User talk:Liz/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Liz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Liz, Yesterday I created a stub for a news outlet CleanTechnica and along with it a redirect to it from its Internet domain name, Cleantechnica.com. Such a redirect is handy for other articles that use source citations in the form of the Internet domain name. Some hours later the redirect was deleted (by you) as G8. But as far as I can see, the redirect was pointing to the intended page (and had itself a number of uses). I am always interested in improving my editing skills, so if you could take a moment to explain if I did anything wrong, then I would appreciate it - and if not then all the best. Kind regards, Lklundin (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PS. I went ahead a re-created the redirect, making sure that its pointing is as intended. Lklundin (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lklundin,

The page was a broken redirect, it was pointing to a nonexistent page and was listed on the Broken redirect page. As such, since it couldn't be redirected to a suitable page, it was deleted.

There is no problem with recreating deleted redirects if they now point to a suitable page (one that exists and is appropriate). Also, redirects that have been deleted via deletion discussions at RfD shouldn't be recreated but that wasn't the case here. It now looks like the recreated redirect is fine. I hope that answers your questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for getting back to me. What maybe happened is that I created the article itself from a redlink and then also created the redirect at that time, so not from a redlink. I will pay better attention next time. Thank you! Lklundin (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's no problem, these things happen all of the time. I work a lot with categories and editors are always creating categories before they need to use them. Like broken redirects, empty categories can always be recreated when they do end up needing them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Liz, I am back from a 72 hour absence while I'm blocked. Now I would like to say I am extremely sorry and I was extremely panicking regarding the Category:Academics from Quebec and I was caught disruptive editing by another administrator. But I was very angry on a category dispute regarding Category:Academics from Quebec which is a confused duplicate of another original category titled Category:Academics in Quebec which was originally created. Before I continue speaking from the category dispute. I have avoided a block evasion myself by not getting caught with another IP name 2001 by me, so once again I avoid the block evasion successfully. Now regarding the category dispute and I was very angry regarding Category:Academics from Quebec because it was a confused category from another category was originally created called Category:Academics in Quebec. If it doesn't solve the problem take the category Category:Academics from Quebec to be added at the "Categories for discussion" to downmerge to Category:Academics in Quebec. The Category:Academics in Quebec has the most articles and the disputed category Category:Academics from Quebec only has a few articles but needs downmerge to Category:Academics in Quebec at the Categories for discussion. If it doesn't resolve the category dispute between Category:Academics from Quebec and Category:Academics in Quebec, take the Category:Academics from Quebec to be nominated and downmerge the category at Categories for discussion as my special request. Note most IP cannot nominate categories and put them for discussion. So I once again I am here to say I am sorry I was caught disruptive editing while panicking. Liz, if you read my good comment I hope you will accept my apology and maybe for my request put the Category:Academics from Quebec to be nominated at the Categories for discussion and finally nominate Category:Enteratiners from Montreal to nominated to downmerge to Category:People from Montreal because there is no category containing the Category:Entertainers from (Canadian city). The Entertainers from category is only found on 50 American states including Washington, D.C., for an example Category:Entertainers from Massachusetts, Category:Entertainers from Texas or Category:Entertainers from Florida etc. can be found. Category:Enteratiners from Montreal will be nominated to be downmerged to Category:People from Montreal at the Categories for discussion because there is no Canadian city that has the Entertainers from. So, thank you and I am back from editing Wikipedia from editing from my abscence to avoid a block evasion by myself and I hope you will accept my apology. Also for my request could you nominate the confused category dispute Category:Academics from Quebec to be downmerged to Category:Academics in Quebec at the Categories for discussion and also nominate Category:Enteratiners from Montreal to downmerge to Category:People from Montreal at the Categories for discussion. I will be happy for your reply. I thank you and all the best to you! Sleep well! 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't discern your comment. Could you boil your request down to two sentences, with no bolding? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I will try again, for my request could you nominate and add the Category:Academics from Quebec to downmerge to the Category:Academics in Quebec at the Categories for discussion? The disputed confused Category:Academics from Quebec only has one article to be downmerging to Category:Academics in Quebec, and nominate the Category:Entertainers from Montreal to be downmerge to "Category:People from Montreal" at the CFD? Both categroies will be nominated per my request at the CFD. I hope CFD will be solved. Thanks Liz! 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your conciseness. Looking at Category:Canadian academics by province or territory, it seems like both "in" and "from" are used even though they have different meanings. So, a merger could be proposed although there might be objections and a preference expressed for "from" over "in". But I will propose a merger in the morning.

Regarding Category:Entertainers from Montreal, it's a subcategory of Category:People from Montreal by occupation. It's a common occupational category and I don't see the logic in having it merged away into a generic People category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Liz for your reply I shortened my comments as many as I can. Did you accept my apology on panic editing while I was caught disruptive editing lead to my block? If so, I don't want to be caught disruptive editing again and I have successfully avoid a block evasion while I'm gone from Wikipedia. I am here to say thank you for assisting me and I will continuously look forward if there is problems with you. Sleep well Liz! 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

For my next request please Category:Academics from Ontario to downmerge to Category:Academics in Ontario at the Categories for discussion. This is also another confused disputed category from the original Category:Academics in Ontario. Category:Academics from Ontario only has one article too, but needs downmerge to Category:Academics in Ontario per my request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:3D1D:CE7D:B01E:1138 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm MehmetFarukSahin. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I've reverted an edit of yours [1] that changed a neutral tone to the word "claim". Which among the words to be avoided per WP:CLAIM. Thank you and have a nice day. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, MehmetFarukSahin. It's odd you know about Wikipedia policy as a brand-new account. This is your second edit! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

I'm not the perfect editor to bring this to you, I have only a few minutes so please bear with me. At the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page, Reade has been disallowed any mention of "corroborating" accounts even though they are well covered by the top sources, such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/29/sexual-allegations-against-joe-biden-corroborators/.

Just as with the Biden page and addition of the allegation there in late March, the material was removed, and an RfC started within minutes. The removal does not appear to have had consensus, as most editors find the sourcing valid and the material DUE. Per BLP, this material is required, and from what I understand, the material should be returned and treated as an emergency, overriding any attempt to postpone it by an RfC. Right now there is only rebuttal from one side. I'm at work and cannot babysit this, but I know from WP:BLP that this requires special attention. I am also pinging Slim Virgin in case you are busy. I'm hoping someone can please look into this ASAP. Today is the very day most people will be looking at the page, which is due to Biden's appearance on MSNBC this morning. It is an outrage that our coverage right now excludes all mention of the corroboration, but covers Biden's in full. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just an update, I've attempted to fix this here. petrarchan47คุก 19:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, there is an RfC going on right now about including this material in the article. I'm not going to go in and unilaterally overrule an ongoing RfC (which seems to be leaning in support of your stance). I don't believe this is an emergency and, on Wikipedia, we err on the side of caution when editing BLPs.

Also, this is the only subject you've been editing for over 3 weeks now. I encourage you to spend your time editing other subjects so you don't lose perspective. When one becomes overly invested in a dispute, one can make mistakes that get one in trouble. Take a step back, realize that this article is not going to disappear and collaborate with others to improve it over time. As long as Biden is a candidate in an upcoming election, readers will be interested in this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. Helpful input. petrarchan47คุก 21:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ckuhlmanns (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hello Liz,

Some days ago you kindly provided me with help regarding a deletion of a redirect.

I was wondering if you could also help with the following.

A couple of weeks ago I became aware of a BLP that I considered to be entirely inappropriate.

In spite of the article having mostly (or entirely) to do with real-life crime accusations, it did not seem to fit our (narrow) criteria for speedy deletion.

So I brought it up on the notice board where another editor made an agreeing albeit surprising argument and nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive301#Martin_Tripp

However, around the time when the waiting period had lapsed, another editor removed the nomination (without otherwise changing the article or explaining why it should stay): [2].

The user who first nominated the article for deletion then brought it up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Tripp

To the surprise of myself and several others who supported the deletion, the nominator, the editor who took down the original nomination and a third, apparent SPA are arguing that the article should be merged into another article.

Since then nothing is happening - meaning that the problem with the crime accusations continues to appear on the BLP article.

I feel that this is inappropriate, but have far more experience in creating than deleting articles.

Since you seem to be both helpful and knowledgeable on the topic of article deletion, I take the liberty of suggesting that you have a look at this and make your voice heard.

Thank you for your time. Lklundin (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lklundin,

Thanks for the compliment but I actually don't participate much in AfD discussions although I do frequently delete pages tagged for speedy deletion, especially categories and redirects.

But I looked at the AfD discussion and I don't see any editor arguing that this page should be kept. The AfD should be closed in the next day or so, either as Delete or Merge and if it is Merge, you should have the ability to influence what information is included. Most of the unsourced allegations, here and here, have been removed. I can see why you objected to the original article.

I am concerned though that the page creator, who hasn't been active for months, was never notified of the AfD discussion by Springee who nominated the article for deletion. The page creator should always be invited to participate in a deletion discussion, even if they are apparently absent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Liz, under normal circumstances I would notify editors about a AfD (not that I've done many). However, in this case the original editor looks way to much like a paid or otherwise NOTHERE editor [[3]]. Since they were apparently gone I didn't bother. That said, absent proof of my suspicious I guess I should have. If they are really gone then nothing will come of the notice. Springee (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a formality if the editor is no longer editing, but it's just good practice. Thanks for the explanation, Springee! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, @Liz:...

I've been working on the abovementioned page since you nominated it for a speedy deletion. I thought that perhaps you could look at it and see if you thought that it was alright now. I would've removed your notice myself, but I thought that that would be presumptuous of me.

Here's hoping that you're well.

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

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, O.ominirabluejack,

The category was tagged simply because it was empty. It is no longer empty so the tag has been removed. You were smart not to remove the tag, page creators are not supposed to remove speedy deletion tags. Good luck with your editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for telling me, and for nominating it to begin with. I made it and promptly forgot about it, and probably wouldn't have gotten back to completing it if you hadn't.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz, hope you’re having a great day, I have a question. So for a while now I have been updating popular singers discography pages, I have been updating the number of amount of “Singles” being released under the artists. All of a sudden I am getting a message on my talk page saying I’m being suspected of vandalism. Now all I’ve been doing is just updating the numbers for some odd reason other users are reverting the edits. I’m getting a bit confused because all I’ve been doing is updating the number of the correct “lead singles” released under the artists name... other users have been combining “lead singles” with “featured singles“... now I’m not sure if that’s the correct way the discography page template is supposed to be set up (categorically by lead singles only or lead singles plus featured singles combined) I had just assumed lead singles only in the template since it’s specifically the artists singles being released under their name/label, and featured singles are just singles that aren’t technically being released under their name or label since they are just a feature on a song. I also do include the featured singles number in the description. Hopefully all of this makes sense, please feel free to take a look at my edit history and see for yourself. Hopefully you’ll be able to give me answer to this since it’s a bit frustrating. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pillowdelight,

First, the editor you should be discussing these problems with is the editor who posted the warning on your user talk page. Clearly, your edits have aroused some suspicion and it's the editors who are posting the warnings who would know what behavior of yours this was. I know it's natural to get defensive when criticized but direct communication is always the quickest way to find out what the problem is. You are a relatively new editor and while it may at first be uncomfortable, collaboration on Wikipedia typically involves working with other editors who might have a different understanding than your own of best practices. If you don't work out these misunderstandings, you could end up in an edit war that can easily lead to a block on your editing which is what you want to avoid. And if the editor is more experienced than you, which is the case here, this is an opportunity to correct any mistakes you might be making.

I'm not an expert in this field and the only guidance I could find is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Discography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discographies which are not very detailed. If you have general questions about editing biographies of singers, I'd ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies but it doesn't seem to be a very active project.

I hope this helps. In general, it always helps to ask advice from an editor who is experienced in the field you are working in. That's how we all learn best practices here on the project. And please know that even editors who have been editing for decades still get users who come to talk pages with questions about their edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Liz, thank you for your concern in my talk page, actually I have done broad research on Wikipedia and read a lot about the encyclopedia hence I have a broad knowledge on it. Concerning the article about Kipchumba Murkomen it is clear that the article is posing personal threat to the subject calling him a thief. The article also does not reliable independent sources. Thats why I nominated it. I don’t have another account, in fact if I had one I would have cited it or else I would be accused of using multiple accounts. Please consider those since I believe you are an experienced Wikipedian December200 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The article didn't need to be deleted, it has existed in one form or another for two years. The vandalism just needed to be reverted. There's no reason to delete an article along with its history if you can just remove the damage that has been done. And yes, the article needs to some work to get in better shape.

Thanks for the response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

By following a "thank" notification today, that lead me to Natureium and then eventually Chris' page, I noticed Special:Diff/952733693. I wanted to let you know that I'm sorry for your loss. This also gives more context to your recent query about my mother's status. Thanks again for your concerns, —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If I was running a RfA, and I said, categorically, that blocked editors couldn't remove their block notices, it would go south quicker that Kid Sisco  :) all the best, serial ^# 17:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Why don't you go for that RfA? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My union don't approve the pay scale  :) anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Take care! serial ^# 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Marchjuly#Edits to Charles Hazlewood's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Perhaps you or one of your talk page watchers can help out Henri of Wells. She tried to update Charles Hazelwood, an article written about her husband, but was reverted by another editor; I've tried to advise her about COI, etc., but she seems want fast results or to have the article deleted. She seems to have the best intentions, but just doesn't quite understand how Wikipedia works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Marchjuly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on my proposal for a WikiProject Mysticism at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council. I suggested we leave a template at the top of articles informing Wikipedians of proposals for new WikiProjects, but I was told that information about WikiProjects should go on the talk pages. I have left information on the talk pages of articles relevant to mysticism, as well as on the talk pages of related WikiProjects, about my proposal. Before I go I have one question - how many members do you think a WikiProject needs to stay active? Thank you for your interest in my proposal. Vorbee (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Vorbee, I don't think you should put templates on articles or articles' talk page with this type of request. The type of WikiProject templates that are put on article talk pages are assessments, not invitations. I think the written invitations that you put on, like at Talk:Kabbalah, are okay. But know that unless an article is heavily edited, these talk page notices might not be seen very soon. It might be better to survey the article's edit history and see if there are some primary editors (who have recently edited) and invite them to your WikiProject on their user talk page. And when you see the WikiProjects associated with an article like this, you post an invitation on those WikiProject's talk page.

There isn't a set number of editors for a WikiProject but I think 6-8 editors would be ideal. This number would allow for editor's changing schedules and fluctuating levels of interest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Vorbee (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note that the bot is now approved and functional (and works as expected). Since you are one of the primary admins dealing with empty categories, you can choose to patrol Category:Empty categories with no backlinks to find categories that are not used in any manner and might be appropriate for G6/C1/CfD, feel free to drop a note to anyone else who might want to patrol the category. If you'd like to see some more features relating to the bot, do let me know. Good luck! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, QEDK. It's appreciated. I hope any feedback I offer is helpful.

It looks like Category:Empty categories with no backlinks are all category redirects and there must be tens of thousands more of them. I guess they will eventually be tagged? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you prefer it to be all categories? I am running it for now with redirect categories for now because I want to exhaust one type of category first and then skip it next (and because the template asks admins to delete them if they don't have any use). After the first run tomorrow (which will take a while due to the sheer number of categories), if you want we can move on to tagging more categories after dropping a note at WP:BOTN. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, I don't really understand how it works or how to answer your question. I'm used to tagging the empty categories on the Database list every day and deleting them if they are empty 7 days later. It's one of my daily tasks I try to keep up with. I don't know if the bot will now replace that database list & my work or if it's just another assist in the process on top of our existing efforts.

I just know that your bot should not tag redirect categories or those that are the subject of a CfD discussion and I hope you have built that into the bot. It also needs to notify the page creator that the empty category has been tagged (but not yet deleted). Those are the three steps I'm concerned about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The bot deletes categories that meet C1 criteria automatically, so tagged > 7 days, not a category redirect and the rest of the criteria. The bot does not replace the list, it will still be there. It won't tag any category redirects, or CfD-ed categories, only the ones that explicitly meet the C1 criteria. However, the bot does not inform category creators of the deletion because 1) it's not compulsory 2) no one raised it during the approval process and I did not make the feature. It's certainly a possible feature but it will require modification to the current mandate so it would need a WP:BOTN discussion. If you think that the bot should do this, I'll start a new discussion but until then it won't inform any editors. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

JFYI, your sandbox page User:Liz/Whiteboard8 is in following non-hidden categories:

• Category:Wikipedia proposals
• Category:Banned Wikipedia editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair
• Category:Wikipedia arbitration templates
• Category:Wikipedia arbitration cases

which may be unintentional. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that is because of the templates I posted there, andrybak. Thanks for the notice, I'll see if I can remove them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Liz, hope you’re doing well. I wanted to reach out to you and ask about the policies of curse language on Wikipedia? I have seen several occasions of a certain user who I have seen more than once now use curse words when editing on here. Their username is Livelikemusic, please see Chromatica as they refer to as saying their or another users visual editor is a “b****”. Several months ago I had also noticed this same user had also referred to other users editing as “s*** editing” when the user was insisting they were correct. This type of behavior should not be used on here whatsoever, Other users and myself should not be seeing this at all on here. I am a Christian and I would like something done about this. I do believe maybe a block would be suitable, as I have stated before this behavior seems to be very common with this user. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pillowdelight,

Regarding this editor and this article, I could only find one edit where they refer to the editing software, Visual Editor, not an user, as a bitch (meaning, it's a problem). If it had been directed at a person, I could have warned them about personal attacks but it wasn't directed at any individual. I do not think this is egregious misconduct and doesn't qualify as a personal attack. This is usually required to block an editor for incivility, they have to be incivil to or attacking another editor.

If you have ever had any "curse words" directed at you, please let me know along with a link to the specific edit. I have to be able to look at the individual edit to see what the problem is. I'm sorry you are offended by the occasional use of coarse language and I hope it doesn't keep you from participating on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IP is repeating attacks on same page, so more may need deleting, if you can help. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Never mind, Ponyo got it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Hi, just wanted to know what the reasons are to deleting the categories. Were they empty, or only a few entries in each? Or is there a better category tree that you are recommending? What is happening to the articles that were in the hospitality categories? Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Funandtrvl,

Category:Hospitality companies of South America was just tagged as an empty category (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. Unpopulated categories). If it is still empty in 7 days, it will be deleted. If any appropriate pages are put in the category over the next week, the tag will be removed. I'm not recommending an alternative category, just informing you that this one is empty. I don't know what has happened to any articles that were in this category as Wikipedia doesn't maintain that kind of record...category changes are in an article's history, not the category history.

It looks like the parent category Category:Hospitality industry in South America isn't really being utilized but Category:Hotels in South America by country is active. You can compare how the South American Hospitality category is being used by looking at Category:Hospitality companies by continent for comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought it was because it's empty. Just trying not to create categories outside of the normal tree. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1) Read the WP:ROLLBACK policy. You are an administrator so I would assume that you know when to use this tool and when not to use it. Misusing this tool instead of manually writing an edit summary is unacceptable especially on the part of an administrator who is supposed to set the example.

2) RSP Inc has no connection with Running with Scissors (company). This is a redirect that should have never been created in the first place. The least you can do is deleting the redirect page altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.253.101 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

First, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~). I would assume you'd know this.

Second, Riedel Software Productions (RSP) is mentioned throughout the Running with Scissors (company) article. It is a logical redirect.

I encounter people that randomly change redirects to blank pages almost daily. It is inappropriate to change a valid redirect to direct to a blank page. If you disagree with a redirect nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, do not change the redirect to a blank page as its target. I would assume you would know this, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

I restored Draft:Mark G. Lawrence. After a little fixing , it would surely have passed afd as wp:prof;also Draft:Romano Pirola .who ,though the article is very sketchy, is OA. ; alo, Klaus-Dieter Liss:

and Adobe Capativate prime LMS as a product of a major company would surely be worth a redirect.

DGG' ( talk ) 06:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)and

Hello,

Although I agree with you that emptying categories was a mistake (because I was not familiar with the Categories for Discussion), I think your reversions of my edits are unconstructive and did more harm than good.

Categories that have been untouched for 14 years does not necessarily mean that they had "stood the test of time", it may only mean that nobody has looked at them as well.

You have reverted to, for example, having churches (buildings) in a category that is meant for organizations.

You should take a closer look at what you are reverting and check if it is necessary. As you like to stress "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." Right? Kaklen (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

--Boss GamerYT (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Boss GamerYT,

You put article content on a Category page. That is not what categories are for. They are navigational tools to organize pages and do not have content on them. It looks like you are at work at Draft:ZVZ so you do not any deleted content restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Liz!

Four years ago, the Vidgo page was deleted for being introduced "too soon," which is clearly the case and was rightfully deleted. This time around, I planned on making a full Wikipedia entry with all of the appropriate information; however, when I returned the next day (today), it was already deleted. What I posted yesterday was very bare-bones and had little content but I was hoping to add much of that content today and over the next few days. How can I get this entry reinstated? Do I need to add some sort of "Draft" tag to keep it from getting deleted until I've had the chance to make a complete entry?

Thanks,

John

Hello, Jharris327,

I have moved your draft to User:Jharris327/sandbox. When you think it is in decent shape, please submit it to Articles for Creation to get it reviewed. If you move it directly into the encyclopedia, it will likely get deleted again. If you have questions, please visit the the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jharris327 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Thank you for fixing the broken link in my article contribution. However, I would like to apprise you of the fact that the person about whom I contributed the article about is named Anuj Khanna Sohum, which I have mistakenly mentioned as Anuj Kumar Sohum in the draft header initially. I have also included several citations that support this fact. Since I am not so sure about editing the header, I put a redirect so as to provide the name match for the person. --Anthony. William.Hyde (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I saw that you removed my CSD tag from Category:Disambiguation-stop and I'm wondering why. From my investigation everything points towards this being a category that has only ever been used by the now deleted template {{Disambiguation-stop}} where someone simply forgot to delete this category when implementing Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_10#Template:Disambiguation-stop. I've reread the category page, the TfD, as well as looked through all links to the page and a source search to pick up if there is some other mention/use of the category and found nothing. Just because the TfD is old doesn't mean that we shouldn't finish the cleanup. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Trialpears,

A couple of points. First, the category has an Empty Category tag on it that asks for the category to not be deleted even if it is empty. And there are only 2 options for speedy deletion of categories, the primary one being CSD C1, which is for empty categories. This category has a tag that prevents deletion on that basis. The only other option is for speedy renames and you are not looking to rename or merge this category.

The way categories typically get deleted is by proposing it for deletion at Categories for Discussion. You have some good reasons on your side so post your proposal at CFD and the category will likely be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware that it was not eligible for C1, but I tried to delete it under G8 which includes the following sentence categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates. The category in question has only been added using the Template {{Disambiguation-stop}} and said template was deleted at TfD. I've used {{db-templatecat}} many times before to delete categories associated with templates deleted at TfD and have never had any problem. If you still don't think it satisfy G8 I guess I'll take it to CfD. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the C* options, all of the G* options apply to categories as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Following discussion here.) So, I just nominated you for the Strategy transition process Design Group, per Iridescent's recommendation. I hope that's okay. (I would have asked first, but there's less than 20 minutes remaining in the nominations period, and I'm hoping that at least some people in the group will be from the community's side of things. If you don't want to do it, you can always just not accept the nomination.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

From: BernardUK 10:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have now had a new version of the article reviewed by User:Sulfurboy and I am taking my questions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.

Bernardboase 17:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

See also this posting to your talk page on the same subject on 16 April 2017 -- to which you did not reply before the end of June 2017 (diff)

I have ask you twice now on two different category talk pages. See

• Category talk:Wikipedia articles incorporating an LRPP template with one unnamed parameter
• Category talk:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the Schaff-Herzog with Wikisource reference

The first one on 18 May 2020 and the second one on 22 June 2020‎.

Why have you not replied to either request explaining why you put the categories up for deletion? -- PBS (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Liz - I realize the notice is automatic and doesn't distinguish between site banned sock accounts or users, but what do you think about adding an instruction in the code to not add the notice "if"? We have the same issue in AfC and NPP as well. Maybe it would be easier if CU/admins added a hidden site-ban notice at the top of the UTP page (like what archive bot uses) when they close an investigation or community discussion? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Users who have reduced their editing levels due to WP:FRAM has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. No offense intended, but I think its usefulness has subsided. BD2412 T 02:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)