User talk:Liz

Liz is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. They may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict. They may also respond to talk page or email messages more slowly than usual, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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

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

8 June 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous
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.

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

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

Hi Liz, I hope you are well.

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

SENtuh!

Kai chek chai wan suang aaaa!

Te diesel te felt!

Just now what happened with you?

Te diesel te felt!

Te sentuh fishball Wong, sentuh puot-puot-puot!

Te buli te ho pei, ciak pho-pho che deks!

Te lauya te you we come rope, ciak Philomena car deks! 115.135.181.164 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Thriley,

The AFD which resulted in deletion of this article just closed today. I'd advise you to approach Explicit and request his help. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Is that okay? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I just left him a message. Best, Thriley (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

also Mugbamugba War Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no worries someone else has dealt with it. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mccapra,

Oh, okay. Well, then, I guess it's taken care of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Paora,

I'm open to your suggestion if you can state that you will participate in this AFD if it is reopened. As it was, if it wasn't me, another admin would have closed it similarly at the state it was at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. Thanks for your prompt response. Yes, I will participate in the AFD if it is reopened. Paora (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paora,

Okay, so I reverted my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dunlop (chess player) and restored the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

Hello, Nawwaf.hannan,

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

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

Dear Liz,

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

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

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

Warm regards,

Adam Jamal Craig

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

@Liz to save you looking -- the article was Adam Jamal Craig, PRODded by @Primefac. No comment on merit as I've not reviewed Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adam,

You are fortunate. Wikipedia has 3 forms of deletion, Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion and AFD Deletion Discussions. Restoring an article can range from being simple to being close-to-impossible. The article you are concerned about was a Proposed Deletion (or PROD) and that can be restored upon request, which I have done. However, the article still might be nominated for a deletion discussion or AFD because the article right now is very weak and has poor sourcing. You or your representation should not edit the article as you have a conflict-of-interest. But it really needs some valid references to establish your notability. This is typically done through independent, secondary sources from mainsteam newspapers, journals, books, websites, etc. that provide significant coverage of you and your career. Do you have a website where you list media coverage? That would make the process easier.

Two more things. If you have questions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you are encouraged to bring them to the Teahouse. There experienced editors can address your questions and concerns about the project's complicated processes. And, second, you are commended for not being angry about this article deletion or taking it personally. It can be very difficult to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it (see WP:NACTOR) and every day, hundreds of articles and drafts are deleted. Again, you shouldn't edit the article but you are welcome to share any sources on the article talk page and, hopefully, an editor can added them into the article. What we don't want to see is blatant advertising or promotion which can result in another deletion that is much less likely to be restored. Let me know if you have any questions or you can take them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for the link, Star Mississippi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Star Mississippi,

 Done I'm kind of a stickler for verifying CSD G5 as many overeager editors will tag articles for deletion when they simply file an SPI case. I just want to see a) that the page creator is a confirmed sockpuppet and b) that the block-evading editor is identified. In some cases, Checkusers do not identify the block evading account and I turn those requests down. I know other admins aren't so strict about G5s but when I first became an admin, I was less rigorous about the CSD criteria and got rightly chastized for that. I don't know about you but I always remember the times when my admin decisions are critiqued by senior admins when I first got the mop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It all makes sense. Thankfully there is progress being made with the SPI backlog which will make all of our lives easier.

I totally understand your decision, and hope it didn't come across as not. Just wanted to save us seven days of MfD if the info was now resolved to your satisfaction but didn't want to re-tag over your decline. Unfortunately I think we'll be seeing more of this draft.. Have a good evening and you're totally welcome re: link above. No treasure hunts needed. Star Mississippi 02:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least "overeager" is not the worst thing I've been called. Ho hum. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, DoubleGrazing, I wasn't referring to you, not at all. It's a comment coming from 10 years editing on the project, not about any editor specifically. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello MapReader (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MapReader,

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

I'm really not blowing you off, I'm sending you to someone who could possible offer you the help you are requesting. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Buckshot06,

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

Talk:Xianfeng Gu Article Talk Read Edit Add topic View history Tools From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Why is Xianfeng Gu the only missing page for Morningside Gold Medalist? What are the criteria for creating Xianfeng Gu (born Nov 2, 1970) page in Wikipedia? Chinese Wikipedia page for Xianfeng Gu presently contains contents that deviate from the original contributor's intention but "somehow was inserted" by a group of seemingly more than 10 (a "Japanese" wiki bot, somehow, too) zh-wiki users (that are changing and on average use more than 4 simplified zh accounts with Japanese "real" person names, with targeted interest in HK, TW, Dalian, graphics, computational chemistry/topology) including a user ID Shizhao publicly demonstrating (DBLP/Google Scholar) academic tie to Microsoft (Xianfeng Gu's student Wei Zeng) possessing publications in CVPR (Xianfeng Gu a many-time program committee member, general chair, reviewer for CVPR). Competitive (Chinese Olympiad) chemistry base is in Jilin University (guided by Yanbo Sun with serious connection to Dalian University of Technology where Xianfeng Gu works heavily with a high-rank Secretary Na Lei Professor connected to Yanbo Sun as of 2023 which has been and is of course open information to chemical Olympiad competitors) Already in wikidata. Harvard CS PhD 2003 (Gortler & Yau) Harvard CS Master 1996-1997 (Mumford) graduate fellowship Tsinghua TCS 1994 (1989-) undergraduate fellowship 216.165.211.223 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The above is a WP:CIR issue and logged-out editing. See Sadaijin, 45.58.95.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 216.165.211.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They have made bizarre edits like this and this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, MarkH21, I think there is a question in here somewhere amongst the gibberish and conspiracy theories. But it's hard to discern what they want. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz

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

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

https://www.discogs.com/artist/247091-Badun

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

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=badun&rlz=1C5CHFA_enDK1044DK1050&oq=badun&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgAECMYJxiABBiKBTIMCAAQIxgnGIAEGIoFMgwIARAuGEMYgAQYigUyBggCECMYJzIMCAMQABhDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAuGIMBGLEDGIAEMg0IBRAuGK8BGMcBGIAEMgcIBhAuGIAEMg4IBxAuGAoYQxiABBiKBTISCAgQABhDGIMBGLEDGIAEGIoFMgwICRAuGEMYgAQYigXSAQgxMDc3ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

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

Hello, Janusnovak,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your query. Badun was deleted through a Proposed deletion so it can be restored upon request. I can either do this or you can make a request at WP:REFUND and the admins there will handle it. Please know that the article can still be nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion but this would give you time to improve the article and participate in a discussion and put forward your argument. Just let me know what you would like to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you could make the request to restore it for me, that would be wonderful, thank you. :) 83.89.251.164 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you could make the request to restore it for me, that would be wonderful, thank you. :) Janusnovak (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Did you request for the Badun article to be restored? I don't see that it has come back up... Janusnovak (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz

Maybe you didn't see my replies, since I didn't mention you like I do now. So I would still like you to restore the Badun article if you would? Then I will add reliable sources to it. :)

Sincerely,

Janus Janusnovak (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Whpq,

There was a problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Women's Bangladesh Premier League wasn't set up appropriately as a bundled nomination, the other article was just thrown into the deletion nomination. So, XFDcloser didn't delete it when the discussion was closed. But an editor later tagged Women's Bangladesh Premier League for speedy deletion and since the editors participating in the AFD were in favor of deleting both articles, I went ahead with that deletion.

I wasn't 100% comfortable to handling it this way but it's fairly common that AFD nominators don't set up bundled nominations appropriately (more the rule than the exception) and the consensus did seem to favor deletion. There is already a draft at Draft:Women's Bangladesh Premier League that was created before the AFD closed so perhaps an improved version will eventually be approved. I hope this addresses your concern. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have deleted it, but it was not clear from your close that you considered it was a valid bundled nomination so I decided to post a note here. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello, talk,

Could you specify which AFD(s) you are concerned about? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about a senior editor. User:Oaktree b.

S/he/they commented for delete, on almost half of the User:Fhektii nominated for deletion. On the pages Sharon Tay and Jennifer Gilbert specifically, are not making sense to me. Not assuming bad about him, maybe I have misunderstood. Thanks. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody old man said: Oooooooooo.... no wonder, no lights!

Te bloody old man Lem-Lem switch got no pilot light one!

Te Lem-Lem switch bought from Hinomoto electrical shop one! 60.50.30.58 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse,

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

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

Sorry, ignore that: I now see it didn't previously have a mention, so its existence needed to be merged! PamD 06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PamD,

I'm glad you found your answer. In the discussion comments, at least one editor proposed a Merge and while editors can recover content when an artice is transformed into a Redirect, it's easier if you close a discussion as Merge. Plus, after any usable content is removed, the page then does become a Redirect which is the result you seem to have wanted. I think I'm a very neutral closer but I do favor an ATD if one is proposed, if only to repurpose content from weak and unwanted articles to other articles where it might provide some value. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Per the AfD, would you be able to :

• Revert Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) back to [edit] on March 7th.
• Move Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) to Socialist Appeal (Britain)

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

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

Hello, Hemmers,

While I could do what you ask, I hesitate to take on more action than came out of the consensus for this AFD. When a closer goes beyond the community consensus, it's called a supervote and the closer can be taken to AN/ANI when they do this which I'd like to avoid.

I'd recommend you taking this request to Wikipedia:Requested moves and asking the editors/admins there to consider your request. They are experts at evaluating move proposals and dealing with existing page histories and I'd trust them to know what they are doing. The page moves I do are rather simple affairs and this is more complicated. I'd also be interested in hearing their assessment of your plan.

I don't mean to discourage you, this might not be a big deal, I just think that the editors who patrol RM would be better to assess this than I am. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Thankyou for the considered response. However, I'm a little confused because the consensus clearly went further than just "revert the content". All bar one of the "Keep" votes was actually "Keep as per Hemmers" or "Keep and restore as per Hemmers". So the restoration of the page title as described in my proposal does seem to be the consensus of the AfD. What's been done so far - reverting the content - is somewhat "half a job". I can take it to RM if you prefer, but from my understanding of the discussion, the following was the accepted consensus:

Keep Sort of. But revert to 17 December 2023, when it was actually a moderately well-sourced article about a long-standing publication/movement (the Socialist Appeal) (done). Then merge the latest edit of Socialist Appeal (Britain) back on top of it and delete that article (not done). Then move the entire stack (with edit history) back to Socialist Appeal (Britain) where it belongs (not done). I'm at an absolute loss as to what the blazing nonsense has gone on with this article. They've moved a long-standing article, blanked it and rebranded it, and then someone's copied the old content into a new article using the old name!?! A quick hunt back through the History shows it is notable - they've just removed all the references to the former name, instead of creating a new article for the new name/body (which likely wouldn't pass NPP). Failing all that, Delete, it's just a shame to lose the edit history for Socialist Appeal (Britain), which is currently underneath this article. Hemmers (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hemmers (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Teresia Akinyi Achilo,

You are talking about Volvexzshawa, right? It helps to provide a link to the article you are concerned about. To appeal the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volvexzshawa, you would need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review file a request there. Please review the instructions and follow them.

DRV is for if you think I didn't close the discussion appropriately, so it's about my closure, not about the value of this article. The only way I know to overcome a "Delete" AFD decision is to write a new draft, addressing the problems coming up in the AFD, and submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. If you move a new version directly into main space, it will likely be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 which is what happened the last time it was deleted.

If you have general questions about article creation and Wikipedia's deletion processes, I encourage you to bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I would like to address in further detail is the argument of lack of sources. There are many reviews of individual models (often but not only of the higher end Ultrasharp series) on the internet and youtube. Those could be added in a section for reception for example, here are some

https://uk.pcmag.com/monitors/140669/dell-ultrasharp-27-4k-usb-c-hub-monitor-u2723qe

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-4k-monitors/

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/dell-ultrasharp-38-curved-usb-c-hub-monitor-review/

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell

Their monitor series also includes some products that are rather unique in the market, for example some models with 8K resolution, reviewed many times including popular YouTube channel Marques Brownlee.

And to clarify, someone in the deletion discussion mentioned that the article does not show why this is just another monitor manufacturer. That's why I referenced and said that Dell has been the single biggest manufacturer of monitors for the past decade. That link and statement could also be included in the article to show the relevance. Punkt64 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Punkt64,

I actually have no opinion about this article. I closed the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell monitors and the opinion was unanimous for Deletion. Please read over the arguments in the AFD to see why the participating editors believed the article should be deleted. If you do not think I read the consensus correctly, then you may appeal the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Ordinarily, I normally make an offer to restore the article to Draft space so that it can be improved but the very nature of this article, which was basically a product catalog, is unlikely to be changed by editing. Additionally, the article was full of templates about Dell products and those templates have since been deleted.

If you want an article on this subject, I think your best route is to start over by writing a draft article in your User space, like your Sandbox, or in Draft space. That, and deletion review, are the two options I see as the consensus was clear and I can not revert the closure based on any arguments you make here. I'm sorry but my role is to interpret the consensus in a discussion, not advocate for articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you say the article in its current form will not be accepted by editing then what use is a Deletion review? I don't know the exact procedures of english wikipedia, I'm usually editing in german wikipedia.

As I do not have the energy or time right now to write a completely new article, a relatively large one at that, I'd like to recreate it in my space for personal use. The missing template is a problem. Is there any way to get this into the user space and then use it? It is not saved in the wayback machine. I know of no way to get it back without rewriting it myself. Punkt64 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, you said you could restore it to draft space. Is it possible for you to restore it to my user draft space, together with the template? That would be very nice and useful. As I said not necessarily for publishing at the moment but for personal use. I have tried it myself but that was from a wayback save from 6th May of 2023, so probably not the most current version. And it also lacked the template which makes half of the article unreadable. Punkt64 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punkt64, I'd be willing to restore it to your User space so you could view it. I'm not sure about restoring all of the templates. Just know that if you move it back into main space, it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4 as an article previously deleted in an AFD deletion discussion. The only way I know to overcome an AFD Delete decision is to write a draft and submit it to AFC. I understand that the English Wikipedia does have a truckload of policies and guidelines that are especially confusing to new or infrequent editors. I'll look into that restoration later tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, DoubleGrazing,

When you are a new admin, there are two ways to learn what decisions you should make as an admin. One is reviewing policy and guidelines. The second is seeing how more experienced admins act and adopting their practices. My action about CSD G4s in Draft space might fall under the latter group. Unless the draft is identical to the deleted article or is vandalism, drafts are typically untagged if they are labeled CSD G4s. The reason why is that there should be a way for an edtor to write on an article subject that has been deleted through AFD and write an improved and better article. If all drafts were subject to CSD G4s, we'd never be able to accept well-written articles on subjects that had once been deleted through AFD.

If this point isn't stated in CSD policy, I'm sure it's been a subject of discussion (probably multiple times) on the CSD talk page and I'll search for that later tonight. If I can't find it, then I think it is worth starting a new discussion on CSD Talk to make that clear. The only aspect that I'm sure of is that I'm not the only admin to handle CSD G4s in Draft space in this way. So, if I'm incorrect, it's not just my behavior that needs to change but the other administrators who patrol CSD categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries, Liz. I just thought maybe I'd overlooked something obvious, but it seems more of a grey area? In any case, I'm not here to argue with admins' decisions, whether I think they're right or wrong; you guys take enough flak as it is, for doing a difficult job (that I wouldn't do, even if offered!), and I for one don't need to be making it any more difficult. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello, MrMkG,

While my closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) was tentative, the consensus I saw was that the article content was inaccurate and if an article exists on this subject, it should be rewritten. Please review the comments made in the AFD. So, I closed the discussion as Delete. I don't think another relisting would increase the participation and because some editors actually thought the information in the article was false, I'm unwilling to restore this article to Draft space.

I see two options for you. If you disagree with my assessment of the consensus of the discussion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please know that this discussion will not be an opportunity for you to argue that the article subject is notable, the discussion will focus on my actions and the closure of the discussion and whether that was correct. The other option is to start a new draft in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. This is necessary when an article has been deleted through an AFD because another article on this subject put into main space can be speedy deleted, CSD G4. I think that is the most productive route to take but it's up to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can just restore it so that editors can correct it if it has false information like it is normally done. Why are you unwilling to restore it? Articles aren't deleted for being incorrect, they are corrected. I don't care for the merits of your actions or all the bureaucracy. I've seen it takes far too long. There is an upcoming election and an major party has gotten its article deleted. MrMkG (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to piggyback on this in re my AfD for The Garagiste Festivals, since it's another example of the same issue. Considering the total lack of engagement with this AfD, would there be any issue with a BOLD merge of notable, non-promotional into another article, or do I need to wait until the AfD closes? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Star Mississippi, I usually don't join talk page discussions until the end of the day when I have more free time but I'll check out the discussion on your User talk page. I appreciate you letting me know about it as I don't check my pings.

Just Another Cringy Username, please do not Merge content until the AFD is closed but if you want to go that route, please make sure you mention that in your AFD nomination statement so it's clear you are not seeking deletion. But we typically advise that while it's fine to improve articles while they are being discussed at an AFD, large content removals, Merges, Redirects or page moves can be disruptive.

As a closer, if there is low participation, I typically like to let AFDs run at least two weeks although other closers will close them sooner so I'm not sure what will happen with this one. I've actually seen 3 or 4 editors jump into a discussion after 3 relistings so it's hard to predict what will happen. There are some subjects that draw a lot of participants, like contentious topics, subjects in the news and, for some reason, articles about places/towns, but most AFDs are suffering from a shortage of editors interested in participating. I'd estimate that we have half the number of participating editors in most AFDs than there were a year ago. It's an area of the project that many editors burn out on and I can understand why. An editor can spend an hour or more searching for reliable sources and then the AFD is closed as Delete. I'm sure it is very frustrating. But I can't think of an area where an individual editor can have more influence over the content of the project than participating thoughtfully in AFDs. Whether or not articles are Kept or Delete can often come down to one or two editors which, honestly, I don't think is optimal for the health of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Owen×,

No, I hadn't seen it, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Fifteen years ago, I spent as much time on Twitter as I do now on Wikipedia so I'm aware of the account but I just am not on the platform any more so I don't see their posts. I think they are on Instagram as well.

It's very flattering but also a bit unsettling as I think most editors work without thinking that anyone is paying attention to what they are doing...unless they make a colossal mistake. And there are many editors/admins who work just as much if not more than I do. I think about editors/admins who create Featured Articles, dig into unearthing sockfarms, handle disputes on Contentious Topics and manage the AE noticeboard and, most of all, those editors who take on the thankless task of investigating copyright concerns. They are heroes to me. The work I do does fall under the rubric of "maintenance" as unglamorous as that sounds, that's what the mop is for. I guess I find it satisfying cleaning out the unwanted pages and welcoming new editors. I just think it is so important what that "first contact" is with newbies, it can drive them away, muttering under their breath about what a bureaucratic hellhole Wikipedia is, or encourage them to spend more time here and try to pick up all of the rules and policies. I think we forget that with experienced editors moving on and retiring, we have a constant need for competent new editors and you never know which ones will turn into those editors who write articles on some subject that is missing from the project.

But thanks for letting me know, it's kind of like getting a barnstar only in front of an audience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Up the Walls,

These two articles might mention the Talent economy phrase in the body of the article because it is part of a title of a book but this term is not part these articles' page titles or a main subject which is what disambiguation pages are for. They just happen to mention a book that has Talent economy in the book title. For further guidance, please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Specific instances and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include or you can inquire about disambiguation pages at the Teahouse. But in my eyes, this was an appropriate speedy deletion tagging.

If you disagree with the tagging and deletion of this page, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and see if the editors there agree with you. Personally, if was me, I would create Talent economy as a Redirect page and use one of these articles as the target page, including a hatnote to reference the other article rather than create a disambiguation page. But you are free to take what action you feel is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Jay,

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

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

Hello, Kk.urban,

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

Ok, thank you. Kk.urban (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mrs. @Liz, please delete user page such as User:Ayig2 because CSD G1. Thanks. 36.78.197.67 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 36.78.197.67

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

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dr. Squatch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 108.49.72.125 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many thanks, Maxb133. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Maxb133,

As a discussion closer, I assess the consensus of the discussion. If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Wise you can see the arguments editors put forward for why this article should be deleted. After you have read it over, return here and tell me if you now understand. Would you like to create a new article on this subject?

If you have questions about AFDs and Wikipedia's deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Thriley,

You've been around here long enough to know that I can't just revert a AFD consensus decision, especially when no editors were arguing to Keep this article. But since it is a Redirect, the content is still all there. You could move the page to Draft space, creating a Redirect in its place, where you could work on improving the article. Sound good? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I didn’t mean that! Just wanted to move the redirect to draft. Looks like I can do that myself. Thriley (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Chaotic Enby,

If this is the case, it shouldn't get a CSD G5 tag, tag it instead with {{db-gs}}. I'm not sure if this is programmed into Twinkle yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I'll tag the article correctly! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Enby, to be honest, very few editors, even page patrollers, know about this speedy deletion code. I only know of two editors who have correctly tagged articles that fit the criteria. Now you are one of them! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Always happy to learn! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Tablasingh,

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yash_Shah_(contortionist) Mam please 🙏 try to help me. Tablasingh (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Liz, its been done by Fastily. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 09:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good because I was asleep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Danjobilly1,

Can you give me a link to the page you are talking about? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that. Here Delonte Hood Danjobilly1 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danjobilly1,

No problem. This was a Proposed deletion so it can be restored upon request. I can restore it to main space, where it might be tagged for AFD deletion (it's a possibility) or to your User space or Draft space if you would prefer a chance to look it over. Let me know what you would like. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restore it to main space? I can make the necessaryessisary changed from there. Thank you ! Danjobilly1 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danjobilly1,

I see you already recreated this article. But I restored the previous edits which you can check out in case you wanted to know what the original content on the page was. Sorry for the delay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, evrik,

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

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

Hello, Shewasafairy,

Well, I handled this backwards as I only saw your message now. I lifted page protection, then saw that Justin Jin (entrepreneur) is being discussed at an AFD so it shouldn't be moved unless it is Kept. I should have checked first as the page title appears to me in a pink font, signaling that it has been tagged for deletion or deletion discussion. Sorry for the tardy response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah no worries, maybe it would be appropriate to keep it at the entrepreneur disambiguation if the other draft is brought into main space. anyways, thank you. She was ^afairy 06:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please restore her Wikipedia page.

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

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

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

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

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

Hello, -- Deepfriedokra,

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

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

Hello, -- Deepfriedokra,

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