleted. I should never edit until I'm fully awake.

Besides giving a big apology for the confusion, I will say that I've been an admin for 10 years and this kind of mixup has only happened to me one other time, about 4 years ago, also with a batch deletion. I promise never to edit when I'm half-asleep again, especially no page deletions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed, these things happen. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive your talk page, though. It's taking forever to close. BD2412 T 22:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries – we all have days like that. ^Complex/_Rational 02:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz, and thanks to those who sorted the issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I noticed that you recently deleted a bunch of user talk page under G13: [31] I suspect a faulty <noinclude> or <includeonly> tag caused these pages to populate CAT:G13, whereas the only pages that should have been deleted were abandoned drafts authored by these users. I've already reversed one of these deletions; there are about 40 to go. And just be vigilant to make sure this doesn't happen again. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 16:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I hadn't seen the section immediately above when writing my comment. Feel free to combine the two. ^Complex/_Rational 16:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn’t pinged in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause (2nd nomination) إيان (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Deletion review for Palestinian cause ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Palestinian cause. 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. إيان (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:: Does this "attack" post (which has been reverted) merit any action/warning to the editor who posted? While the post is signed by User:Danram Qurocan (a blocked user), it was actually posted by User:MickeyPT. — ERcheck (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Just a heads-up: I have an SPI open on this one, and they're reported at AIV. tony 02:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonySt - Thanks! — ERcheck (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I just noticed that there was a draft for Mark Guiducci created by User:Theeenewyorker back in 2021. Can you restore it to Draft:Mark Guiducci 2 or whatever page name seems appropriate so I can see if there is any material I can use to improve the main space article? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The userpage for Niranjan Adostrophe is from Wikimedia. It does not seem to comply with English Wikipedia guidelines. On that page, it says the account represents a group (thus, an issue with user account). In addition, the page lists a number of English Wikipedia articles that do not exist.

How does this get handled on English Wikipedia? — ERcheck (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, good day. Sorry to bother you again, as there is always a lack of active admins during the night time in US to action AIV requests. Please block the IP address User:142.126.247.147, and please see their contribution log here, as they are actively vandalizing Wikipedia pages close to 30 edits. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The matter has been taken care by Ymblanter. IP account is blocked. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 05:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! :) I was trying to find this extraordinary summary i saw a while ago and saw that it got soft-deleted. My request didn't work and i was told to contact the administrator. I hope i'm in the right place! The page was such a well educated, well arranged and informative summary one couldn't find annnnywhere else. I wanted to kindly request the restoration of the page named "Nakshbandi Golden Chain" and "Silsilah". Thank you so much. All the best :) Roserosaaa (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roserosaaa,

We ask that editors inquiring about pages provide a link to the page they are talking about. For example, there is no page, deleted or existing, at Nakshbandi Golden Chain and while there is a page at Silsilah, that page is a redirect that has existed for over a decade so it doesn't sound like the page you are talking about. If you can locate these deleted pages and provide a link to them, then I can investigate why they were deleted and whether or not anything can be done about it. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! I didn't find a specific link but found this written in the footer of a page:

Copied and paste here:

"Revision as of 05:43, 8 May 2022

3 YEARS AGO

..........

Removing link(s) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqshbandi Golden Chain closed as soft delete (XFDcloser)

=See also==

[[Silsilal]

[Naqshbandi Golden Chain]"

It must be "Silsila" and "Naqshbandi Golden Chain". The way i spelled it wasn't correct. Please accept my apologies. Good night! Roserosaaa (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I referenced your comment in an AfD discussion about how editors should not attempt to give summaries of an ongoing AfD. Is there a particular policy/guideline to reference in a case such as this (is it something like a WP:SUPERVOTE?), or just common sense that editors shouldn't take it upon themselves to interpret all other editors' comments and add more words to an already large word count? This has happened in 2 of the past 3 AfDs I've commented on, but I don't know what specifically to reference. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM,

I'm not sure if this advice is written into policy or just reflects our current practice. I started being involved in closing AFD discussions in 2020 and this advice was part of the AFD culture I kind of "inherited". I'll look over WP:AFD and associated policy pages and see if appears anywhere. I'll just say that the existence of unwritten "rules" is not unique to AFD, it's common in other areas or project as well. Sometimes they are advice given in commonly accepted essays that doesn't have the same level of authority as actual policy and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I get that the !votes for delete were overwhelming on List of Lviv rabbis, but they weren't policy-based. I pointed to a source that considered them as a group and I just posted another one in an edit conflict as it was being closed. Jahaza (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A third source considering them as a group/list is the List of Rabbis of Lviv in the Jewish Encyclopedia[32]. Jahaza (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jahaza, I thought there was a solid consensus among editors to Delete this article but if you disagree, you can bring this AFD closure to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Or, alternatively, since I believe you were asking for a Redirect, you can always create a redirect from this deleted page title. If you think you'd like to work on this article yourself, we can restore it to Draft space but you can't just move it back to main space without passing it through an AFC review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more careful and not stomp on what I was doing. I was trying to do a WP:Selective deletion to clean up hundreds of vandalism and accidental edits from the history, and you just ruined what I did. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, * Pppery *,

I don't think I was being "careless". I saw a page deleted, for no stated reason, that resulted in several broken redirects. If there were special circumstances for this page deletion that didn't fit into one of our CSD criteria, then please leave a comprehensive reason explaining what you are doing. I thought your page deletion was being careless. I don't know exactly where you could post this explanation but perhaps a longer deletion rationale. If the page had been deleted citing a valid CSD criteria that applied, I wouldn't have reverted your action. If I am partially at fault, it's because I probably should have asked you about this deletion on your User talk page before restoring this deleted page, that's on me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this user talk page post. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonesey95,

Thanks for alerting me to this message. Without your meesage here, I never would have come acros it. However, this looks like a complicated situation with previous AFDs and undiscussed page moves so I'll need to spend some time thinking this one through. It looks like there was some improper editing activity going on. I'll give it more time tomorrow morning. Thanks again for the alert. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't G8 not apply when it's a user talk page? or is it because it's the sandbox subpage? BodhiHarp 05:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:BodhiHarp,

There are instances when User talk pages (and other types of talk pages) are tagged as G8-exempt but I don't know of a rule that user talk pages protects from all types of deletion. In this instance, it was the talk page for User:Tarch Artificial Intelligence/sandbox which was deleted as a stale draft, CSD G13. I use Twinkle to handle all of the deletions I do and Twinkle generally deletes talk pages and redirects any time you delete regular articles, drafts, categories, templates, etc.

Since the editor here is indefinitely blocked, so what brought this user talk page to your attention? Because it was part of a CSD G13 deletion, I can restore it if there is content on it that you wish to preserve. If you want it to be a rule that User talk pages are never ever deleted, I think you should make a proposalt at WT:CSD or the Village Pump because it's not just MY behavior that would need to change but all admins or page movers who have the capacity to delete a page or in the page mover's case, the ability to not leave a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found you deleting it through "recent changes". BodhiHarp 15:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, doesn't this speedy deletion criterion only apply to drafts and not user subpages? BodhiHarp 20:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of user subpages are not really "user talk pages". jlwoodwa (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :)

Could you revoke the talk page access of 216.209.188.104.

It's a cesspool over there.

Thx, ✦GLORPK4✦  | 📡 03:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Belato already just did it.

Thx ✦GLORPK4✦  | 📡 03:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GlorpK4,

It looks like User:Isabelle Belato got to this request before I could. But TPA has been removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, Would you be able to draftify Tony Pham (footballer)? I never realized that it was proposed for deletion until today when it exprired. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Liz! I have request revision deletions for DYDW (Cebu City) that redirect a draft's merger starting from 12:22, 19 March 2025 CryingSulfur up to 11:00, 7 September 2025 JJMC89 bot because the draft Draft:DYDW (Cebu) has been delete. However, this new article has since been created at 11:35, 7 September 2025 WikiRadioPH2025 and has reviewed the article DYDW (Cebu City). Thank you and advance! WikiRadioPH2025 (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]