Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

User talk:Liz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    It's Autumn!


    Archives
    Index1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
    11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20
    21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30
    31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40
    41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50
    51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60
    61,62

    This page was last edited or modified byRFKTNG (talk).


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


    Wise words given to a blocked editor:This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
    and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
    Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
    Well said!LizRead!Talk!
    The Signpost
    10 November 2025
    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see thedashboard.
    No matter how cute you are,expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.



    While Wikipedia's writtenpolicies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
    Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of theletter of policy without consideration for theprinciples of policies.
    If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia,ignore them.
    Disagreements are resolved throughconsensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
    Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselvesmay be changed to reflectevolving 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.

    Deletion review forEagles—Falcons rivalry

    [edit]

    An editor has asked fora deletion review ofEagles—Falcons rivalry. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.40.128.69.240 (talk)18:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,40.128.69.240,
    Thank you for informing me about the deletion review. It's appreciated.LizRead!Talk!19:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RevDel request: 3D rendering of future CCG Polar Icebreaker built by Davie.jpg

    [edit]

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

    Nomination ofAgastya Nanda for deletion

    [edit]
    A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleAgastya Nanda is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

    The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agastya Nanda (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

    Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

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

    Hello,Mpen320,
    It took me a while to understand why you left me this message but I see that I closed the previous AFD involving this article. Thank you for the notification. Happy editing!LizRead!Talk!23:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks - New users jumping into "administrative" tasks

    [edit]

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

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

    Deleting CleanBrowsing page

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Nzlp1kkiwi,
    I'm not sure what you are asking of me but could you please leave me a link to the deleted page? Then I can look and see why it was deleted. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!23:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course! This one:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanBrowsingNzlp1kkiwi (talk)23:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can just writeCleanBrowsing and that is a link to the page. I see this was deleted as a Proposed deletion (WP:PROD). That means that the article can be restored upon editor request. Is that what you are asking for or did you want to write a new version of the article?LizRead!Talk!23:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, asking if you can restore, so I can improve it and add the additional authoritative content / links.Nzlp1kkiwi (talk)23:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Nzlp1kkiwi,
     Done Let me know if you have any other questions.LizRead!Talk!02:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!! Added many more links and cleaned up the content. Will add a bit more later.Nzlp1kkiwi (talk)03:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion ofBartimaeus (disambiguation)

    [edit]

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

    Checking the history of this page, it does not appear to have been PRODed before. The only previous deletion was self-reverted by the deleting admin due to incorrectly using a CSD criterion.Reaper Eternal (talk)02:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,CyberTheTiger,
    You are not correct. An article can be PROD'd if it has been deleted before, it just can't be PROD'd more than once. If you would like it to be restored, you can make a request atWP:REFUND.LizRead!Talk!02:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just made the requestCyberthetiger🐯 (talk)03:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramakrishnan Sivaswamy Iyer

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Raj Shri21,
    I'm so sorry. I had this discussion page open to edit and then my computer crashed. When I rebooted my laptop and returned to the open page, in that intervening period you must have posted your comments. Can you repost your remarks? I apologize, it was completely unintentional and had nothing to do with the content of your comments.LizRead!Talk!05:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all — I completely understand. These things happen! I’ll go ahead and repost my comment shortly. Thanks for letting me know.Raj Shri21 (talk)05:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoring a page

    [edit]

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

    Hello,G Hiruja,
     DonePublic Media Solution has been restored. Just a head's up but often when this happens, the article is brought toWP:AFD for a deletion discussion so be aware that this can happen. Happy editing!LizRead!Talk!21:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of a shortcut

    [edit]

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

    You can request its undeletion atWP:REFUND.Cyberthetiger🐯 (talk)02:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware, but I wanted to give Liz 24 hours to see and respond to this first, as a courtesy. Since no response appears to be coming, I will go make an undeletion request.QuicoleJR (talk)12:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,QuicoleJR, it looks like this situation has been resolved. It was an orphaned talk page and so eligible for CSD G8 speedy deletion but given your explanation, I tagged the page as exempt from CSD G8 rules.LizRead!Talk!21:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Poutine

    [edit]
    Poutine from Windsor, Ontario, made by Canadians at a local a diner.
    		Poutine
    InCanada, where I live,poutine is very common and tasty.~Rafael! (He, him) •talk •guestbook •projects
    It looks pretty ooey and gooey but I appreciate the gift,Rafaelthegreat. Thank you for the well wishes!LizRead!Talk!21:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel request

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Zzz plant,
     Done It was only those two edits, right? Taken care of.LizRead!Talk!00:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I did actually find more - all of the revisions from the creation date until it was fixedhere. Thanks again,Zzz plant (talk)00:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzz plant: Thanks for reporting this. In the future, when the content that needs to be removed is non-public personal information, it is highly recommended to avoid posting about it publicly on-wiki, even on user talk pages. Since many editors have admin user talk pages on their watchlists, posting about it here mightinadvertently draw more attention to it. Instead, I would just stick to off-wiki methods likeemailing the oversight team (which I know you did in this case—thank you for that).
    @Liz: Just to let you know, I have elevated your revision deletions here to oversight. (I presume that may have been what you intended, but looks like you did not check the "suppress" checkbox when you redacted these diffs.)Mz7 (talk)02:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mz7, I have no issue with this. I used to be able to suppress edits but I've run into problems with establishing the 2FA permission so I know longer can oversight. If you have any ideas how to master 2FA, it would be appreciated.LizRead!Talk!02:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, since I have an iPhone, I am just using the built-in Apple Passwords app that should be there if you're using the latest iOS software. I just followed the standard instructions atH:ENABLE2FA. Is there a part of the 2FA procedure you are stuck on? I guess the biggest point of friction is probably installing an authenticator app on your phone to begin with.Mz7 (talk)03:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mz7, you have to scan a QR code and either my phone doesn't scan it or it does and the QR code isn't recognized and is rejected. And without accomplishing that one step successfully, you can't move "forward" in the process. I last tried this two weeks ago so maybe I'll try again and see if I run into the same problem.LizRead!Talk!03:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which app are you using the scan the QR code? Make sure you are using an app specifically designed for 2FA to scan the QR code.Mz7 (talk)03:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember reading that was necessary so I did download a special app to do this. Again, it's been a while since I tried so I will need to try again.LizRead!Talk!03:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that- I’ve finally connected my account to email so I will utilize that going forward for anything oversight-y. Thank you both for your attention to this~Zzz plant (talk)02:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI reply

    [edit]

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

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

    Happy Adminship Anniversary!

    [edit]
    Wikipedia globe and sysop mopHappy adminship anniversary!
    Hi Liz! On behalf of theBirthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of yoursuccessful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)16:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]    		Party popper emoji
    Hello,DaniloDaysOfOurLives,
    I do appreciate this greeting. I get the date mixed up (I always think my RFA was in July because it was a very hot week) so this is useful for me to keep track. Thanks for undertaking this project of yours.LizRead!Talk!21:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I mentioned you at MfD

    [edit]

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

    Hello,S0091,
    I appreciate the notification. I've left a comment at the MFD discussion.LizRead!Talk!21:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tharshan Thiyagarajah

    [edit]

    This person has starred in three films:Koogle Kuttappa,Naadu andSurrender (2025 film). Sources:[1][2][3][4]. Can you treat this as a request for undeletion since you deleted the article (theysometimes restore articles deleted via AfD) and restore as a draft?DareshMohan (talk)07:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

    [edit]

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

    Administrator changes

    added
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    removed

    Oversight changes

    removed

    Guideline and policy news

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

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    • Wikimania 2025 is happening inNairobi,Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years ofWikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You canregister here now.
    Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Second opinion?

    [edit]

    I'm heading out, but can you take a look atthis set of diffs (which is atTalk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting)? It looks like LLM/AI text on a talk page, which I think is discouraged atWP:AITALK. Regardless, it's an RM that isn't posted correctly and we just had one closed a few days ago. Anything you can do if there is an issue would be appreciated. =) —Locke Cole •t •c23:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Re your closing statement atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikki Panday (2nd nomination)

    [edit]

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

    Hello,* Pppery *,
    I appreciate the information, I didn't recognize the name. I'll adjust the closure statement. Very thorough deletion nomination statement by the way, I wish we had more editors who put the time into putting one together instead of just writing "Not notable" or "Fails GNG". Thank you.LizRead!Talk!19:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I put that much effort in because I was expecting the AfD to be disrupted by weakly-argued keep votes like Deanne's was, so wanted to make my case up front.* Pppery *it has begun...19:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Re your closing statement atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Vasquez

    [edit]

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

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

    [1][2]

    2804:3DF8:500E:E500:75F0:9315:4B37:2D62 (talk)22:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page stalker)WP:MUSICBIO saysHas received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour; this is a stricter condition than simply having gone on an international concert tour.jlwoodwa (talk)23:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,2804:3DF8:500E:E500:75F0:9315:4B37:2D62.
    I decline to revert my closure or reopen the deletion discussion. If you disagree with my closure, you can file an appeal atWP:DRV. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!00:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^https://www.shazam.com/pt-br/events/-/-/1102018026
    2. ^https://open.spotify.com/artist/5jd9g1yEdO5uSwJQfMOvnH/concerts?si=TgnTpF6HTgW_nKRu6gfQOw

    The Signpost: 9 August 2025

    [edit]
    *Read this Signpost in full *Single-page *Unsubscribe *MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice about article deletion discussion

    [edit]

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

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

    14 transclusions of a deleted template page

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Jonesey95,
    This is why I usually stay away from templates and closing TFDs. I've restored the page. Maybe an admin more familiar with templates can address this.LizRead!Talk!23:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, too confusing for me too. –Jonesey95 (talk)23:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't related to TfD.
    Please see the global rename log and the resulting pages, which were deleted byUser:Extraordinary Writ using XFDcloser on 9 August, followingWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blitziko/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump
    On1 January 2025 Robertsky globally renamed Sangsangaplaz to Blitzkriegswunder – the moves of userspace pages following the rename caused the redirectUser:Sangsangaplaz/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump to be created; it was G8 deleted.
    On2 January 2025 Robertsky globally renamed Blitzkriegswunder to All Tomorrows No Yesterdays – the moves of userspace pages following the rename caused the redirectUser:Blitzkriegswunder/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump to be created; it was G8 deleted.
    On23 March 2025 Cabayi talk contribs globally renamed All Tomorrows No Yesterdays to Blitziko – the moves of userspace pages following the rename caused the redirectUser:All Tomorrows No Yesterdays/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump to be created; it was G8 deleted.
    The user is named Blitziko – the nameUser:Blitziko/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump is where the page was, and it was deleted per the MfD. The above redirects all pointed to it.
    It is this page that Blitziko-then-Sangsangaplaz had moved on 4 December 2024 fromTemplate:User Against Donald Trump toUser:Sangsangaplaz/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump, i.e. to their userspace, citingWP:UM. This move left a redirect at "Template:User Against Donald Trump" and this redirect was replaced with{{User UBM UBX to}} (diff), creating a temporary and dependent sort of page.
    It is this residual, temporary, and dependent templatespace page which Liz correctly deleted on 10 August. It is eligible for deletion under G6 (per the MfD) and G8 (dependent on a deleted page). It is understandable that Extraordinary Writ missed it.
    The page should be deleted again. For the question of what to do with red links on user pages, they should be removed. This can be done after deletion, and anyone can do it. This is not a situation where something might break if a transcluded template is deleted. There is currently a transclusion redlink even of the actual Blitziko userbox and of "User:All Tomorrows No Yesterdays/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump". —Alalch E.01:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Alalch E.,
    This is very kind of you to respond and provide all of this detailed information. I have a lot of daily tasks I'm involved in so I'll add this to the list. This doesn't seem urgent so I'm not sure when I, or another editor, will get to it. But I appreciate the time it took for you to pull this together.
    Over the 10 years as an admin, I've made a couple of poor choices deleting templates so I usually stay far away from them because of all of the complications from transclusions. If you know of a quick way to take care of those links, I'd love to hear about it. If the only way is manual editing, then, as I said, I'll get to them when I can. Thanks again,LizRead!Talk!02:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I did missTemplate:User Against Donald Trump, so you were right to delete it, Liz...feel free to redelete it when you get a chance. On the delinking question, I don't really have a firm opinion: it's fairly common to just leave the redlinks when a userbox is deleted, but I'm not sure if there's a specific reason for that. In this case I can just remove them manually. (Liz, the only automated way I know is to list the template atWP:TFD/H, where Primefac and Plastikspork have bots that can remove the transclusions.)Extraordinary Writ (talk)04:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Transclusions of nonexistent pages in template space are most definitely not left as redlink transclusions.Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates is processed a few times per week, sometimes multiple times per day, to remove all such transclusions. The presence of this template page on that template was how I ended up here; admin-deleted template pages are rarely on that report, presumably because admins tidy them up, but I didn't know if there was an exception of some kind in this case. Hence my post. –Jonesey95 (talk)05:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How I wish -all- template discussions were at TfD and not split over several different venues... Anyways, regarding the templates, if there are many pages that need editing, just list the template over atWP:TFD/H and only delete when unused.Gonnym (talk)13:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging articles

    [edit]

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

    Hello,109.245.196.169,
    I haven't had any success merging articles in two different namespaces. You might try posting a request atWikipedia:Requests for history merge.LizRead!Talk!23:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft was made person then made article without knowing there was draft already how can't you just merge them and history etc..109.245.196.169 (talk)15:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz hello?109.245.196.169 (talk)14:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz hello?109.245.196.169 (talk)15:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Coldplay jumbotron controversy

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Jax 0677,
    The closure forWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldplay jumbotron controversy was Delete. In these situations, we typically delete the article.LizRead!Talk!23:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    List of CAx companies

    [edit]

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

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

    Please restoreList of CAx companies in my user space, to let me see whether there is something salvageable in older versions, before it became spam magnet. CAD industry is massive and we do have numerous items inLists of companies#By industry. an I am sure thatList of CAD/CAM/CAE companies is no less deserving thanList of food trucks. --Altenmann>talk23:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What do you make of this? Hoax?

    [edit]

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

    • Though a claim of publishing over 40 papers, I find no mention of him or his papers in a Google search.
    • The only references provided are to
    1. Trinity College Dublin Calendars and
    2. Finch, Eric (1992).Three Centuries of Physics in Trinity College Dublin. Hodges Figgis.ISBN 978-0951706213.
    • This isbn links toWhite, Richard (1990).How Not to Deal with a Hoaxer.

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

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

    Weird stuff going on there with the ISBN, but see[5]and[6] seems he actually did exist.Jahaza (talk)03:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Report inNature on the award of the medal.[7]Jahaza (talk)03:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,ERcheck,
    I was just looking at this editor because I had to delete a broken redirect from a move of one of their articles. I believe their paid articles involve past faculty at College Dublin so I would need some real proof to believe they are writing a hoax article. But you have looked into this more than I have. I'll pingUser:David Eppstein as he is our resident authority on articles on academics and he could probably easily judge whether or not this article is factually true. Any opinion on this, David?LizRead!Talk!03:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, traveling today and no time to edit, so just a quick reply. Jahaza'sNature link checks out, so he existed and likely passesWP:PROF#C2, but the bogus ISBN suggests that the draft may be AI-created and TNT/WP:CSD#G15-worthy. —David Eppstein (talk)05:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein, thanks for taking time out of your travels to check in about this. Have a safe trip!LizRead!Talk!05:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Space invaders (film) deletion

    [edit]

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

    I considered raising this at the draft'scurrent deletion review, but it turns out the redirect was only ever in mainspace because of series of moves byStarzoner (talk ·contribs ·logs ·block log). So this was a valid, if accidental, G5. —Cryptic11:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Jay andCryptic,
    It didn't look controversial to me since I see these every day. I should have looked closer. I've reverted all of the edits and page moves. I'm kind of busy at the moment but I'll leave a note forColeFrye.LizRead!Talk!00:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct, but once moved to mainspace, it wasn't reverted and was getting pageviews from 2020 (though not exceeding 1 per day). A page move without leaving redirect is equivalent to delete, and may be done for new pages, as part of the new page patrol, but not for existing redirects. Jay 💬03:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay, I don't understand this, every day I delete cross-namespace redirects leftover from editors draftifying main space articles. Just straight up CSD R2s, from main space to Draft space. Are you arguing that we leave redirects from main space to Draft space? If not, what was special about this cross-namespace redirect that indicated that I shouldn't have deleted it? Any explanation would be welcome.LizRead!Talk!03:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what they're saying is that part of the R2 patrolling process is checking whether the draftification was improper.jlwoodwa (talk)03:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    New pages may be draftified, as I said. Pages older than 3 months should not, perWP:DRAFTNO. If an old redirect is being draftified, we would need an alternate (non-draft) target in its place, or be discussed at RfD. Jay 💬03:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just acted in response to Jay's comment without reading through this entire discussion and reverted all of the action that have been taken. I'm not sure about the deletion review but have left a message there. I think I might have made things more complicated but I don't know how this all came out of a CSD R2 speedy deletion.LizRead!Talk!

    Deletion review forHumaira Hasan

    [edit]

    An editor has asked fora deletion review ofHumaira Hasan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Ike Lek (talk)00:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Ike Lek,
    Thank you for the notification. It's appreciated.LizRead!Talk!00:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Caramelia14,
    I'm not sure what you are referencing, are you talking about the categories you created?LizRead!Talk!22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    YesCaramelia14 (talk)23:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pathaan (YRF Spy Universe)

    [edit]

    That IP User (2605:B40:1302:6C00:4D2E:E922:7ACB:4B02 (talk)) removed edit to redirect the article1304186269. Already same massage intalk page but no response.Please, I request the redirect to restored thePathaan (YRF Spy Universe).Panda 🐼Arun(Talk)08:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Panda Arun,
    I don't understand what you are asking me to do here. Could you explain it further?LizRead!Talk!22:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The articlePathaan (YRF Spy Universe) was kept afterAfD (Result: Speedy keep).
    An IP user removed the redirect inthis edit.
    Since the article was kept, I request that the redirect be restored.Panda 🐼Arun(Talk)04:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    An apology

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Nebulaz,
    I have reverted your edit as it is improper to remove content from talk pages after there have been responses to it and you also removed my message. If you no longer believe in your remark, the appropriate thing to do is strike the content, like this <s>Comment</s> which will make the comment look like thisComment.
    You don't need to apologize to me and I had to go back a few months to see what this was all about. I was just commenting that you were a very new editor and shouldn't be "correcting" others until you yourself learned more about how Wikipedia functions. That's all. Any way, that was 2 months ago so welcome back and happy editing.LizRead!Talk!22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Dananeer Mobeen

    [edit]

    Just saw the redirect deletion in my watchlist. Looks likethe move was inappropriate onThilsebatti's part. In fact, considering the reason given in the move was "no sources", which is blatantly false on its face by a single glance at the article, I would just consider the move outright vandalism. Particularly since the mainspace name is still full protected (for some reason?) and thus the move can't be undone without an admin. Could you please movethe draft back to mainspace, Liz?SilverserenC04:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The creatorBehappyyar is blocked for UPE. Some of their creations must go through AFC process. Sometimes we have toignore all rules. Thanks and regards.Thilsebatti (talk)06:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And? The article has been massively rewritten by multiple editors since its creation, particularly byAlalch E. Unless you're accusing them of being a paid editor, then you have no standing for this action. Especially when you lied in your move reason.SilverserenC06:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you’re coming from, but my decision was based on the article’s creation history and the fact that the original creator is blocked for undisclosed paid editing. In cases like this, I believe it’s safer to put the page through AfC so that any lingering promotional tone or COI issues can be caught before returning it to mainspace. On the point that other editors have since worked on the article — I do acknowledge that, but experience has shown that pages with COI/UPE origins can still retain subtle promotional bias even after many edits. AfC review is simply a safeguard to make sure we’re meeting neutrality and sourcing standards. If consensus is to restore it, I’m fine with that, but my priority here was ensuring the content is clean and policy-compliant. I also want to be clear that I don’t appreciate the suggestion this could be “vandalism.” I acted in good faith, with the sole intention of protecting the encyclopedia from possible UPE-influenced content.Thilsebatti (talk)06:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your efforts are appreciated, but you should have looked at the talk page and page history.Alalch E.06:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. I should have double checked before moving to draftspace. Apologies for not doing that. Thanks for acknowledging my efforts. Will be more careful from now onwards.Thilsebatti (talk)06:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

     DoneSilver seren,Alalch E., does that take care of things? This page title was protected because of previous sockpuppetry and UPE attempts to create an article here which is why I "re-"protected the page after the article was moved to Draft, apparently mistakenly. It is no longer protected.LizRead!Talk!18:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help, Liz. There was a big kerfuffle about the article a couple months back because of that, leading to Alalch E. rewriting the whole thing. I think we'd all thought that would be the end of it, especially since notability was no longer in question due to the subject's increased public prominence in the past year or so. Hopefully we are indeed done with this sort of thing now.SilverserenC18:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, everything is good now. —Alalch E.19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thank you for the rewriting the article,Alalch E.. After 12 years here, I think more confusion arises out of undiscussed article page move than any other form of wayward editing. It's one of the first skills that new editors try out and a lot of editors use this function too spontaneously. I'm not sure what happened in this particular case but, overall, we see a lot of disruption on the project because of page moves in all namespaces. It's helpful for experienced editors to check on the Move log on a regular basis.LizRead!Talk!04:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    José Varela (cyclist) - post-deletion note

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Narky Blert,
    Between hundreds of CSD G13s, dozens of AFDs and PRODs, I review hundreds of articles every day, you wlll have to refresh my memory on what you said or provide a link to the article so I can go see what was put on the article. I don't remember any one particular article at the end of the day. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Thanks.LizRead!Talk!04:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember the details, but 5 or 6 years ago there was an intractable DABlink error involving that subject and both a template and Wikidata, and the only way I could think of clearing it was to write that worthless article. Both are notorious among DABfixers for causing headaches.Narky Blert (talk)05:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Republika Srpska Cup

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Left guide,
    I don't think there was anything wrong with my close but I already have two closes at Deletion review and you have shown you have no compunction about bringing a fellow closer to DRV which I think is abominable, personally. But you don't care about collegiality. So, I've just reverted myself so I don't have to make third trip to DRV. And please only come to this User talk page to post obligatory messages. Good bye.LizRead!Talk!05:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I now realize that when I challenged the original close, I had misread the consensus not having noticed SportingFlyer indicated they were fine with the redirect at the end of their comment, which IMO tips the scale of consensus to a redirect. It was a huge mistake on my part for which I am very sorry, and it has made me learn to be more careful and thorough with reading the full discussion before considering a challenge, especially from an experienced AfD admin like you. If this incident caused you any distress, it's 100% my fault and I deserve a{{trout}} for it.Left guide (talk)22:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ron Mueck Suits

    [edit]

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

    90 percent of London housing stock regardless if social housing estates, Leasehold or properties owned outright have been vacated/stolen and are empty, apart from pretend tenants whose job is to make the real inhabitants lives totally miserable and unbearable, including "actors" working for businesses surrounding these properties. The 10 percent left are still being hounded to death. I am one of those 10 percent.
    When is this situation going to come to an end?
    Surely the period of halving well over it's population is over by now. And it's time for everyone to start living again?
    I recently discovered that Cadillac Fairview real-estate management company for Alberta Teachers Pension Fund have collaborated with Stanhope Foundation.
    How exactly are the teachers of Alberta county going to raise funds for their pensions whilst all these properties remain empty?Zoe the original? (talk)06:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have contributed way more than these awful greedy coerced and brainwashed who have been robbing their own family and community members. I have contributed since I was a small baby to both Britain and America never ever having to go through another WWII or Vietnam situation. I have also contributed to the situation of the threat of global warming. I don't demand for money or jobs or privileges in return but simply to finally be able to live my life free from exploitation and abuse.2A02:6B67:D0A5:E700:9E8:86A:E163:71AD (talk)11:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say I have contributed to the situation of the threat of global warming I meant not that I have contributed to global warming but the scientific exploration around combating it. Not contributing to it. And yet here I am being pushed to suicide by once human beings who have done the opposite.Zoe the original? (talk)12:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These "actors" here in London still targeting innocent members of their own communities in London to make more empty housing aren't doing it because they care about the threat of global warming. Or that they have ever contributed in a way I have to global security but because it's the only time they have ever felt relevant. Or more to the point it's about absolute greed.Zoe the original? (talk)12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the fact that they not only refuse to acknowledge, or are able to understand, and have since behaved even more appalling towards me after I wrote the last message, while trying to go about my day bashing physically into me on the street, and hounding and tormenting me even more whilst standing outside where I am currently staying proves my point about their state of minds.Zoe the original? (talk)13:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Zoe the original?,
    I mean this with the utmost respect, Zoe, but I have absolutely no idea what on Earth you are talking about. We have no article on a "Ron Mueck Suits" and our article onRon Mueck is on a sculptor, not a clothes designer. I don't live in London or the UK so have no opinion on whatever political or social problems are occurring there.
    Wikipedia is also not a forum for discussion or debate, we are building an encyclopedia here, so if you are interested in discussing this situation, i encourage you to find a news website or try social media and you might find other people who are as interested as you are in this situation and want to enter into a debate. But it's not appropriate here. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!19:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Liz

    [edit]

    I would really appreciate if you (or any watcher who’s an admin) can deletethis page for me. Best,Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia07:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,User:Reading Beans,
     DoneLizRead!Talk!07:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Liz. I really do appreciate the swift response. Best,Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia07:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of merge tags for Burlakov case

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I'm sorry it took me so long to respond to your message atAN/I- I have beenhaving technical problems, which I hope are now resolved. I had indeed notifiedSsr ontheirTalk page in addition to my ping, as per the instructions.

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

    Hello,MarcusEllington90,
    It's not clear to me what you are requesting here. If you wish, I can take the brief discussion which was archived atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#Merge tags deleted for Burlakov case and put it on the current ANI page. But I can not guarantee any further action will be taken, editors are volunteers and they might or might not respond to the reposting of your comment.
    By the way, when I went looking for the discussion you are referring to in the ANI archives, I found an earlier discussion from 2023 that you might be interested in reading over to put the discussion about this article into context. You can find it atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Burlakov case and Oleg Burlakov multiple rules violation. Let me know how you would like to proceed.LizRead!Talk!18:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz. If you think reposting is the way to go, I'd be happy for you to do so. However, I was hoping you might reinstate themerge request yourself after review, and perhaps even leave a comment with your opinion on the matter.
    Thanks for the link you shared to one of the old discussions-Ssr actually shared that one with me as well. I'm struggling to identify how much of it is relevant or what my takeaways should be, as it focuses rather heavily on the editors in question and less on the content, sources and Wikipedia policies which have yet to be addressed by neutral editors. Through that discussion I stumbled upon this, as well-Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive352- so it does seem that this issue has been raised at length before, but I wasn't involved and haven't found any sort of resolution or consensus across these various discussion boards.
    Having disclosed my conflict, I believe I am working in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and would really like to get a policy-focused discussion started within the community. If you have guidance beyond reinstating the merge proposal, I'd appreciate that as well. Thanks again for all of your assistance with this!MarcusEllington90 (talk)08:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of WIKINDX Page

    [edit]

    Hello,

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

    Thanks for your help.

    Regards,

    --S. Aulery85.115.60.201 (talk)14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz deleted the article as an administrator because of an expiredWP:Proposed deletion, however, it's likely thatanother user was the one who proposed the deletion. You can request that the article be restored atWP:REFUND, but it's likely that whoever proposed it for deletion will then seek its deletion via theWikipedia:Articles for deletion process.
    Additionally, you should be aware that "it's just as notable as other thing X that has an article, which we refer to by the shorthand "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is considered a bad argument in a deletion discussion.
    Finally, if "we" refers to the maintainers of Wikindx, be sure you're aware of theWikipedia:Conflict of interest policy.Jahaza (talk)15:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,85.115.60.201,
    Yes,Jahaza is quite right (and thank you for stepping in to explain, Jahaza), with PRODs, an admin will do the actual deletion of the page but it's the article tagger who supplies the deletion rationale so I didn't write it myself, I just carried out the deletion when the 7 day period had passed.
    Also, as Jahaza states, Proposed deletion are a unique form of deletion on Wikipedia as an article can be restored upon request, either to me or by making a request atWP:REFUND. This is not true with most other forms of deletion although admins will sometimes restoring deleted articles and move them to Draft or User space (see the request below this one).
    Would you likeWikindx to be restored? This is possible but you should know that the editor who requested the article deletion can always choose to nominate it for anAFD deletion discussion. But if that should happen, you can always make an argument that the article should be Kept or request that it be moved to Draft or User space. Let me know what you would like to happen.LizRead!Talk!18:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    First, we, the developers of WIKINDX, are not the original authors of theWikindx page but we update it on release time after discovering it with a lot of rotten content. And we also updateComparison_of_reference_management_software page (existing before our contribution indead) if needed.
    The administrator isn't just there to follow procedures. Use your common sense. If I filed a deletion request with the reason WP:YESPROMO on Zotero, wouldn't you think twice about what you were doing upon expiry of the deadline?
    There is a near certainty that most of pages about software on Wikipedia are updated with a conflict of interest. So this is not an argument.
    If this last reason were really a serious issue, you would have to delete all the software pages, software comparison pages, and many others.
    Invocing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not serious. Fairness exists. Not for me as the software author, but for the treatment of the material. In this case, if Wikipedia must have pages listing bibliographic management software, then Wikindx is a well-established player for 20 years that does not deserve to be deleted. At worst, you could restore an old version of the page that you consider acceptable, before ourconflicting edits (if you could untangle the history!).
    I consider your arguments to be unserious, both with regard to the reason for deletion and with regard to the possible elements unfavourable to restoration. There is even a coercive maneuver in the way you answer me, don't you think?
    However, I am not here to force your hand but to appeal to your judgment, which is why I will not file a request for restoration. You are in charge, as you like to let people know by intervening to answer me instead of letting your colleague speak. Take responsibility by deciding for yourself.
    Second, and this point is the most hurting, I don't understand why removingWikindx page implied removing all citations of Wikindx onComparison_of_reference_management_software page.
    Comparison_of_reference_management_software is actually good stuff helping users and this correction is absurd. Anybody could recreate theWikindx page later and contribute as expected, supporting the description of Wikindx in this page.
    The text on this page contains no passages that could be considered a WP:YESPROMO reason. And if you claim that this is justified, then I will respond that your actions are absurd, that you have not taken the measure of your duties, and that you should delete the page and pages of all the software it cites, because it is clear that the mere fact of citing software on this page is a reason for WP:YESPROMO.
    Your administrator duties would also require you to reserve the same fate for all similar pages to satisfy what I believe to be either an error of judgment or a flaw in Wikipedia's editorial policy.
    Therefore, I ask you to restore the text describingWikindx on theComparison_of_reference_management_software page, as I think it's just a matter of mistake on your side.
    Although I also think you should delete all these pages because I suspect your editorial policy is definitely flawed to the core.
    Regards,
    -- S. Aulery82.216.149.47 (talk)01:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TheoretiCS content

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Jean Abou Samra,
     Done You can find it atUser:Jean Abou Samra/TheoretiCS. Remember, you can not move it back to main space without first submitting it toWP:AFC for a review. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!18:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!Jean Abou Samra (talk)19:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities

    [edit]

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

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

    RevDel reauest

    [edit]

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

    Hello,CyberTheTiger,
    Well, there were more than a few to revision delete. But I think I got them all. Thanks for alerting me.LizRead!Talk!21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If possible, could you also removethis log from public view that falls under RD2?Cyberthetiger🐯 (talk)22:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,CyberTheTiger,
    I don't think that would be appropriate asNIGGERS is a valid redirect page.LizRead!Talk!23:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Beilis Affair

    [edit]

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

    Hello,Andre,
    You are correct, I just looked at the article creation date and time saw 2006, and didn't examine the entire page history. I still don't believe though that draftification was appropriate for such a developed article. What would you like to happen next here?LizRead!Talk!00:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a short discussion at the talk where @Kseni-kam has requested it be re-draftified. I personally agree with you that it is ready for mainspace and they should fix it there.Andre🚐01:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ebrahim Yazdanpanah

    [edit]

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

    Hello,BeanieFan11,
    You're right, you snuck in there and de-PROD'd the article a little while before I deleted it. I really, really wish you wouldn't wait until the very last moment to untag a PROD'd article. Is there a reason why you can't review them all the day before they are due to be deleted instead of a half hour before deletion? Then mistakes like this wouldn't happen. Thank you for letting me know.LizRead!Talk!00:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's just too many of them. There's like, at best, two others decent at this who look into some of these PRODs, and thus I'm left to spend hours and hours searching while we have one editor who can make as many nominations as he likes within minutes. Normally I'm busy with other tasks during the day – when there's up to 10-15 more from the same editor on a daily basis, I try to do what I can, but its hard for me to get to them all on a timely basis, especially given the many other tasks I'm usually working on.BeanieFan11 (talk)00:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well,BeanieFan11, I can think of 3 or 4 other editors who review PRODs, at least semi-regularly, but they are not all focused on sports figures like you are. I'm very busy, too, I think all of us who edit on a daily basis have our routine of tasks we attend to. You know that I have supported your work with PRODs, you just have to have to give patrolling admins so lead time and review PRODs 24 or 48 hours before they are coming due. Let's work together along with editors that have legitimate grounds for tagging articles for deletion. We do have a lot of crappy articles to clear out, we just have differences of opinion on which ones they are.LizRead!Talk!05:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's frustrating in this case is that I never seeany effort to find sources or improve articles by this user. I don't know if I've seen one time where he said something like "here's what I found in a search" – its always the mass copy-paste "Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY" or explaining why my improvements aren't good enough. Sometimes I've even found extensive sources on the first page of a Google search, and whenever I ask about the extent of BEFORE searching I get some rude reply or accusations of "playing games"; repeated requests to slow down have been ignored. Once I spent like three hours researching and was able to save about 10 of them, only to find that he nominated even more new ones within minutes.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I deprod an article at23:18, and within five minutes there'stwonew ones from the same user. This happens repeatedly – when I spend an hour translating e.g. questionable Iranian sites to save a few articles, then seetwice as many new noms made within minutes of my deprods, it really feels like a big "f you" from an editor whom I've never seen evidence of BEFORE searching, who's never attempted to help out with these and only leaves rude replies or ignores pleas to slow down.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    prod

    [edit]

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

    actually, on a second look, seems like it was not on my watchlist. --Soman (talk)11:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Soman,
     Done Happy editing!LizRead!Talk!19:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request - review a G5 deletion

    [edit]

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

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

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

    Hello,ERcheck,
    I'm flattered that you are asking me for my opinion. Judgment about tagging for CSD G5s can be subjective, I think. There are some editors who tag all page creations by sock puppets for speedy deletion if there is a single edit by them that started the article or draft. Maybe because I have been petitioned often by editors complaining about the deletion of these articles, I'm more liberal by what I judge to be "substantial contributions" by other editors. Typically, it means adding content to an article or draft and not adding a solitary reference, fixing a typo or adding a category to the page. I would think thatthis edit would count as a contribution to this article but it's true that there are no large edits here that are adding entire paragraphs of new content to this article.
    But there is an even bigger point that makes this article not valid for a CSD G5 speedy deletion.The page creator was ZaDoraemonzu7 and, according toWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZaDoraemonzu7, ZaDoraemonzu7 was not a block-evading sockpuppet but a sockmaster. The purpose of CSD G5 is to discourage editors from evading their blocks by creating sockpuppets and editing the project.But it appears that this editor was not evading a block at the time of the article creation. Some editors believe G5 is for tagging articles by any editor who socks but that's not true, at the time of the article creation, the editor making the first edit has to be evading a previous block. Generally, creations by sockmasters and even recently discovered sockpuppets aren't eligible for G5s because these editors aren't evading any block at the time when they created the article.
    This is why CSD G5s are trickier than they appear and why you have to be careful if an eager editor just goes through all of the page creactions by a sockmaster and fills up the CSD G5 category. You have to look at each article or draft and ask yourself: Are there substantial additions to the article by other editors? When was the article or draft created? Was the page creator evading a block on another account at the time they created the article or draft? Unfortunately, there have been times when patrolling admins have been less than careful and just batch deleted the entire CSD G5 category of pages but this goes against the guidelines of the criteria and also isn't fair to editors who might have contributed to these articles.
    Sockpuppetry is peculiar in that it is a misconduct that some editors can get overly zealous about. I trust the folks working at SPI to be careful about their article and draft deletions but some editors who do the tagging are still learning the ropes and I have also had to revert a lot of CSD G5 taggings over the years. And you can always do what some admins patrolling CSD categories do and just work on those criteria that are more clearcut to you. Let me know if you have any other questions.LizRead!Talk!19:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to confuse things more, I just rechecked my comment and I was incorrect. ZaDoraemonzu was the page creator and ZaDoraemonzu7 was the sockmaster. So, they WERE evading a block at the time of article creation. This kicks things back to the first point I was making. I wouldn't delete this article as a G5 because I think the other editors' contributions were significant enough to count but, I must admit, that other admins would disagree with me. So, it comes down to your own judgment and, frankly, if you want to get into a debate about it with the article tagger. I'm sorry for my response being confusing but I thought for transparency sake, I should leave my original remarks because they do make an important point even though I was wrong, wrong, wrong on the identify of the article creator. The names were nearly identical and I confused the two accounts.LizRead!Talk!19:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz - Thanks for your thoughtful and informative response. I'm happy to learn something new. —ERcheck (talk)19:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mutaz Zaki's draft

    [edit]

    It is me to thank you dear Liz for your kind interest in my draft. I hope it would be accepted this time.Thanks a lot!— Precedingunsigned comment added byProofreader 02 (talk •contribs)10:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Proofreader 02,
    If you are talking aboutDraft:Mu'taz Zaki, I just posted a standard notification that it had been deleted as a stale draft because no one is currently working on it. We do this if a draft has been inactive for 6 months or longer. It can be restored if you plan on working on it again either by asking me or by putting in a request atWP:REFUND.
    If you are talking a different draft or version of that draft, it should be submitted toArticles for Creation for review. If you have questions about any of these points, you are welcome to bring them tothe Teahouse where experienced editors are around to help you with advice and support. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The draft that I mean

    [edit]

    Hi Liz; I hope this finds you well. Actually the following is a link to the draft that I mean. A friend of mine and I have been recently working on it, and it is being reviewed at the moment. I hope no confusion is there:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moataz_Zaky— Precedingunsigned comment added byProofreader 02 (talk •contribs)01:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    re closure ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stemm, Indiana

    [edit]

    Given that the reason for deletion is that the place wasnot an "unincorporated community", I don't see how it's appropriate to redirect to a list of supposed communities unless someone shows that the deletion rationale was actually incorrect. In this case that wasn't even attempted.Mangoe (talk)15:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hrllo,Mangoe,
    I was swayed byUser:The Bushranger's comments. I'd rather not revert and relist if possible because I don't see other outcomes happening here. Would you consider taking this to RFD instead?LizRead!Talk!19:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where it's headed.Mangoe (talk)20:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RegardingSonic the Hedgehog fandom

    [edit]

    Hi Liz. You lefta message on my talk page yesterday - I am hoping you have had a chance to seethis andthis for context on why I returned the article to draft. Another admin (Sergecross73) had expressed his disapproval of the prose and had added a copyedit banner to the article. Having discussed this on the talk pages I linked above, it was agreed that sorting out the prose ASAP was the best thing to do, as otherwise the public would be reading an article that wasn't yet ready. I take responsiblity for accepting the draft at AfC before it was ready. You directed me to the Teahouse, however now that the issue has been resolved I do not feel I need to go there. I am also currentlycompleting NPP/S, so I appreciate your linking me toWP:DRAFTIFY. Unfortunately, that page does not explain what to do in the exact scenario that played out yesterday (an admin disapproving of an article that had been approved through AfC). I understand you are busy, however an explanation for future occurrences should they happen, would be appreciated. I don't expect a reply here, so in the event you don't see this or choose not to reply, I wish you the very best and happy editing!11WB (talk)23:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,11wallisb,
    Thank you for the lengthy explanation. I didn't know the history of the article, I just saw that it was created in 2023 and you draftified it so I wanted to inform you about our policy on draftification. It looks like this is an exception to the rule. Thank you for the work you are doing, working with draft creators. You are clearly giving it a lot of care and attention. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!02:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz! I actually hadn't fully read the draftity policy in full yet, I was hesitant to move the article back to draft as I don't yet have NPP rights, however after readingWP:DRAFTONCE, I decided to go ahead and do it! I had some assurance that Sergecross would likely immediately see what I had done in response to his edit to the article. I want to apologise for pinging you in multiple places, I realise now your notices and alerts are very likely overwhelmed - thought that leaving a direct talk page message would be the best chance of you seeing a message from me! You have my complete respect for the sheer amount of you do on the project, you are without question one of the largest net positives on the entire site! I also appreciate your words on care and attention, I believe that communicating with the authors of drafts and articles whether declined or accepted, is important - otherwise we wouldn't make any progress at all! All of this is a learning process for me at the moment, so any help and advice I receive I am truly grateful for! Cheers!11WB (talk)02:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wascreated in 2023 in draftspace; it was onlymoved to mainspace less than a week ago.jlwoodwa (talk)04:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also, while this isn't as relevant,the initial 2023 version wasn't even about Sonic at all; it was onlyin 2024 that it was turned into a Sonic fandom draft.)jlwoodwa (talk)04:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Just as a quick explanation, I moved an article I accepted too early through AfC back to draft - from thisedit by SC73. Liz then reverted my return to draft as it was against procedure. SC73 is aware of this, and isplanning to re-review next week to see if it qualifies for the copyedit banner to be removed! All of this is resolved now, this talk page discussion was simply to let Liz know the details! The main mistake here was me accepting the draft through AfC before it was ready!11WB (talk)04:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and to ask what to do if this scenario occurs in the future! I think if this were to occur in future, I won't move anything and instead leave it to the admin managing the situation.11WB (talk)04:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments regarding hulk hogan

    [edit]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.

    I don’t understand why I’m a SPA when I stated my goal on my user page ruefully was to focus on editing hulk hogan and wrestling pages. HHH Pedigree has very much the same biography, and I had used his biography as inspiration when I wrote mine… yet you didn’t bring accuse him of being a SPA. These and various reasons is why I was shocked to see how slanted your replies were and I’d like to discuss with you why you didn’t see any similarities in the accusations you took to my edits with HHH Pedigree, LM, and Random’s Edits. Ok the talk page I gave many specific examples where they treated positive information not to the same standard as negative information. Even deleting positive information and adding unnecessary negative quotes and comments. Clearly a truly unbiased admin would also notice this pattern? I also would like an apology still for the tone you used in your replies to me also, subjecting my edits as less than because I have not been a member for as long as HHH Pedigree was rude. HHH Pedigree clearly didn’t like my challenges to the consensus they were trying to build on Hulk Hogans page and where I pointing out how the appeared bias. Instead of thanking me and fixing his edits to appear not bias, he went on a witch hunt and tried to begin an edit war on multiple other Wikipedia pages… DELETING THOUSANDS OF WORDS OF CONTENT excessively deleting what I wrote. It’s clear if his edit intentions were good on the other two pages, then he would have edited my content and not deleted every single word on two separate pages. He clearly was hoping I would restore to the latest revision to entrap me in a edit war. Hoping I’d go back and forth and delete his content 4 times to get me banned. I never did that, I have not gone back and added any of my contact back after I realized his plan. That’s why I reported his actions to admin board. Did you investigate this? I feel if he didn’t like my content then he should have edited it down or added contributions for clarity, it doesn’t seem like good Wikipedia decorum to delete all of my contributions not leaving behind even a single letter. Wouldn’t you be upset if this happen to articles you spent a long time researching and contributing for? Clearly that can’t be proper for Wikipedia? All of my edits were well researched and included legit citations from media and books; not overly relying on blog posts. The only mistake my coach says I made, is I composed it in google docs and not directly into the editor; and that statistical info (which I didn’t post anything but dates when events happen and stats about the records broken for Andre matches; which I still think deleting those is rather obsessive but I’m not going to argue with this statistical precedent Wikipedia has about dates and record stats. This is odd to me, because stats and records are normally part of athletes sports encyclopedia. If a movie sold record breaking tickets, I would think Wikipedia would encourage to listing of how many tickets were sold for the record to be achieved.)I’m also just really curious why you felt the need to degrade my edits because I’m a new member? I’m looking forward to your replies and please only use polite responses. Thanks you.Edit4Peace (talk)15:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Edit4Peace,
    I recommend you look overWikipedia:Single-purpose account. It is not against policy to be a SPA. Many editors start out as SPAs. And your User page specifically says that you are here to work on the Hulk Hogan article and correct what you believe are its deficiencies. You don't seem to have interest in editing articles on subjects other than Hogan and wrestling. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    You accuse other editors of bias but you are an unabashed Hulk Hogan fan so I don't see how you can see yourself as neutral. You want more positive content on Hogan's page about his career achievements and less content focusing on controversies in his life. This is not aNeutral point of view which is what we strive for at Wikipedia. There is a tag on the Hogan article stating that it was seen as "too long" and editors are responding to this situation by paring down the content and removing repetive or unnecessary content, a step which you object to. It seems like you don't want any content removed from the article unless it reflects badly on Hogan and his image.
    We are all volunteers here on this project so I'm not obligated to investigate any particular situation. I'm an administrator, I have a lot of maintenance tasks on my plate plus I also serve on the Arbitration Committee, all of which take up a lot of my time. I spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia but I do not have time to review the conduct of every editor who has been accused of misconduct or look at every article where there is a disagreement. I only came across you because of the complaint on ANI, otherwise I would probably have never crossed paths with you because I have absolutely no interest in articles on wrestling or its celebrities.
    I'm sorry if you feel your edits have been targeted. I can't confirm or deny that this is the case but I'm sure that is frustrating. All I can say without knowing more is that you are a very new editor to the project and perhaps you need more experience so that your edits aren't reverted. I'd ask, in a neutral way, for more information from editors who work on this articles. Approach the situation not as a battlefield but as a collaborative venture. I recommend visitingthe Teahouse with your question. When I was a new editor, I thought a lot about quitting because I was so frustrated with other editors and some of Wikipedia's policies and I went to the Teahouse a lot and found it a very supportive environment. I have to get back to my daily tasks but I hope I've addressed some of your concerns.LizRead!Talk!01:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz thanks for your reply, but it appears to me you have not looked into this situation with any detail. Because any who is neutral would discover that I have not deleted negative information about hulk hogan. However the other editors are guilty of minimizing his accomplishments and amplifying his negative aspects. Just look at how the lead to his page ends “In 2012, the media company Gawkerpublished portions of a sex tape, which later had portions leak in which Hogan was heard using racial slurs. Hogan sued Gawker, which was found liable and subsequently declared bankruptcy. Despite this legal victory, Hogan's reputation has been described as "permanently tarnished", a view reflected in the mixed public reaction to his death in July 2025.”
    which is not true; Hogan did successfully recover his brand. Also the scandal happened in 2015. It appears to any reader leaving hulk hogans page like this that he did nothing of importance for ten years. When you can find many citations showing this scandal wasn’t the final note that HHH Pedigree, LM, and Ringerfan23 are so desperate to make as the final impression readers should receive on hulk hogans Wikipedia page.the last paragraph is too long and full of unnecessary information the day they want to trim, which they have if it’s a positive reflection of hogan. This actually isn’t my main concern. I will follow up with why I brought a administrative post and IT Wasnt to debate what hogan did and did not do; it was to stop a edit war which I feel you have only helped escalate.Edit4Peace (talk)01:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After joining the Hulk Hogan talk page discussions, user HHH Pedigree took issue with my comments about other editors’ contributions. Soon afterward, he deleted all of the content I had added to two unrelated wrestling pages. I believe this was retaliatory, excessive, and not in good faith, seemingly aimed at provoking an edit war. He gave minimal edit summaries and stopped engaging with me entirely. They also never explained why all of my edits across multiple pages were removed in the same hour. Rather than restore the content and risk escalating things, I opened a discussion on an administrative noticeboard to resolve the issue peacefully. Unfortunately, the discussion became one-sided. Another user, Ringerfan23, followed the same pattern, removing all of my contributions from the Virgil (wrestler) page and labeling me a “problem user” in the edit summary, again without prior discussion. These mass deletions seem retaliatory and targeted. I’ve responded respectfully, answered every question, and provided reliable sources to support my content. My replies were detailed and in good faith. This seemed to only frustrate these two users further. I’ve also observed edits that appear intended to cast Hulk Hogan in a negative light, possibly in bad faith, but I acknowledge that proving intent is difficult. What I can show is a pattern of retaliatory bulk deletions, a refusal to engage collaboratively, and behavior seemingly intended to push me into violating policy.
    My concern is not about content disputes regarding Hulk Hogan. I understand editorial disagreements happen.
    What I am objecting to is the mass deletion of my edits, many of which were properly sourced, across multiple unrelated pages. These were removed without sufficient explanation or discussion. I’m asking for a fair opportunity to contribute.
    Please ask HHH Pedigree and Ringerfan23 to stop blanket deleting my work across multiple pages. I welcome revisions and constructive feedback, especially since I’m still learning formatting and editing guidelines. But removing all of my work without review is not constructive and undermines Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit.
    I’ve spent considerable time researching and contributing to these pages. It’s unreasonable to believe that all of my content was invalid. I’m seeking a fair path forward, not conflict.
    Thank you for your time and help. Going to the admin page clearly didn’t help, my issues wasn’t even discussed and just escalated into a twisted hulk hogan debates unrelated to the reason I brought it up to the admin talk page.
    what is the next step forward? Because it’s clear these users are going to continue to excessively delete all my future contributions on other wrestling pages and continue a edit war.
    here are links so you can see there timeline of edits and the massive excessive deletions of all my content.
    HHH Pedigree NWA:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NWA_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history
    HHH Pedigree WCW:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WCW_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history
    Ringerfan23 Virgil:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_(wrestler)
    Ringerfan 23 Hogan:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_Hogan&action=historyEdit4Peace (talk)01:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Edit4Peace,
    Let me put this discussion into perspective. I have made 840,757 edits on this project and I look at hundreds of pagea every day as part of my job here. I am a very, very busy administrator. I'm not going to spend any more time looking into this situation. I took some time to respond to your messages as a courtesy but, as I said, I have a lot of work to do and no interest in wrestling. I tried to point you in the direction of some resources but that's the extent of my help. Again, as I've said, we are all volunteers and it's time for me to fix dinner. Good luck with your editing.LizRead!Talk!01:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! You won’t even read my statement and reply? I knew you were a biased individual. I strongly suggest that if you feel you don’t have enough to time to quickly settle conflicts that you retire. I used to be a teacher, and when I heard responses like this when reports of bullies were brought to my colleagues attention I knew who I was talking to someone in the wrong job.
    hour reply send one clear message, you know I am right, what HHH pedigree and Ringerfan23 are doing is against Wikipedia policy and YOU HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO ACT.
    shame on you! I suggest you retire to a job where the basic functions of a admin don’t hassle you.
    shame on you! To think the ams belittlement you have heaped on me. What hypocrite.Edit4Peace (talk)02:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I remind you, you wouldn’t have been hassled by this at all if you had just simply did 2 minutes of investigation and asked HHH Pedigree to stop deleting all my content.
    yet hear you are, still avoiding conversations with me.
    the irony of lazy people! What could have ended in minutes because you “don’t have time” has not cost you perhaps 10 to twenty minutes of your time. Which actually the irony now makes me laugh.Edit4Peace (talk)02:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m disappointed by your accusations you are making on the hogan talk page and hope you will set a better example for Wikipedia in the future, and not further escalate the arguments and instead take a neutral view and settle them. I don’t believe your story anymore that you are to busy writing about slugs.Edit4Peace (talk)16:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edit4Peace: I would strongly recommend that you make a few thousand edits entirely outside your area of personal interest in order to gain an understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia before returning to edit in your area of interest.BD2412T16:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    HARDBLOCK

    [edit]

    Hi Liz :) Do you think the IP user you blocked at the Hulk Hogan talk page might be a good fit for an IP address hardblock? It would also mitigate any potential loutsocking. Take care --tony05:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,TonySt,
    To be honest, I'm not an admin who gives out a lot of blocks and when I blocked this account, I just went with the default Twinkle settings. I wasn't sure what to do because it's only a 31 hour block and typically our NLT blocks are indefinite. Maybe a TPS can offer me some advice on what next steps to take. Can I assume you think it might be a sock?LizRead!Talk!05:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,TonySt,
    It turns out that it wasn't that complicated after all. Now, all editors from this IP address are blocked, at least for 31 hours.LizRead!Talk!05:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your prompt response :) And to answer your earlier question, yes, that was my motivation for the suggestion (potential loutsocking). Take care --tony05:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if your suspicions are correct, and I feel they might be, that will give us a bit of a break from the relentless arguing. And if we're wrong, we haven't lost much. What I'm not sure of is what to do after 31 hours if the IP account hasn't retracted their legal threats.LizRead!Talk!05:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BING BING BING! After my reading of the Edit4Peace contributions, I lacked a couple of offenses to complete my card. The legal threat (from an ip) gave me the rare double bingo. Hang in there, sis. Wrestling promotes a wide variance from normal fighting. Lots of it just for show, but contact is still made.BusterD (talk)19:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Liz. Sorry to bother you. Remember the user who complained about the Hulk Hogan article? Looks like the user is back as IP on the Hulk Hogan talk page --HHH Pedrigree (talk)12:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 15

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on July 25. Please helptranslate.
    Photo of Robert Sim
    Robert Sim (User:Robertsky), Wikimedian of the Year 2025
    Group photo of hundreds of Wikimania attendees
    Wikimania 2025 group photo

    Special Wikimania issueThis is a special Wikimania issue of the Bulletin. We'll be back to our regular format in the next issue


    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Research ·Web ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org


    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events


    Board and Board committee updates
    SeeWikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard ·Affiliations Committee Newsletter


    Other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery19:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-PROD

    [edit]

    Hi Liz. I'd like to double-check with you whether, after an article is deleted via the PROD system, it's OK to create a redirect in its place after the event. I've been assuming it is, since there is nothing wrong with creating such a redirect while the PROD is still live, but don't want to find myself in the wrong for some obscure technical reason that I'd overlooked. Thanks,Ingratis (talk)08:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Ingratis,
    I don't see any problems with creating a Redirect unless, at some point, an editor asks for a deleted article that was PROD'd to be restored. In that case, the deleted edits would be restored and the article "rolled back" before the Redirect was created. That's just a guess as I've never seen this happen yet. But, no, I don't think you're doing anything wrong in creating a redirect where there was once an article.LizRead!Talk!00:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very helpful - thank you!Ingratis (talk)04:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Something on ANI

    [edit]

    Dear Liz,
    Thank you for taking the time to review the matter. After giving it further thought, I would still like to share a few points for your consideration.
    Generally speaking, when someone brings a concern to ANI, unless the situation is very clear-cut — such as cases involving TPA abuse that clearly warrant revocation — it may be more appropriate to allow the sysops to assess what kind of action, if any, is necessary. Alternatively, it could be helpful for other experienced editors to offer suggestions on how to handle the situation, rather than the reporter directly requesting a block.
    As far as I understand, you are a sysop, so when you mentioned that "it's not clear to me what action you are seeking by opening this complaint" I was a bit surprised. Even a response like "no action is necessary in this case" might have provided more direction or clarity. My intention in reporting the issue was to raise awareness and to see how others — including sysops or community members — might think the situation should be addressed.
    That said, since some time has now passed, I want to understand if it’s concluded that no further action is required. Still, I appreciated the chance to bring it forward and get some perspective on it from others.-Lemonaka09:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Lemonaka,
    I think we see the purpose of ANI differently. It sounds like you want it to be a forum where editors can consider and discuss different conflicted situations. I see it as an "action board" where editor bring complaints about "urgent, intractable behavioral problems" that need to be taken care of right away to prevent further disruption on the project. I think asking "what do you expect/want to happen?" is a legitimate question to raise. Are you looking for editors to be sanctioned? Pages protected? ANI is not the Village Pump page for consideration of proposals or problems. Ideally, complaints brought to ANI are handled promptly unless it's important to get a consensus from uninvolved editors.
    I'm sorry if my blunt responses were seen as unfriendly as that was not their intention. Sometimes, when a complaint isn't getting much of a response from noticeboars watchers, I'll pose a question to the OP in an attempt to nudge things along so the discussion starts moving forward. I assume what the OP DOESN'T want is no response at all and for the complaint to be archived without anything happening.LizRead!Talk!00:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check your E-Mail

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

    LightlySeared (talk)22:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential IP partial block evasion?

    [edit]

    Hello @Liz. I rejected thisdraft due to it being LLM output and the references being "example" webpages that don't exist. The author who submitted this[8] only has 1 edit which is the AfC submission and appears to be a similiar IP to this[9]. The IP was originally partially blocked for disruptive talk page edits. This userUser talk:Mahezama alsosubmitted that draft to AfC, I suspect that may be another account that belongs to the partially blocked IP. If I've got this wrong I apologise, though it looks like it is the same editor. Would appreciate if you could take a took? Thank you!11WB (talk)01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The draft article excluding the IP question should not be rejected. Even if it is LLM written or has broken links, unless there is no further improvement (continuous), you should not have rejected it. Even many experienced admins keep away from straight away rejecting LLM articles to allow new users some space to understand. It appears part of your another wrong reviewsimilar to this one[10] where you have conflict of interest given prior not so heart to heart discussion and your comment for another reviewers review which was expected, but again you went ahead and declined it with same unreflective proportion of not so guidelines based review.As per the conversation done here, this was closed with further review agreed upon by another reviewer as was agreed upon before as well but now with the admin involved here. Rest is valid.
    New editors or any drafts are not presumed not notable just because a reviewer feels like it and you have to be serious on the work as a reviewer to go through links and search for it yourself as part of reviewer tools available, "mentioned in the guidelines". Not every draft will be fully sourced or will it be in the best of grammar but we guide as reviewer and not get into being adamant on our review is the right one as you have done on my draft and I am not sure about others as well. Liz if available will guide you better on this.HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~Message here; no calls08:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to @HilssaMansen19's message above. They are correct that draft rejection at AfC is done on the grounds of the draft subject not beingnotable. I should have clarified that this draft was rejected for this reason, as the references—which were generated by AI—do not link to any actual webpages. This means notability cannot be proven in any way from this. My reason for posting here is due to the potential IP block evasion I saw in the drafts' edit history. Thank you.11WB (talk)20:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Great that you shared that. I did a search myself and the subject has no significant coverage or any at all that is easily available. Given the circumstances, you can also reach out either via commenting, declining it or direct talk page (in caseNotability may exist for example, the full name might not be the right one to search with; thus, the confusion and writer may provide better context). Increasing use of LLM is truly not so good in the articles as I had to double check some articles given that they look perfect but tools suggest LLM; again the tools themselves are not perfect either. If proper use is done unlike the ones with "the not working links" and are per Wikipedia guidelines, no issues arise with accepting that but check strictly per LLM guidelines). Understanding from the submitters or writer's point of view is the very normal choice given many confusions and if it is truly something that is not per the guidelines or is not "positively acceptable and readable" (long to explain; guidelines-in short), the idea of rejecting it exists.HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~Message here; no calls21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As an administrator (question )

    [edit]

    How would I become one of the administrators exactly, I am considering nominating myself to become a administrator.shane (talk)15:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) I recommend readingWikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship.jlwoodwa (talk)17:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,shane,
    Well, over the years, a lot of policy and guides have been debated and created to answer this exact question.jlwoodwa has provided a link to a very brief advice page that you can start with (thank you, Jlwoodwa). I'd recommend reading all of our policy pages onAdministrators to know about the position andRequests for Adminship (see alsoGuide to requests for adminship to know about RFAs, which is typically how an editor becomes an administrator although we now haveAdministrator elections which are held several times a year.
    There are pretty minimal requirements that have been set to qualify but I'd say the average successful admin candidate has at least two solid years of regular editing experience and at least 10-20,000 edits although there have been a few successful candidates who did not had this much editing experience, usually because they had a track record of excellent work. It helps if you have done some content creation but are also familiar with the different administrative areas of the project. Once you have acquired enough experience and you believe you might be successful in an RFA or an election, it's wise to try outOptional RFA candidate poll where experienced editors tell you what they believe your chances are to be successful in an RFA. Even if they think your odds are bad, it can be useful to get their feedback so you know areas of the project you might work in to get more valuable experience.
    I'll be blunt and tell you that the process of becoming an admin can be grueling, my own RFA was divisive and I remember it being a painful experience but there have been other editors who breezed through their RFAs so you never know. The RFA poll can be a helpful indicator of whether you can expect your fellow editors to support you or be harsh with their criticism. After you read all there is to read over, if you have more specific questions, come back, talk to another admin or go tothe Teahouse for support. Happy reading!LizRead!Talk!20:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about deleted draft: Draft: Storm Ventures

    [edit]

    Hi Liz,

    Nice to connect with you!

    I am writing to you about a draft page I was working on, Draft: Storm Ventures, which you deleted under criterion G13 for abandonment.

    I am an employee at Storm, but I am working to create a neutral, well-sourced article that adheres to all of Wikipedia's guidelines. I understand and have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page.

    I was not involved in the previous draft, and only found out it was deleted as an abandoned draft when I was ready to submit my new draft. Before I submit the new version, the submission page advised me to contact the deleting user.

    Would you be ok if I submit my new draft for review? I am committed to following all of Wikipedia's policies and want to ensure I am doing so correctly.

    Thank you for your time and guidance.

    Sincerely, StormieStormie weather (talk)21:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Stormie weather,
    Sure, you can submit a draft forWP:AFC review or if you had a previous version that was deleted as a stale draft (CSD G13) I can restore than for you. Please read overWP:COI and make sure you tag your User page as you are considered a paid editor (seeWikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.LizRead!Talk!02:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Liz!Stormie weather (talk)18:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_8#Category:Honduran_nutritionists

    [edit]

    Hi, asking you as an admin who closes many discussions. This was closed on 18 August but it hasn't been merged. Do you know how to get it merged? I vaguely remember closed CfDs for merging/deletion need to be listed somewhere.LibStar (talk)02:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,LibStar,
    It's only August 21st (where I'm at) and this discussion closed on August 18th? It can take weeks for CFD decisions to come to reality. CFD is a very peculiar area because there are probably less than 10 editors who participate there as discussion participants and they also help with closures, the closer doesn't handle the actual renames and recategorizations. There is a bot that handles the recategorizations but if you look at the working page,Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, you can see how backlogged things are. That is why CFD participants often just handle simpler recategorizarion projects manually themselves. Things are much more swift in AFD and RFD areas.LizRead!Talk!02:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Institute for the Encouragement of Scientific Research and Innovation of Brussels

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, please could you userfy the recently prod-deletedInstitute for the Encouragement of Scientific Research and Innovation of Brussels so I can have a look at it? --Andreas Philopater (talk)09:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Andreas Philopater,
     Done You can find it atUser:Andreas Philopater/Institute for the Encouragement of Scientific Research and Innovation of Brussels. Sorry for the overly long page title.LizRead!Talk!16:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revisions ofComstock's

    [edit]

    Curious to know what the 55 revisions that were undeleted were. This page is of interest to me as I discovered the undisclosed COI that led to the bad-faith AfD. (And a whole, whole lot more.)Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)16:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Sammi Brie,
    Oh, just look at the page history and you can see it there. The editor who sought to have the article deleted this year had PROD'd it in 2022 and since there were no objections, it was deleted. That's why I felt comfortable restoring the old edits to the current article. As a point of curiosity, the same editor PROD'd the new version of the article at least two more times so they were not well-versed in our deletion policies and didn't know an article can only be PROD'd once. They were very determined to see this article gone though.LizRead!Talk!16:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am incredibly not surprised, given what I know and told COIVRT when this whole saga kicked off (but can't put here because it'd be outing the editor). Egregious, malicious, bad-faith dealing where the pot called the kettle black while being made ofvantablack.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)16:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Sammi Brie,
    They tried out all of our forms of deletion--first CSD, PROD and then AFD--to get rid of that article. When they turn their back on an organization, it's all of the way.LizRead!Talk!01:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without saying much more, there is a paragraph in the current revision of this article that is particularly relevant.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)01:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help?

    [edit]

    Would it be possible to get aWP:REVDEL ofSpecial:Diff/1307361549, and maybe a block of the IP? Looks like someone's personal info. —Locke Cole •t •c05:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Locke Cole,
     Done Thanks for the alert.LizRead!Talk!05:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

    [edit]
    September 2025 Backlog Drive |New pages patrol
    • On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
    • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
    • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
    • Each review will earn 1 point.
    • Interested in taking part?Sign up here.
    You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourselfhere.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk)15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for a potential block review regarding Talk:Hulk Hogan

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, sorry in advance about bringing upagain the Hulk Hogan article drama you and a few admins were involved in last week. Recently on the talk pageyou blocked an IP user for making legal threats. Today they have come back and aredoubling down on their earlier statements in the thread ("I stood [sic] by my earlier comment. I've also Contacted TKO Group Holdings, (James Ray Hart)Jimmy Hart, Sky Daily and World Wrestling Entertainment to get word around,"). Please could you review? I worry this is going to be a recurring problem.

    Edit: I believe blocked user Edit4Peace is using a new IP to get aroundhis ban here based on this comment left by a new user.

    Best wishes,RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)19:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Thanks for the keen eyes.BusterD (talk)19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, BusterD. At least we now know that a lot of this activity is coming from a Facebook group.LizRead!Talk!19:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response both!RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)20:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vivek Verma

    [edit]

    Vivek Verma got deleted hereWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (3rd nomination) later came into spotlight after the rerelease of the filmSanam Teri Kasam (2016 film) as it became the highest grossing re-released film inList of highest-grossing re-released Indian films. and his Iconic Theme melody made headlines, like[11],[12],[13], there are many articles available that clearly shows his work are borderline GNG as there are sources available which shows he has worked in films likePrem Ratan Dhan Payo,Action Jackson (2014 film),Saansein etc, There are also headlines which show him making dent as an indie artists like GQ[14], The Hindu[15] &[16] and others likeThis,This &This, I wanna reconstruct the article and make it ready for the mainspace, please lemme know what is your opinion over this.

    ThanksSuryabeej  ⋠talk⋡16:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page watcher) For the record, Suryabeej is a good-hand sock of theVivek k. Verma UPE sockfarm, who's been, for reasons requiring an essay to explore, allowed to hang around and probe our defences for a way to sneak this one article through, instead of the usual insta-block and investigation of their contribution history.Usedtobecool ☎️16:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Usedtobecool, Surya was reported in connection with that farm, but the evidence provided was so unpersuasive a CU did not even make a check. Accordingly this looks like an aspersion, and I suggest you either strike it or file an SPI with clear evidence. Thank you. --asilvering (talk)22:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure of what you're thanking me for. Accordingly it reads quite aggressive to me. If that was out of a presumption of compliance, I will have to respectfully decline for it could not possibly be a casting of aspersions to bring up for the first or the second time ever the possibility that someone who's been repeatedly trying to get published the one article that's the signature of a well-known sockfarm, and of comparably passionate interest to conceivably no one else, may in fact belong to that sockfarm, in a thread that was started by the same someone in yet another attempt to get published that same article. — Usedtobecool ☎️03:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Usedtobecool, you said, to quote,Suryabeej is a good-hand sock of the Vivek k. Verma UPE sockfarm. You said this with zero evidence provided. That is absolutely casting aspersions, and I am shocked that you would do so, as I know you to be quite familiar with SPI. Again: if you think they are a sockpuppet, file an SPI. If you do not, please retract the statement. --asilvering (talk)04:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss the bluelink in the sentence you quote? I have provided plenty of evidence, both direct and argumental. That you can not identify them or find them insufficient or unpersuasive does not equate to me having provided none. And it is perfectly reasonable to bring SPI/ANI business to an admin's talk page (esp. when it's pertinent to something already under consideration there); in fact, that's where most such business is conducted. — Usedtobecool ☎️07:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Usedtobecool, you may not refer to users in good standing as socks unless it is to report them for sockpuppetry. Doing so iscasting aspersions, and is blockable. The SPI you link to ended with no sanctions: it is not evidence of misconduct on Suryabeej's part. If you have evidence for a fresh SPI please file it.
    Suryabeej,this retaliatory nonsense needs to stop. That is also disruptive, and will earn you a block if you persist.Vanamonde93 (talk)03:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for heaven's sake, @Vanamonde93, you too? What do you think I am doing here? I am reporting them for sockpuppetry to an admin. This can't possibly be the first time either of you have seen a sock being reported to admin talk instead of SPI. I guess I need to reset.
    Let me try again. The evidence isn't the botched SPI filing that has a whole story in itself that's relevant but not necessary here. The evidence is that the SPI is for "Vivek k. Verma". The second piece of evidence is that theWP:DUCK test for that sockfarm is the articleVivek Verma, half a dozen of its alternate titles and AFDs. The third piece of evidence is that Suryabeej has been persistently trying to get that article reinstated as evidenced from this very thread. These three pieces are what in my opinion make enough evidence for a positive behavioral finding though there's more. Since I think it's a DUCK case, I hope you can see how I would have thought it would be perfectly suited to this thread which was created about the article that's central to the case. And I would have expected Liz to decide whether she wishes to take this on or ask me to file at SPI.
    It clearly wasn't clear to both the admins who responded here. So, that's obviously my fault. But I did not make a baseless accusation, nor did I make it without providing any evidence. And I did not do it somewhere irrelevant with the intention to damage.
    Am I getting anywhere here? In case I'm not, yes I do agree that it would be an aspersion for me to have accused Suryabeej of socking so definitively if I was indeed doing it on the basis of the evidence presented at that botched filing and out of a dogged rejection of its outcome. As my post was read as just that, I can see how it would read as an aspersion, but I assure you it was unintentional. I guess I should be flatteredAsilvering said they were shocked to read it from me. — Usedtobecool ☎️07:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Usedtobecool, your initial comment was both baldly certain ("is" a sockpuppet, not "I suspect they are a sockpuppet") and so rhetorical it involvedpraeteritio. Yes, you missed the mark, and I think I know Liz well enough to guess that she doesn't have the slightest interest in handling an ad hoc sockpuppetry case herself. Please just file the SPI. --asilvering (talk)08:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, if you'd said where you were coming from, instead of leaving me to wonder why you were butting in into another admin's talk page when you had no interest in engaging with the substance of the issue, I might have approached it differently. I certainly don't claim to be perfect. You may be right about what Liz will and will not be interested in, but I don't think she needs you to speak for her. I didn't bring this here out of the blue, I was forced to by its pertinence to what was brought here by someone else. Anyway, I think I am done with this. I have put the evidence in view of at least three admins, whose Wikipedia this is, no less than mine. I have nothing personal against Suryabeej that I should feel compelled to go through all the hoops just to see them get sanctioned. I bow out. — Usedtobecool ☎️10:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely do not know what you mean byif you'd said where you were coming from, instead of leaving me to wonder. Where I am coming from is pretty simple: saying someone is a sockpuppet without providing evidence is an aspersion. Wherever I see that, I'm going to tell the person doing it to knock it off and take some evidence to SPI. --asilvering (talk)10:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-reading it several times I cannot interpret your first comment as anything other than "this user is a sock, I don't care what previous investigations have found". I can't see it as a request to investigate. Regardless, I am unwilling to blockas an obvious sock when they've been the subject of multiple CU investigations that found no evidence to block them. A behavioral link, aka meatpuppetry, is possible, but it will require more evidence that I will not compile. I once again recommend SPI. And I think we've taken up enough of Liz's talk page.Vanamonde93 (talk)16:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICT Suryabeej was only brought to SPIonce, and that was closed with no action (and no CU check) due to the filer not providing sufficient diffs. On the other hand, their account was active up to a month before the next SPI case so would have been caught by the sleeper sweep if it was a technical match, and it didn't come up there. I wouldn't be surprised by meatpuppery, but that's something that indeed would need a new SPI filing with lots of behavioral evidence rather than vague socking claims.JoelleJay (talk)16:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take my word as a CU that there have been multiple CU investigations of this editor.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, didn't realize you were a CU now!JoelleJay (talk)17:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde93, that's perfectly reasonable. Thank you. I have been considering retiring soon, but I will certainly consider filing an SPI before I leave, even if CU would be of no help. I guess my goal here was to make sure Liz's response to Surya's request would be informed even if a block does not result, which I suppose this counts as a success much I managed to make a hash of it. Let me note the existence ofWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suryabeej/Archive, as I follow your cue. — Usedtobecool ☎️17:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, this is exactly why Wikipedia is ethically and morally one of the best communities, because neither wrongdoing is done here, nor is it allowed to happen. Regarding the repeated DUCK (and what not) arguments and other allegations raised by Usedtobecool, I understand that their intention may have been to prevent anything inappropriate from happening, but the way they made their claim was certainly not right (as other respected admins have already pointed out above). My only purpose in starting this thread was that I felt Vivek Verma may be borderline notable under GNG, and I wanted to hear the deleting admin’s opinion directly.

    I truly appreciate everyone who has engaged here. At the end of the day, our shared goal is to strengthen this community by adhering to its guidelines. If the deleting admin feels that even with the new sources the subject is still not notable enough, then I will simply leave it at that.Suryabeej  ⋠talk⋡00:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm just getting around to reading all of this discussion. I feel like an entire 19th century Russian novel has been revealed over the past three days on this page, with subplots and layers of characters and a minor revolution throw in there in the middle of the action. Getting back to the original question that started this, if you feel like you wantVivek Verma to have a main space article, write an awesome draft, submit it toWP:AFC for review. That is the only way I know of to overcome an AFD deletion outcome.
    Just to end things on a pleasant note, I had no idea I had so many helpful talk page stalkers and I want to applaud all of you who came and brought in your insights and attitudes while this discussion was evolving, oblivious to me who was only looking at the very bottom of her User talk page and didn't see what was happening above the midway flap. Your help is appreciated. I always learn from you all and I think you answered some of the questions better than I could.LizRead!Talk!03:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz Haha, I agree with you, this thread certainly took an interesting turn. Thanks to everyone who has shared their valuable input here. Liz, I would indeed prefer to proceed through AfC, as that is the correct approach which also allows other editors to provide their views and guidance on the draft. Could you please unsaltDraft:Vivek Verma so that I can begin constructing a draft for Verma? Thank you in advance.Suryabeej  ⋠talk⋡16:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, it was unsalted before on Suryabeej's request, and resalted again. AFC has washed their hands off it, or so I interpretWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma; succinct summary byAngusWOOF on just some of the main issues. Leaving aside the question of if a good-faith user's time wouldn't be better spent doing literally anything other than revisiting this well-known UPE sockfarm topic every few months, unsalting would obviously result in recreation of a draft deleted by consensus, and we don't have the Draft:Draft: namespace. If things have truly changed in the past couple years, which I doubt based on the more recent AFD, perhaps a better path would beWP:DRVPURPOSE#3, but I'm not sure; I have no experience with that venue. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️19:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Usedtobecool While I sense from your comments that you may be involved in some degree of edit warring regarding this subject, or perhaps hold a personal bias against Verma (pardon the light hearted remark), I would like to clarify my perspective. Since my main interest lies in Indian music and music in general, I believe this subject goes beyond the scope of WP:BLP1E and is at least borderline notable under WP:GNG. This is primarily becauseSanam Teri Kasam (2016 film), which was a major hit in India and ranked among the country’s highest-grossing re-relerased filmsList of highest-grossing re-released Indian films See Here, had its theme music composed by Verma fact that is both notable and well-sourced. In addition, his credits in earlier films as well as his contributions to the independent music scene are supported by multiple reliable sources which I already have mentioned in the starting of this thread. Therefore, I feel that your remark suggesting thatuser's time wouldn't be better spent doing literally anything other than revisiting this well-known UPE sockfarm topic every few months comes across as dismissive, as it overlooks the availability of newer and more relevant sources and focuses instead on casting aspersions. That said, as fellow editors, we have both shared our viewpoints here. Ultimately, I would prefer to rely on the guidance of Liz, who was the deleting admin in this matter.Suryabeej  ⋠talk⋡19:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suryabeej, if you were to make a userspace page that listed the sources you were going to use, that might help Liz or some other admin make a decision to overturn the earlier salting. But basing it primarily on a 2016 film won't help you at all. That film was already out when the previous discussions happened. If you think the subject is notableprimarily because Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film), I wouldn't advise trying at all. Sorry. --asilvering (talk)20:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:asilvering Thank you for your input. You are right that the filmSanam Teri Kasam (2016 film) was released in 2016, and that was indeed prior to the earlier deletion discussions. However, the point I would like to emphasize is that Verma has only recently received notability and significant coverage following the film’s re-release, which brought renewed attention to his work. The coverage and recognition that are now available were not present at the time of the earlier AfDs, and I believe this makes a material difference in assessing his notability. In addition, several new sources have appeared since those discussions, ranging from Verma’s inclusion in GQ India’s 2024 artists list to coverage in The Hindu and other reliable publications. WHich shows his notability as an Indie Artiste too. It was primarily on the basis of these newer sources that I was considering drafting a userspace article.Suryabeej  ⋠talk⋡20:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    how much do you know as a New Jersey person to feel qualified to delete BC-related items?

    [edit]

    Seriously, Ma'am, I was very surprised to see lists relating to two of the more-important BC government ministries. What do you know about how our government works and how its geographic structures are laid out? The Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment are two of the very most-powerful parts of our government. - I'm not happy about US interference in Canadian Wikipedia subjects. the Regional District categories you deleted are equivalent to U.S. counties and their division into regional categories is following two major natural divisions of our province; Vancouver Island, part of the second Coast region, is - was -not given its own category as a couple of its RDs bridge to Mainland parts of the Coast. Stay on you own side of the border, please. AngryOldCanadian,2604:3D08:5776:7900:5512:9E22:A36B:CE88 (talk)18:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,2604:3D08:5776:7900:5512:9E22:A36B:CE88,
    I can't really answer this rant of yours if you don't provide me with links to the articles you are talking about. If you had, then I ccould look into this and see why these pages were deleted. But if you just showed up here to post some diatribe against a fellow editor (who hasn't lived in New Jersey in 10 years), then you never actually wanted any resolution to this and I can just ignore your message.LizRead!Talk!18:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the Dayton-Drake AfD.

    [edit]

    Could you please notify WikiProject College Football about the AfD via their Wikipedia talk page? Thanks!NotJamestack (talk)01:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,NotJamestack,
    That responsibility falls to the AFD nominator or you are free to do so yourself. I'm not sure why you came to me to handle this task. I've got kind of a full schedule.LizRead!Talk!01:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I wasn't sure if I could do it or not. Thanks!NotJamestack (talk)01:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:1st-century novels

    [edit]

    Could you explain why you have depopulatedCategory:1st-century novels?jlwoodwa (talk)02:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,jlwoodwa,
    Okay, first, I have reverted all of my actions regarding this category. Secondly, I had recently tagged some categories inCategory:Novels by century for other centuries as Empty Categories that led me to think that maybe the phenomena of "the novel" was a modern invention since most of our categories involving novels occur after the Renaissance. There is also a gap of many centuries between these 1st century novels and when these categories involving novels start to appear which isCategory:11th-century novels. So, I thought "book" might be a more appropriate category than "novel".
    In hindsight, I should have discussed whether "novel" was a anachronistic term in the ancient world first, maybe onTalk:Novel, but the problem with categories is that there is no general noticeboard where you can bring questions as there is almost zero traffic on category talk pages. I'm sorry for my mistake here but I will state that it is very unusual for me to do any editing regarding categories that has to do with their page titles or category definition. It's almost all editing involving organizing articles and subcategories, either dividing large categories or merging smaller ones. I'm sorry for this lapse on my part.LizRead!Talk!02:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean my question as an accusation; I was just wondering what your reasoning was. I've taken a look atAncient Greek novel § Terminology and it's definitely not clearcut either way. Thanks for all the work you do with categories.jlwoodwa (talk)03:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Link removals for "List of Church of England instruments" AfD

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I'm not sure if it's maybe a bug in XFDcloser, but as a result of closingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Church of England instruments you seem to have removed a lot of links to other articles. The edit that brought it to my attention wasthis one. The only commonality I can see across the edits are that the links were to titles of British Acts of Parliament that are redirects. -htonl (talk)07:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Came here with the same query, prompted by such examples asthis andthis. These links have nothing to do with Church of England instruments, and the articles are poorer without them.GrindtXX (talk)10:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Same here. I have rolled back many of your edits. You need to edit more carefully. If you were not an admin you'd be getting warnings for false edit summaries and eitherWP:CIR or vandalism.DuncanHill (talk)12:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think user used a script or bot that may not work properly!Hughbe98 (talk)17:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hughbe98: Users are responsible for the scripts and bots that they employ.DuncanHill (talk)21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, but when there are bugs in a commonly-used admin script (without which the already-onerous task of closing discussions would be an order of magnitude worse), I think "taking responsibility" means listening to concerns and helping to resolve the issue, not that the random admin who has the misfortune of encountering the bug should be admonished for carelessness and compared to a vandal.jlwoodwa (talk)23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,htonl,GrindtXX,DuncanHill andHughbe98,
    XFDCloser does that automatically when we close an AFD. I don't know why it would remove links from terms other that the subjecct of the article that was deleted through the AFD. I'll make a post on the tool's talk page. Feel free to revert my edits. I appreciate the clean up and I'm sorry for the inconvenience to you and the project. I've been closing AFDs since 2020 and this has happened to me before. It sometimes has occurred with PROD'd articles but not ones that went through AFD and were handled by XFDcloser. Again, my apologies and I'll contact the tool operator.LizRead!Talk!18:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted all the problem edits now.the wub"?!"21:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The wub: Thank you.DuncanHill (talk)21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent deletion of List of Church of England measures has randomly removed links across wiki

    [edit]

    Eg revisionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil%20List%20Act%201837&diff=1307697083&oldid=1304480232

    Has something gone wrong with the bot?Hughbe98 (talk)11:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Hughbe98,
    Sorry about that, maybe the tool, XFDcloser, should be reported, I don't know why it would remove this link from this word. I'll make a post on its talk page.LizRead!Talk!18:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This goat...

    [edit]

    ...clearly thinks you're great. Look at that face!

    Fred Gandt ·talk ·contribs18:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's adorable,Fred Gandt. You've given me my "Ahhhhhhh" moment of the day.LizRead!Talk!00:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I take no responsibility for the goat. Good luck!
    But I hope it and the penguin get along...Fred Gandt ·talk ·contribs02:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    An Award for You

    [edit]
    Pygoscelisnon carborundum
    You've been awarded the Pygoscelisnon carborundum in honor of your ability to keep penguining on without letting them grind you down.Jahaza (talk)18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Jahaza,
    This is the most unique "award" I've been given. Thank you and have a great weekend!LizRead!Talk!00:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI

    [edit]

    I make the most "absurd" socking claims, claims no other dares to utter. See e.g. whatTamzin wrote atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease/Archive#10 February 2022, and then see whyKorvex got indeffed.tgeorgescu (talk)23:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,tgeorgescu,
    I've looked into both of the diffs you link to and I don't understand what connection you are trying to make between the two of them or with me. Are you trying to make some point here or are you asking me to do something for you? I don't get it. Thanks and I hope you are having a nice summer.LizRead!Talk!00:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, it was a reply to criticizing me atWP:ANI for suggesting socking: my hunches aboutWP:SOCKS are often right. Even if when looking at my claims from outside, those look like rubbish.tgeorgescu (talk)00:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so it sounds like your messages are in response tothis edit that I made. That provides some context.LizRead!Talk!01:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted PROD

    [edit]

    Hey, thanks for leaving that summary on reverting my PROD tag on an article,Plympton, Inc., referring me to the AfD page. I had reverted several other edits that deleted my PROD tags on similar articles, and was confused as to why it kept happening, and it seems that.. if I understand correctly, deleting a PROD tag on an article makes it completely ineligible to be proposed again, and that I have to take it toWP:AFD

    The article deletion policy here is so complicated, and another person only said "it can't have a second PROD" in their summary, and the article had never had a PROD before, so I didn't realize it was referring to my initial PROD, thinking they were saying the article was PROD before when it very clearly wasn't before I added the tag.... ugh...

    But yea, you helped me clear up a lot of confusion. Thanks for actually pointing me in the right direction, appreciate it.Nerfdart (talk)01:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Nerfdart,
    First things first, the deletion policies at Wikipedia ARE confusing. Basically, you have CSD, speedy deletion. There are about 15 well-defined criteria for when they apply to an article or page. The criteria are intentionally limited and specific to only apply to a small set of circumstances. Any editor but the page creator can remove a CSD tag but you should provide an explanation for the tag removal in your edit summary. Proposed deletions are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. No article or file that has been PROD'd before or taken to AFD can be PROD'd again. Any editor can remove a PROD tag for any reason at all or no reason at all! It's considered appropriate to also provide an reason for untagging an article but it's not mandatory. As for AFD/RFD/MFD/CFD, these community processes take at least a week and the tag can not be removed by anyone until the deletion discussion has been closed.
    I hope that this brief explanation is helpful.LizRead!Talk!01:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    49.142.17.100

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, Kinldy block the IP editor 49.142.17.100 as they are mass vandalsing Wikipedia pages. Thank you. Cassiopeiatalk07:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Cassiopeia,
    I'm sorry that I didn't see this message last night. It looks like they were blocked by Lofty abyss.LizRead!Talk!01:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz, Thank you for replying. The editor vandalized more than 30 pages until they were blocked by an admin. Many times there is no admin online during 2 a.m. to 7 a.m. ET, daytime in my country, and vandalism would go rampant without blocking actions. Thank you, Liz. Regards. Cassiopeiatalk02:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Beto Vázquez Infinity albums speedy deletion

    [edit]

    I'd suggest you move forward with the deletion.Mariano(t/c)11:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Mariano,
    Empty categories sit for 7 days just in case they are only temporarily empty. If you are the category creator and you want the page deleted, you can tag a page for speedy deletion, CSD G7 if you use Twinkle or you can put {{Db-g7}} on the page.LizRead!Talk!01:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tolulope Oginni

    [edit]

    Good morning Liz, hope all is well. Thank you for taking care of my PROD on this article. I realize that I forgot to ask for it to be salted afterwards. I see that it was also created in 2020 and A7 quick deleted at the time. Nothing has changed since then. Would it be possible to please salt it as well? Thank you in advance,m aMANÍ1990(talk |contribs)13:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Mamani1990,
    RegardingTolulope Oginni, it looks like this article has just been created twice and we usually don't SALT a page unless there is a problem with repeated recreations. I think recreation would have to be a bigger problem before I decide to SALT this page title. Another admin might have a different threshold but I'd like to see at least three recreations over a few years to SALT a page title. Sorry for my decline.LizRead!Talk!01:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BC/BD

    [edit]

    To be clear, I was seeking a intervention and I was hoping, although in my experience I thought unlikely, that people might actually be able to see what was going on and beyond what was being selectively presented.

    There weren't 3 people editing. There was just me and two other people making minor corrections or changes.

    (The point that I had created this page was related to the absurdity of being the person who had added the content that I was being policed about editing by people who weren't making substantial changes themselves, and who had both indicated they had no subject matter expertise, but claimed their broad knowledge of creoles qualified them to make generalisations.)

    After 3 sig edits, I came back after half a day to find a unsourced edit by someone who had previously said they had no subject knowledge. I didn't argue with him, I simply continued my edits from the night before. After my significant edit, he responded with a comment accusing me of 'steamrolling his edits' and ordering me to discuss things with him on the talk page.

    There was no dispute and I don't need to seek permission to edit on Wikipedia, anymore than anyone else does. Particularly, to discuss a factual sourced change with a person who had made an unfactual unsourced change.

    Also, how was I streamrolling his -53 character change with my two 2479 + 294 character changes? What was he talking about? And why should I bring a discussion to the talk page?

    Also what dispute was he eluding to? He had made a comment on the talk page of another page days earlier and we'd had no discussion since. Was he referring to his change on the other article de-capitalising a word throughout? How did that transfer to this article, or rise to the level of a dispute, and how was I supposed to know he objected to me editing on either page?

    But why should I clear my edits with him and another user who I had been having a running discussion with?

    At the same time, the other user kept going on about trying to get me to move a discussion about a proposed name change to another forum when I told him I was happy to leave the discussion on the talk page. He even proposed making a requested move himself because I wouldn't.

    Yes, I was sarky in that talk page discussion with the second user because he kept giving me unsolicited advice and kept coming back to a point - the naming of the language/language varieties - even after it had been discussed.

    Except that the first user's edits did seem to be related to the second user's edits because they both seemed to be assuming that my changes were in aid of moving the second page rather than making the page an accurate reflection of what it was currently about.

    I'm only explaining all of this to you because I've found you to be fair in the past. After being on this platform for 20+ years, I don't need to be told to go write on my own blog if I'm not happy with people making changes. I created that page in 2006 and I certainly haven't been policing it. But I've asked you before, in a situation like this, besides walking away, what exactly do you want me (realistically and reasonably) to do?

    MmeMaigret (talk)06:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 16

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on August 16. Please helptranslate.
    Wikipedia 25 logo
    Wikipedia’s 25th birthday logo.
    Wikipedia 25 Birthday cake icon
    Wikipedia 25 Birthday cake

    Upcoming and current events and conversations
    Let's Talk continues

    • Wikimedia Futures Lab:Apply before Sep 4 to joinThe Wikimedia Futures Lab, the in-person convening hosted on January 30 – February 1, 2026 in Frankfurt, Germany with participants from affiliates, contributors and external experts, to learn more about global trends and discuss potential movement-wide responses.
    • Wikimania 2026: The theme and date forWikimania 2026 have been decided: Liberté, Équité, Fiabilité (Freedom, Equity, Reliability). This edition will take place in Paris, from July 21 to July 25, 2026.

    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Research ·Web ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

    • Tech News: Some of the latest updates from Tech News week34 and35: An A/B test comparing two versions of the desktop donate link launched on testwiki and English Wikipedia for 0.1% of logged out users on the desktop site. The experiment will run for three weeks, ending on 12 September; Administrators can now access theSpecial:BlockedExternalDomains page from theSpecial:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find.
    • Spread Wikilove, thank comments: A new improvement was added to the "Discussion tools"Beta feature; it is now possible tothank a user for their comment. This new feature is released for a 3-months long test.
    • Community Wishlist: Template authors can now use additional CSS properties, since the CSS sanitizer used byTemplateStyles was updated. These improvements are aCommunity Wishlist wish.
    • Wikipedia Mobile Apps: The Android app team has launched a newexperiment in Italy that lets logged-out readers of Italian and English Wikipedia set their own donation reminders based on how often they read. This new approach responds to feedback from donors who say their motivation to give is tied to their reading habits. Instead of one-size-fits-all banners, readers can now choose reminders that fit their own usage, all while keeping their privacy intact.

    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events

    Board and Board committee updates
    SeeWikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard ·Affiliations Committee Newsletter

    Other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery18:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sobia Masood

    [edit]

    Draft:Sobia Masood was moved around to make things confusing and to avoid the AfD,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobia Masood. I've got it back toSobia Masood and page move protected it until the AfD is done.CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged),Uqaqtuq (talk),Huliva07:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,CambridgeBayWeather,
    I have forgotten what my part in this article or page move or AFD was yesterdat but I appreciate your explanation. Thanks for visiting my User talk page.LizRead!Talk!04:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Films scored by Rajesh Ramanath

    [edit]

    I see you have deleted this.Rajesh Ramanath is the article title. Move Category:Films scored by Rajesh Ramnath to the correct title.DareshMohan (talk)02:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,DareshMohan,
    Category:Films scored by Rajesh Ramanath was deleted in 2022 because it was an empty category (CSD C1). Empty categories can always be restored if there is a need for them in the future. If there are suitable articles, feel free to recreate this page or make a request here or atWP:REFUND.LizRead!Talk!03:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    hello Liz, please you moved my articles for deletion, I have more verified publications to reference them now.

    [edit]

    Good day Liz, trust you are doing very well today, please I wrote an article on the subjects Blue Seal Energy group and Doyle Edeni, you moved them for deletion because the articles weren't having enough verified reference, how can I get the articles back on wikipedia since there are more verifiable references now?Stephen Ini (talk)06:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Stephen Ini,
    I can't look into this until you provide me with links to the articles or to the deleted articles. I look at hundreds of pages every day and I don't have time to search for what ones you might be talking about when you can easily provide me with links to these pages so I can see why the pages were deleted. Thanks.LizRead!Talk!06:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blue Seal Energy Group andDoyle Redotelojor EdeniStephen Ini (talk)06:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Stephen Ini,
    Thanks very much, that's what I needed to see. Both articles were deleted throughWP:AFD discussion among the community. These articles can not be easily restored. This is not true for all forms of deletion but it is true for AFDs. The only way I know to overcome a Deletion closure in an AFD is for there to be a new draft version of the article, which avoids the problems that caused the article to be deleted. And once it's created, submit it toWP:AFC for review and, hopefully, approval. You might review the AFD discussions for these articles which are linked to the deletion notice at the top of the page forBlue Seal Energy Group andDoyle Redotelojor Edeni. If you have any questions after reviewing the deletion discussions, let me know. Alternatively, you can always go tothe Teahouse which is a friendly forum for new editors to go and ask questions of experienced editors who can offer you advice, support and a second opinion.LizRead!Talk!07:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you so much Liz, I appreciate your response.Stephen Ini (talk)11:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for undeletion

    [edit]

    Hi @Liz! I'd like to request forIsrafil Bek Jedigar to be restored. I have given reasons why separately here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_410#Israfil Bek Jedigar. Thanks in advance!Yousiphh (talk)08:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz Please do not ignore my request.Yousiphh (talk)07:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz Hello.Yousiphh (talk)22:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Church of England instruments

    [edit]

    Hello there, I'm not sure you want yet another entry on this subject. But it now turns out that Landpin was a sock puppet and not necessarily the best example of "acting in good faith". This was a useful List which went through AfD, objections were raised, and it is now difficult to recreate as a new item, there were hundreds of entries. Any suggestions?ChrysGalley (talk)00:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Church of England instruments

    ChrysGalley (talk)00:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel

    [edit]

    Can you checkthis revision onDookie (disambiguation)?Cyberthetiger🐯 (talk)05:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Alsothis oneCyberthetiger🐯 (talk)05:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These edits are decades old. I guess they can be removed but the way you are presenting the diffs makes it difficult to take action. I have to go back years in the page history and try to find them. If you could just provide a link to the diff, that would be more useful.LizRead!Talk!05:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Asthma & Allergy Network Page

    [edit]

    Hello Liz, This inquiry is about a page you removed of a non-profit that I work with. There was no single intention of the wiki page but to educate people through medically reviewed material on many conditions involving asthma, allergies, or related conditions, and share resources. We are expanding in advocacy and our Trusted Messenger program is vital to many in underserved communities. Additionally, our research work includes many DOI links of papers we've authored or co-authored. Will you consider restoring this page? Our name has changed to Allergy & Asthma Network and I came her to change that noticed the page was gone. Thank you kindly.

    ~~~~Kshallcross (talk)14:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

    [edit]

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

    Administrator changes

    readdedEuryalus
    removed

    Interface administrator changes

    readdedRagesoss

    CheckUser changes

    readdedAmandaNP
    removedSQL

    Oversight changes

    readdedAmandaNP

    Guideline and policy news

    • An RfC is open on whether use ofemojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion underG15.

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    • The arbitration caseArticle titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
    • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
    Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Grubisz440 -WP:CIR regarding English grammar and spelling

    [edit]

    This is a follow-up toWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1189#Poor_English_from_User:Grubisz440, from June 9, 2025.

    Grubisz440 has contributed a lot toMao Mao: Heroes of Pure Heart; however, most, if not all, of their edits have introduced grammar and spelling errors to the point where these issues have become systemic to the page. Notice the sloppy work:

    I have raised the issue onthe article's talk page; however, Grubisz440 has continued to edit the page, and has shown next to no improvement to their grasp of English grammar and spelling. As I had stated back at ANI, I have major concerns about the editor'scompetency, and so far they've done nothing to alleviate those concerns.

    PingingPhil Bridger as an editor who was also involved in the initial ANI discussion.TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)21:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    page moving

    [edit]

    Hello Miss LizAt first I wanted to move the articleSureshjan, Isfahan to (Soroushjan) but also there is another article namedSureshjan that I wrongly moved it instead and now the system doesn't move.Could you please move? Thanks.Jumberidze (talk)04:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Jumberidze,
    I don't know what you were trying to do but it caused a mess. Sometimes new editors work on an article when an older article with the same page title already exists and they do crazy things to get the older article deleted off of Wikipedia so their new article can be at that specific page title. These chaotic moves can end up with the editor blocked because it is very disruptive editing.
    There are several different solutions that can be made when more than one article has the same page title. In this situation, tell me exactly what you want to happen but it is still unclear to me. Tell me the names of both articles and where you want them to be moved. It might be that they are renamed to an alternate page title but that can happen after I understand what pages you are focused on. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!07:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pronunciation of title of articleSureshjan, Isfahan is wrong and related to another article.The correct pronunciation is (Soroushjan) and I wanted to move.Could you please moveSureshjan, Isfahan to (Soroushjan)?Jumberidze (talk)08:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:ClemRutter

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I hope you're well and having a good weekend. I'm just checking the reason you've deleted the above page asWP:G13, Abandoned draft or AfC submission? The page in question isn't an abandoned draft, it's the user talk page of a formerly prolific user who's been blocked for a few years. Was this done in error? I'm not seeing a pressing reason to delete this page, and I don't think it is usual to do so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk)16:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Was also coming to leave a heads up -- looks like you just deleted a bunch of user talk pages. Something somewhere has gone wrong. :) —Rhododendritestalk \\16:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All the recent ones deletions here were done in error; I tried to restoreUser talk:Haoreima ( 1,284 revisions) but got a data base error doing so.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)16:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm cleaning this up right now and using partial undeletions for the larger pages.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)16:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, Asilvering, HouseBlaster, and ComplexRational have cleaned this all up now; please be careful in the future. I think you know that, though.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)17:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here for the same reason reUser talk:John Broughton.BD2412T16:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so sorry,Amakuru,Moneytrees🏝️, andBD2412. I screwed up massively this morning. I was half-asleep, grabbed my phone and mixed upUser:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts page withWikipedia:Database reports/Unusually large user talk pages and then went back to sleep. When I woke up two hours later, I had the feeling that I did something wrong, because G13 eligible drafts lists Drafts and the page where I did a batch delete was a list of User talk pages but I found all of the deleted pages had already been reverted. Many, many thanks toasilvering,HouseBlasterComplexRational and every other admin who helped restore the pages I mistakenly deleted. I should never edit until I'm fully awake.
    Besides giving a big apology for the confusion, I will say that I've been an admin for 10 years and this kind of mixup has only happened to me one other time, about 4 years ago, also with a batch deletion. I promise never to edit when I'm half-asleep again, especially no page deletions.LizRead!Talk!22:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No apologies needed, these things happen. Cheers!BD2412T22:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please archive your talk page, though. It's taking forever to close.BD2412T22:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries – we all have days like that.Complex/Rational02:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz, and thanks to those who sorted the issue.  — Amakuru (talk)06:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk pages deleted under G13

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I noticed that you recently deleted a bunch of user talk page under G13:[17] I suspect a faulty <noinclude> or <includeonly> tag caused these pages to populateCAT:G13, whereas the only pages that should have been deleted were abandoned drafts authored by these users. I've already reversed one of these deletions; there are about 40 to go. And just be vigilant to make sure this doesn't happen again. Thanks,Complex/Rational16:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I hadn't seen the section immediately above when writing my comment. Feel free to combine the two.Complex/Rational16:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD closure

    [edit]

    Hi, I wasn’t pinged in thisWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause (2nd nomination)إيان (talk)23:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    == Deletion review forPalestinian cause ==

    An editor has asked fora deletion review ofPalestinian cause. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.إيان (talk)18:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this merit action?

    [edit]

    @Liz:: Does this"attack" post (which has been reverted) merit any action/warning to the editor who posted? While the post is signed byUser:Danram Qurocan (a blocked user), it was actually posted byUser:MickeyPT. —ERcheck (talk)02:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) Just a heads-up: I havean SPI open on this one, and they're reported at AIV.tony02:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonySt - Thanks! —ERcheck (talk)02:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Guiducci draft

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I just noticed that there was a draft forMark Guiducci created byUser:Theeenewyorker back in 2021. Can you restore it toDraft:Mark Guiducci 2 or whatever page name seems appropriate so I can see if there is any material I can use to improve the main space article? Thank you,Thriley (talk)17:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your take onUser:Niranjan Adostrophe's userpage/user account

    [edit]

    @Liz: The userpage forNiranjan Adostrophe is from Wikimedia. It does not seem to comply with English Wikipedia guidelines. On that page, it says the account represents a group (thus, an issue with user account). In addition, the page lists a number of English Wikipedia articles that do not exist.

    How does this get handled on English Wikipedia? —ERcheck (talk)20:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 9 September 2025

    [edit]
    *Read this Signpost in full *Single-page *Unsubscribe *MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    142.126.247.147 - pls block this IP editor

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, good day. Sorry to bother you again, as there is always a lack of active admins during the night time in US to action AIV requests. Please block the IP addressUser:142.126.247.147, and please see their contribution loghere, as they are actively vandalizing Wikipedia pages close to 30 edits. Thank you. Cassiopeiatalk05:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: The matter has been taken care by Ymblanter. IP account is blocked. Thank you. Cassiopeiatalk05:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request about the soft deletion of Naqshbandi Golden Chain

    [edit]

    Hello! :) I was trying to find this extraordinary summary i saw a while ago and saw that it got soft-deleted. My request didn't work and i was told to contact the administrator. I hope i'm in the right place! The page was such a well educated, well arranged and informative summary one couldn't find annnnywhere else. I wanted to kindly request the restoration of the page named "Nakshbandi Golden Chain" and "Silsilah". Thank you so much. All the best :)Roserosaaa (talk)17:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Roserosaaa,
    We ask that editors inquiring about pages provide a link to the page they are talking about. For example, there is no page, deleted or existing, atNakshbandi Golden Chain and while there is a page atSilsilah, that page is a redirect that has existed for over a decade so it doesn't sound like the page you are talking about. If you can locate these deleted pages and provide a link to them, then I can investigate why they were deleted and whether or not anything can be done about it. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!00:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response! I didn't find a specific link but found this written in the footer of a page:
    Copied and paste here:
    "Revision as of 05:43, 8 May 2022
    3 YEARS AGO
    ..........
    Removing link(s) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqshbandi Golden Chain closed as soft delete (XFDcloser)
    =See also==
    [[Silsilal]
    [Naqshbandi Golden Chain]"
    It must be "Silsila" and "Naqshbandi Golden Chain". The way i spelled it wasn't correct. Please accept my apologies. Good night!Roserosaaa (talk)19:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD summaries

    [edit]

    Hi! Ireferenced yourcomment in an AfD discussion about how editors should not attempt to give summaries of an ongoing AfD. Is there a particular policy/guideline to reference in a case such as this (is it something like aWP:SUPERVOTE?), or just common sense that editors shouldn't take it upon themselves to interpret all other editors' comments and add more words to an already large word count? This has happened in 2 of the past 3 AfDs I've commented on, but I don't know what specifically to reference.NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)20:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM,
    I'm not sure if this advice is written into policy or just reflects our current practice. I started being involved in closing AFD discussions in 2020 and this advice was part of the AFD culture I kind of "inherited". I'll look overWP:AFD and associated policy pages and see if appears anywhere. I'll just say that the existence of unwritten "rules" is not unique to AFD, it's common in other areas or project as well. Sometimes they are advice given in commonly accepted essays that doesn't have the same level of authority as actual policy and guidelines.LizRead!Talk!00:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lviv rabbis

    [edit]

    Liz, I get that the !votes for delete were overwhelming onList of Lviv rabbis, but they weren't policy-based. I pointed to a source that considered them as a group and I just posted another one in an edit conflict as it was being closed.Jahaza (talk)22:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A third source considering them as a group/list is the List of Rabbis of Lviv in the Jewish Encyclopedia[18].Jahaza (talk)22:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well,Jahaza, I thought there was a solid consensus among editors to Delete this article but if you disagree, you can bring this AFD closure toWikipedia:Deletion review. Or, alternatively, since I believe you were asking for a Redirect, you can always create a redirect from this deleted page title. If you think you'd like to work on this article yourself, we can restore it to Draft space but you can't just move it back to main space without passing it through an AFC review.LizRead!Talk!00:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ReTalk:Edit

    [edit]

    Could you please be more careful and not stomp on what I was doing. I was trying to do aWP:Selective deletion to clean up hundreds of vandalism and accidental edits from the history, and you just ruined what I did.* Pppery *it has begun...00:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,* Pppery *,
    I don't think I was being "careless". I saw a page deleted, for no stated reason, that resulted in several broken redirects. If there were special circumstances for this page deletion that didn't fit into one of our CSD criteria, then please leave a comprehensive reason explaining what you are doing. I thought your page deletion was being careless. I don't know exactly where you could post this explanation but perhaps a longer deletion rationale. If the page had been deleted citing a valid CSD criteria that applied, I wouldn't have reverted your action. If I am partially at fault, it's because I probably should have asked you about this deletion on your User talk page before restoring this deleted page, that's on me.LizRead!Talk!00:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Companies based in Lake Arrowhead, California

    [edit]
    Hello, Liz. You have new messages atBanaticus's talk page.
    Message added00:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

    Deleted redirects

    [edit]

    Please seethis user talk page post. Thanks. –Jonesey95 (talk)03:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Jonesey95,
    Thanks for alerting me to this message. Without your meesage here, I never would have come acros it. However, this looks like a complicated situation with previous AFDs and undiscussed page moves so I'll need to spend some time thinking this one through. It looks like there was some improper editing activity going on. I'll give it more time tomorrow morning. Thanks again for the alert.LizRead!Talk!05:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion ofUser talk:Tarch Artificial Intelligence/sandbox

    [edit]

    Doesn'tG8 not apply when it's a user talk page? or is it because it's the sandbox subpage?BodhiHarp05:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,User:BodhiHarp,
    There are instances when User talk pages (and other types of talk pages) are tagged as G8-exempt but I don't know of a rule that user talk pages protects from all types of deletion. In this instance, it was the talk page forUser:Tarch Artificial Intelligence/sandbox which was deleted as a stale draft, CSD G13. I use Twinkle to handle all of the deletions I do and Twinkle generally deletes talk pages and redirects any time you delete regular articles, drafts, categories, templates, etc.
    Since the editor here is indefinitely blocked, so what brought this user talk page to your attention? Because it was part of a CSD G13 deletion, I can restore it if there is content on it that you wish to preserve. If you want it to be a rule that User talk pages are never ever deleted, I think you should make a proposalt atWT:CSD or the Village Pump because it's not just MY behavior that would need to change but all admins or page movers who have the capacity to delete a page or in the page mover's case, the ability to not leave a redirect.LizRead!Talk!05:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found you deleting it through "recent changes".BodhiHarp15:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and by the way, doesn't this speedy deletion criterion only apply to drafts and not user subpages?BodhiHarp20:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages of user subpages are not really "user talk pages".jlwoodwa (talk)08:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Elections | RFC phase

    [edit]
    Administrator Elections | RFCphase

    The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase atWikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

    Any questions or issues can be asked on theelection talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk)12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TPA Revoke: 216.209.188.104

    [edit]

    Hi :)

    Could you revoke the talk page access of216.209.188.104.

    It's a cesspool over there.

    Thx,✦GLORPK4✦  |📡03:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Isabelle Belato already just did it.
    Thx✦GLORPK4✦  |📡03:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,GlorpK4,
    It looks likeUser:Isabelle Belato got to this request before I could. But TPA has been removed.LizRead!Talk!03:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

    [edit]

    Hello! Thank you for usingCite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support fromWikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Oursource lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

    Please see ournewsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via ourproject talk page. Thank you!

    FromSuperHamster andSuperGrey,05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This message was sent viaglobal message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing listhere.

    Tony Pham (footballer)

    [edit]

    @Liz:, Would you be able to draftifyTony Pham (footballer)? I never realized that it was proposed for deletion until today when it exprired. Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) Donejlwoodwa (talk)21:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request revision deletions forDYDW (Cebu City)

    [edit]

    Hello, @Liz! I have request revision deletions forDYDW (Cebu City) that redirect a draft's merger starting from 12:22, 19 March 2025CryingSulfur up to 11:00, 7 September 2025JJMC89 bot because the draftDraft:DYDW (Cebu) has been delete. However, this new article has since been created at 11:35, 7 September 2025WikiRadioPH2025 and has reviewed the articleDYDW (Cebu City). Thank you and advance!WikiRadioPH2025 (talk)12:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 17

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on August 29. Please helptranslate.

    Upcoming and current events and conversations
    Let's Talk continues


    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Product Safety and Integrity ·Readers ·Research ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

    Cybersecurity
    A better way to protect Wikimedia from malicious bots
    • Better bot detection:How we are improving bot detection and replacing our CAPTCHA.
    • Temporary Accounts:Temporary accounts are now deployed to almost all wikis except the last 11.
    • User Info: Thisnew feature displays data related to a user account when you tap or click on the "user avatar" icon button next to a username. It's meant to be useful for different users with extended rights as well as newcomers.
    • Newsletter highlights: The latestReaders Newsletter is now available. It includes considerations about Wikipedia's declining pageviews in the recent years, how the Foundation and communities may work on addressing this together, and the formation of two new teams — Reader Growth and Reader Experience.
    • Activity Tab Experiment: The Foundation launched anexperiment testing a new Activity tab in the Wikipedia Android app to our beta testers. Instead of only showing editing activity, this tab also surfaces insights about reading and donation behavior.
    • Search Suggestions: To make it easier for users to find articles, logged-out users on both desktop and mobile will seesuggestions of articles for further reading on English Wikipedia beginning the week of September 22. All non-English wikis received this update in June and July.
    • Paste Check: The Foundation is working on a new check:Paste check. This check informs newcomers who paste text into Wikipedia that the content might not be accepted to ensure it is aligned with the Movement's values. This check will soon be tested at a few wikis.
    • CampaignEvents extension: TheCampaignEvents extension has been enabled for all Wikisources. The extension makes it easier to organize and participate in collaborative activities, like edit-a-thons and WikiProjects, on the wikis. To request the extension for your wiki, visit theinformation page.
    • Structured Task: TheAdd a Link Structured Task has been fully released at English Wikipedia. This release is an important step in making editing more accessible for new contributors, especially on mobile.
    • Tech News: Read more updates from Tech News week36 and37.
    • Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is nowavailable on 65 Wiktionaries and has a new capability tocopy function calls from one Wikipedia to another.
    • Multilingual Contributors: TheLanguage and Product Localisation team is launching aCentralNotice campaign to attract multilingual contributors to specific Wikipedias. The campaign will feature regionally targeted banners to reach potential native speakers.


    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events


    Board and Board committee updates
    SeeWikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard ·Affiliations Committee Newsletter


    Other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery01:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone on your radar?

    [edit]

    Hi Liz! Impressed that you can keep up your admin works despite being on Arbcom. That seems like an impossible feat. Just wondering if you've come across any editors who might lighten your load if they were to request adminship. I'm always on the lookout for editors to vet and encourage to run. If you do, do let me know, either on Wikipedia or via mail!—Femke 🐦 (talk)19:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, [User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]],
    Well, as a matter of fact, I was just talking about this with DreamRimmer who is my technical guru. His tools have saved admins a great deal of time. I was unaware of this when I suggested this move the other day but he's already been through an RFA that I haven't looked at sbut I think the obstacle was not an impressive range of content creation. This was a factor with my own RFA but I managed to squeak through any way. So, I suggested he try the admin elections but I'm not sure he wants to go through this experience again. They'd make a great admin though.
    As for my own workload, well, I'm always behind on my talk page replies as this user page gets a lot of traffic. The routine duties are fairly easy to keep up with but the personal replies are more demanding. But thanks for the compliment!LizRead!Talk!19:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rain (fintech) AfD

    [edit]

    Hi @Liz! First, thank you for your work! Second, so sorry, I am pretty new here, I did not know about addingstrikethrough on my older votes. Appreciate the patience and tip. Third, I would love to keep working on the article in the draft space. If you could help me with that, I would appreciate it! Cheers!Veggiegalaxy (talk)22:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Veggiegalaxy,
    Can you provide me with a link to the deleted article so I can look into this? Much appreciated.LizRead!Talk!21:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz!
    Here's the deletion discussion:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rain_(fintech)
    Here's the deleted page!https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rain_(fintech)&action=edit&redlink=1
    Please let me know if you need anything else and thank you!
    Cheers,Veggiegalaxy (talk)01:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz! Any chance I can still work on this in the draftspace? Cheers,Veggiegalaxy (talk)16:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Zeileis

    [edit]

    Due to personal circumstances, I was not able to finish the draft page on Martin Zeileis.Draft:Martin Zeileis. Unfortunately, the page was deleted. Is it possible to recover that page so that I can continue to work on it?Dragon Genoa (talk)10:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was published,Martin Zeileis.Kaffet i halsen (talk)10:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Dragon Genoa,
    Yes,Draft:Martin Zeileis was just a redirect to a main space article so there is no use restoring that page.Martin Zeileis was deleted as a Proposed deletion which can be restored upon request. Would you like that to happen,Dragon Genoa? Thanks for the assist,Kaffet i halsen!LizRead!Talk!21:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please, can you recover the page for me so I can continue to improve the work.Dragon Genoa (talk)21:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Dragon Genoa,
     Done. Please be aware that Kaffet i halsen tagged it for a Proposed deletion and could tag it for an AFD discussion now that it has been restored. You might want to have a word with them. We could also move it to Draft space or to your User space if you think your work on it will take a while.LizRead!Talk!21:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both for your help. I will contact Kaffet i halsen next week for advice Thanks, Thanks, Thanks.Dragon Genoa (talk)15:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Books & Bytes – Issue 70

    [edit]
    The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
    Issue 70, July–August 2025
    • New collections:
      • Times of Malta
      • Africa Intelligence
      • Intelligence Online
      • La Lettre
      • Glitz
    • Spotlight: Wikimania
    Read the full newsletter

    Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team –13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (This message was sent toUser:Liz and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

    hey!

    [edit]

    how can i get my username like yours?shane (talk)15:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,shane,
    To change your username, go toWikipedia:Changing username. It's pretty straight-forward. In my own case, "Liz" had already been registered years ago but the editor had not made any edits with the account so I got it reassigned to me through a process called "Usupation" where a steward simply reassigned the username to me. Just go to the policy page for username changes and read over the section on "Usurpation requests". Since Wikipedia has been around for 24 years, it can be difficult to find a username that hasn't already been taken but there are quite a lot of usernames that are registered but never used and in those cases, usurpation can switch over the registration. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!23:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page watcher) I wonder if they were referring to the styling.Esolo5002 (talk)00:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and you would be correctshane (talk)00:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Well, if you go into the "Edit" features of any of my responses you can find information on fonts and those details. I'm not sure how to change a signature if you use the mobile app but I use a laptop and you just go to the top of the page and click on "Preferences" or go toSpecial:Preferences. There, on the very first page is a place to paste in your preference for how a signature appears. I'd recommend looking at a lot of different editors' signatures to make sure you get the design you prefer and then customize it. Many editors "borrow" font settings from other editors. One trend you'll see is that very new editors tend to have overly fancy signatures while long-time editors usually have very simple signatures. The most important factor is that you have to be able to easily read a signature, it must contain at least one link to your User talk page and it can't contain images in it. There are a lot of pages on the project that have sample signatures, if you go to thethe Teahouse they can point you in the right direction.LizRead!Talk!00:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

    [edit]
    Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

    Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.

    Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following themid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomedGoldRomean to the coordinator team.Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, andMiniapolis andMox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist ourombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be foundhere.

    June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for theJune 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere.

    July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for theJuly 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere.

    August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for theAugust 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere.

    September 2025 Drive:Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

    Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.

    Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.

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

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Knights of Guinevere Talk Page

    [edit]

    Hi. Firstly, thank you very much for helping to restore theKnights of Guinevere article after all of that vandalism. However, it seems that, between all the vandal page moves & the attempts to revert those page moves & deletion of all the redirects, that the article's talk page (and along with it the talk page history) was lost somewhere in the shuffle. Fortunately, the talk page didn't have any discussions on it (it only had some unrated project banners & 2 ref ideas that had already been removed from the talk page due to being incorporated into the article). Nonetheless, if it would be possible to restore the talk page with its edit history, rather than just remaking the page, then that would be greatly appreciated. —Jamie Eilat (talk)04:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Jamie Eilat,
    Thanks for getting back to me. I think I restored the correct one. This page was moved around dozens of times so if this isn't the right one, I'll try and look for the original. Thanks again for all of your help. I've move protected the article for one month. But let one of us know if this vandal returns. They really were an expert on causing confusion.LizRead!Talk!04:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page is still missing the bulk of its original history, it seems. After looking through & following the move logs, I believe that the original talk page may have ended up being moved to one of these four locations before the vandal redirects were all deleted:
    I'm not precisely sure of which among the four it is, though. —Jamie Eilat (talk)04:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Jamie Eilat,
    This was really easy for me to check, just by looking at the deleted edit history. I assume the original's first edit would be by a regular editor. I put the results next to the page in the list you presented. I think the original might actually beTalk:Knights Of Guinevere as its first edit was in January 2025. And alsoTalk:Knights of Guinevere was started by you with an edit in January 2025. I think you can pick which one of these you want as the regular Talk page and which one you want as a Redirect.LizRead!Talk!04:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the edit history for the talk page, if it were the original, should also have edits from me &User:Historyday01 adding & removing ref ideas during that past 2-ish days, but that isn't present. (And as forTalk:Knights Of Guinevere (with the capitalized O), that actually comes from a separate version of the article that was created while the current article page was still being developed as a draft, which was subsequently redirected to & merged with the draft; i.e., unrelated to all the vandalism that just happened.) —Jamie Eilat (talk)04:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps checking through my and/or Historyday01's deleted contributions would help with finding where the talk page history ended up? —Jamie Eilat (talk)04:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea, Jamie Eilat, do you have a rough idea when you and Historyday01 wrote down those notes? Just a month and year would help. That would cut down the time of investigating this.LizRead!Talk!05:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be around September 19–20 (the past 2 days). If you see any deleted revisions from me around that time with the words "ref idea" in the edit summary, then whatever deleted page that edit is to must be the original talk page. —Jamie Eilat (talk)05:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you look at the page history ofUser:Jamie Eilat/Knights and tell me what you think,Jamie Eilat?LizRead!Talk!05:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it! That's the original talk page! Now all that's left is to move back toTalk:Knights of Guinevere —Jamie Eilat (talk)05:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think everything you could need is in the Talk page's history, including the latest edits you made, adding banners. They should all be accessible to you now. Boy, I hope this vandal doesn't make this a regular habit.LizRead!Talk!05:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing this. I didn't revise much on the talk page myself, as shownhere, apart from moving over one ref to the main page (that's mainly what I've been working on). Perhaps with the vandalism, the page should be protected.Historyday01 (talk)12:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings

    [edit]

    Hi Liz,

    Thank you for removing theadminstats widget from my user page. For some reason, I thought it will keep a summary of my contributions and other tasks. I did not realise it was exclusive to admins.

    There's so much on Wikipedia. So much to read, so much to do. Amid this internal tug of war between following guidelines(I try my best to read all relevant sections dligently - takes me hours) and beingWP:BOLD(still struggling with this) , I find myself getting overwhelmed and committing mistakes.

    I am really eager to be a part of the Anti-vandalism initiative on WP. I am working with Twinkle as well. But I will try to be more judicious with my actions.

    Thanks again for your help!Kingsacrificer (talk)07:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Kingsacrificer,
    Well, if you look at my User page, you can see my adminstats table and is for statistic for admin work like deleted pages, pages protected, editors blocked, pages restored. Ordinarily editors haven't done any of these activities so it would basically be an empty table. If you find yourself getting overwhelmed, log out and step back from working on the project. I've taken two lengthy WikiBreaks, one for 6 months and later, after I became an admin, I took a 2 year break. I wouldn't be editing now, 13 years later, if I hadn't taken those breaks as long as little ones. You don't have to know EVERYTHING all at once as a new editor. It's important to realize that even us longtimers get criticism on our User talk pages about steps we overlooked or mistakes we made. It's impossible to be perfect and free from all criticism so don't set that as an expectation for yourself or any other editor.
    Second, my first year as an editor, I visitedthe Teahouse A LOT. I'd be really angry and frustrated because I had gotten reverted or couldn't get something easily accomplished that I thought should be no big deal and I'd go to the Teahouse and vent. At least the regular hosts back then (circa 2013) were very understanding and tried to get me to be aware of why rules and guidelines were the way they were. They helped preserve my sanity. So, I owe them a lot. Cultivate friendships and mentors. This place can seem harsh some days and it's nice to have a few people out there who want the best for you. They might be very busy and not available for chatting but they are out there. It can help to join a WikiProject if there is a certain subject you are interested in. See, there are many places to go to for help if you find yourself up against a brick wall. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!07:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects deleted alongside "Transgender issue"

    [edit]

    Rregarding this AfD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender issue: Please undelete preexisting redirectsTransgender issues,Trans issues, andTrans-gender issues, which had the original targetTransgender rights movement, and I retargeted them to the singular-titled dab. They had existed for a few years. —Alalch E.07:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And I must say that I don't agree with your close, as the issue here was whether the page is a valid disambiguation page, and at least two delete comments failed to address that, showing no awareness or understanding of disambiguation. And on a numerical side, it was pretty evenly matched. —Alalch E.07:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Alalch E.,
    As an AFD closer, I don't expect every editor to agree with my closures. In this case, it seemed like editors were interested in turning this page into something else. So, I was trying to encourage them to just create that page, the one they were trying to turnTransgender issues into, rather than coming up with more and more complicated arguments about why this page should resemble the page they wanted.LizRead!Talk!16:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, and I appreciate your time. I am of course highly biased here being someone who turned the redirect into the now-deleted dab, but I still feel like you might be interested in this honest feedback about options that were better than a straight "delete":
    In your close you found a consensus to delete, but I honestly, after trying to peer through my bias, cannot see a "rough consensus" to delete versus apply an identified ATD. However, I have decided not to request any kind of change to your close or the outcome. The first option in the list above can be implemented at any time, and for me it's a good enough of an option. Therefore, I will now simply create the redirect targeting "The Transgender Issue" and add the hatnote Trystan suggested.
    However, the three plural-form redirects that had previously existed and which had targetedTransgender rights movement should IMO be undeleted and restored to their original form; so would you please undelete those redirects? —Alalch E.17:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just marking this as resolved. Everything is fine now. —Alalch E.17:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies...

    [edit]

    Dear Liz,
    Please accept my apologies for causing you unnecessary work, per the two messages you left at my talk page:here, andhere. I created these categories during my "Wikiyouth" while creating equivalent userboxes in readiness to be selected by any Wikipedian who played these musical instruments; I hadn't realised at the time that one shouldn't create categories that are likely to remain unused. I therefore hope to be forgiven...
    Please keep well and thank you for all your contributions to our encyclopaedia.
    With kindest regards;
    Patrick. ツPdebee.(talk)(becomeold-fashioned!)16:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Distracted with offline Work...

    [edit]

    Thank you for Userfying "Obioma Success Akagburuonye". I completely understand that it worries you a bit that you didn't see a proposal for this from me, the article creator. I will begin afresh and create the page with more reliable sources some weeks from now as I am distracted by offline duties. Hope you understand, Liz.Royalrumblebee (talk)09:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion ofBlack Atlantic

    [edit]
    Notice

    The articleBlack Atlantic has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

    Notability tag up for 21 months.

    While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

    You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

    Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Jw93d59 (talk)12:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt relisting

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I was wondering what you meanthere by "two different target articles." I proposed one but I didn't see another. Did I miss something?Coretheapple (talk)22:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    [edit]

    How isthis asserted to be useful and why did you mark it as G8 exempt? I am failing to see the reasoning behind this given it is blank (with no comments in the history), is not an archive, not a review, not a FAQ or anything that could actually be helpful?Sophisticatedevening(talk)02:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MfD nomination ofTalk:Cadet College Swat

    [edit]

    Talk:Cadet College Swat, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cadet College Swat and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofTalk:Cadet College Swat during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Sophisticatedevening(talk)14:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivan Mbakop

    [edit]

    Hi Liz,

    I'm Armaniari23, and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. User:Ymblanter advised I reach out to you since you deleted it. Thank you.Armaniari23 (talk)18:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahuistan

    [edit]

    Hi Liz. You closed this AFD a few months ago. The nominator feels the conclusion was wrong. They don't seem to be experienced enough to have brought it up with you, but have ended up posting at WP:AN instead. I've taken a quick look, and while it's not at all my area of expertise, I do have concerns. Not with your close per se, which was indeed a read of consensus at the discussion, but that the AFD discussion itself while well-intentioned was defective. Participants seem to have conflated sourcing ofBrahui people andBrahui language with the term "Brahuistan", which may turn out to be an aspirational nationalistic construct absent from reliable sources. I may have it all backwards, but since the participants on both sides may well be passionate about the topic, but seem to not be very experienced at en:wiki, I thought I'd drop you a note. I made my own comment there at[19].Martinp (talk)21:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to add my voice in support, and may, if I have the time and the inclination, nominate the article for AfD myself. I don't think there was any problem with your close, but I think the discussion itself was defective.Phil Bridger (talk)19:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    DRV notice

    [edit]

    {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~Yousiphh (talk)22:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Yousiphh,\
    I gather you are trying to inform me about a discussion atDeletion review but you just left the template. It would help if you linked to the discussion itself or at least told me what article the discussion is about. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!23:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz. I'd like to request forIsrafil Bek Jedigar to be restored. I have given reasons why separately here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_410#Israfil Bek Jedigar. Thanks in advance!Yousiphh (talk)07:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Covid-19 pandemic

    [edit]

    Are you going to take it off the talk page? It seems outdated now since the pandemic is practically overAstrawiki3203 (talk)17:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Astrawiki3203,
    I'll probably remove it in the near future, it's been almost 5 years now and while people are still dying from COVID-19, it isn't so much in the news these days. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.LizRead!Talk!23:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for kind comments

    [edit]

    Thanks for your kind comments about @MPF and I cleaning up after Treeenthusiast during the incident discussion. I'll also mention @Plantdrew, @Tom Radulovich, and @Joseywales1961 much more frequent new plant article cleaners than myself. They are heroes. I tend to mostly fix edits to existing articles since I've got a large number of them on my watchlist and will often check to see what else the editor has been working on, just in case.🌿MtBotany (talk)17:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed! Thanks! -MPF (talk)19:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,MtBotany andMPF,
    Well, thanks to all of you! Wikipedia is enhanced by editors who spend time improving the content work of less experienced editors without complaining. I'm sure that there are even more anonymous editors working in the trenches, fixing typos or incorrect references without acknowledgement. My only comment is if you come across editors who repeatedly make the same errors that take work by others to "fix", it can help to spend the time to teach them how to become a better editor (if they are well-intentioned) or alert an admin (if they seem to be making mistakes on purpose). Many thanks to you both! Have a great weekend.LizRead!Talk!23:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification: Deletion review for Dojo (film)

    [edit]

    Hello Liz, I have submitted a deletion review request regarding your closure of the AfD forDojo (film). The request is now listed atWikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you. ~~~~CinemaArchivist (talk)04:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,CinemaArchivist,
    Thanks for letting me know. Don't forget to post a notification onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dojo (film). Thank you.LizRead!Talk!05:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification: Deletion review for Jon Paul

    [edit]

    Hello Liz, I have submitted a deletion review request regarding your closure of the AfD forJon Paul. The request is now listed atWikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you. ~~~~CinemaArchivist (talk)04:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,CinemaArchivist,
    Thank you for letting me know. Do not forget to post a notice atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Paul. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!05:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request undeletion of article "List of MyNetworkTV affiliates"

    [edit]

    You could've given a chance for splitting theList of MyNetworkTV affiliates page to both the pagesList of Fox television affiliates (table) andList of Fox television affiliates (by U.S. state), rather than deleting the article entirely. Besides,MyNetworkTV still has potential to gain the audience it deserves, as it reaches much of the US by over-the-air affiliates by 89%. Even though it failed as a traditional network to compete againstThe CW in its early years, it has been successful when it converted to a syndication service in its later years by relying on acquired programming similarly toThe CW Plus, although in recent yearsFox Television Stations has been quite lazy to provide new content for the service except for the recent acquisition ofSuits, which entered broadcast syndication in 2024.2600:6C50:57F:BA33:A4AB:47D2:FAD:DB0 (talk)11:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted page

    [edit]

    Hi,

    My draft for the Norwegian Film Commission page was deleted. Could you please explain why the Wikipedia page I edited was not approved and what I can do different? :)Andrine R (talk)13:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help regarding a page

    [edit]

    Hey Liz, I hope you are well. I saw that you had deleted the page for Neil Cannon. I initially created the page and submitted it for review where it was rejected, however by a fellow admin I was given another chance and as of now, i was editing it and since im new to Wikipedia, I was moving it to review and it accidentally went to main space, i took it back out asap but i guess it was too late and you deleted it.

    I understand your reasoning and would highly request if you could reverse it, I have been working on that article for over three weeks now, and a mistake caused it to be deleted. I truly respect your work into ensuring you are complying with the guidlines, but I would love it even more if you could help me in this.

    THanks Liz! I saw your picture and you resemble my late grandma! Truly emotional


    Jason Quinnn (talk)00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 18

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on September 13. Please helptranslate.

    Upcoming and current events and conversations
    Let's Talk continues

    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Research ·Web ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

    Wikifunctions now available on 123 Wiktionaries

    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events

    Annual Goals Progress onEffectiveness
    See also:Progress on the annual plan

    Board and Board committee updates
    SeeWikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard ·Affiliations Committee Newsletter

    Foundation statements

    Highlights from other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery16:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave's garage image

    [edit]

    You switched the image of the dave plummer page to Davepl.jpg even though there were concerns in the talk page about copyright54rt678 (talk |contribs)19:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,54rt678,
    Okay, thanks for letting me know. You can revert my edit if you wish. I'll check on it later.LizRead!Talk!19:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you join me in reporting the picture for copyright because first of all the image date of the image being taken is incorrect and second of all it is the YouTube icon and third of all the uploader marks it as own work even though it is literally the YouTube icon of Dave’s 's Garage and Dave plumber would not use a random person's photo for a YouTube background54rt678 (talk |contribs)19:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did the deletion request:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Davepl.jpg54rt678 (talk |contribs)21:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You've got mail

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

    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)17:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,ScottishFinnishRadish,
    I just wanted you to know that I saw your messages. Please give me a day or two to respond to them. Thank you for this accommodation.LizRead!Talk!19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz, I know SFR didn't expect an instantaneous response but we haven't heard from you yet and you've made something like 700 edits since you said you'd seen the message.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?14:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,HJ Mitchell|,
    Well, I'll get back to you today.LizRead!Talk!16:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing

    [edit]

    Just as a clarification forthis, I did not go looking for outing the person but the username itself was a very coded reference to such extreme views. I will try and continue this with ARBCOM.Gotitbro (talk)21:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 2 October 2025

    [edit]
    *Read this Signpost in full *Single-page *Unsubscribe *MediaWiki message delivery (talk)06:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing links on templates

    [edit]

    Hello: Why don't you justremove thelinks pointing to the article rather than removing the square brackets?Logoshimpo (talk)06:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind. I figured out the answer.Logoshimpo (talk)06:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Drafts restoration

    [edit]

    Hi@Liz:,

    I would like to request the restoration of the draftsDraft:Hormusji N. Cama andDraft:Avtar Group, which you have recently deleted. These were on my to do list for some time, but I could not attend to them earlier. I will look into it once restored. Thanks.Elton-Rodrigues (talk)06:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Deprodding temporarily"

    [edit]

    I probablybroke every single rule in the book, but I "temporarily deprodded" over a dozen BLP articles that have sources in other languages. Also, in several cases, the appropriate WikiProject was not notified. I did this to hold off the flood of recent proposals for deletion, like the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the cracked dam. I'm happy to roll back my own edits in a week or two. Anyway, here's the list, curated in alphabetical order:

    Bearian (talk)10:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lord Mountbutter reverted one and I reverted two. I'll continue through the next few days, three per day.Bearian (talk)19:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't understand the reason for reversing my edit. The guideline is very clear. "...To be canceled, this process (when correctly initiated) requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the prod blp/dated until the biography has at least one such source...."
    Add a source and then reverse it.Lord Mountbutter (talk)19:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to explain that these were the extraordinary circumstances.Bearian (talk)19:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline does not recognize extraordinary circumstances. Please stop, to discuss it.Lord Mountbutter (talk)19:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did discuss it withLiz and another user, but the discussion got broken up.Bearian (talk)19:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to stop the flood of prod. deletions, take two minutes of your time, add a source, and remove the tag. What you are doing is against the guideline.Lord Mountbutter (talk)19:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us wait for Liz to take her place.Lord Mountbutter (talk)19:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are expecting from me. I'm not the judge and jury. All I did was request an editor not tag 100+ articles in one day for deletion. I also suggested that I thought it was possible to untag a BLPPROD and then retag it later if it still needed a reliable source in order not to overwhelm our PROD reviewers and admins. This suggestion was only so that we could have a moderate flow of tagged articles, say 10-20/day rather than 100+/day. It was a temporary adaptation, not a permanent de-tagging. But again, it was a "suggestion", not an order. So many days have passed since there was this discussion that I think all of the original articles could be retagged at this point.
    And I'm sorry for any delay in responding but I have been unwell and my life is kind of crashing down all around me these days. But if you want, for some reason, to escalate this attempt on my part to have a reasonable pace in deletion tagging for articles so our editors are not overwhelmed, I can't stop you.LizRead!Talk!20:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added at least one source to five of these, and re-prodded three, in addition to the one reverted already, for a total of nine. I must emphasize that none of the projects were appropriately notified, which is not required but is best practice. I'll finish the rest in the next few days.Bearian (talk)22:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-prodded two more.Bearian (talk)18:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a source toSerge Delmas.Bearian (talk)18:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    O.k. Thnak you for your answer!Lord Mountbutter (talk)19:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Congleton Town Council

    [edit]

    You deleted this article on 13 September as "G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page". FromUser:Crouch, Swale/Parish councils#X Town council this was an article so how did it end up being deleted as a redirect to a deleted or non-existent page when it was an article? It should maybe be merged toCongleton#Governance but I don't understand how it ended up being deleted under G8.Crouch, Swale (talk)19:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Crouch, Swale,
    An editor changed the article into a redirect. This happens every day on this project or at least I run into this often here. For some editors, turning articles into redirects is their primary editing activity. And then the redirect target article was later deleted. But since you pointed this out to me, I have reverted the deletion and reverted the edit that "BLAR'd" the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm glad we could undo it.LizRead!Talk!19:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou, could you please also undeleteFile:Seal of the Council of Congleton.png as well as that was deleted as orphaned, thanks.Crouch, Swale (talk)19:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Crouch, Swale,
     Done. I think that the file still needs to be added to the article.LizRead!Talk!19:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, done, that's whatSpecial:Diff/1314896606 refers to. Given the council article had existed for nearly 10 years before being redirected 4 and a bit days ago I think G8 was inappropriate, just restoring the article would have been better.Crouch, Swale (talk)20:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in this case, it was a sock "BLARring" articles but we also have legitimate editors whose primary actitivity seems to be changing articles to Redirects.LizRead!Talk!20:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Liz, I need some help

    [edit]

    Hi, How are you?

    I started a Wikiversity page for our paper, “Securing and Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption.” It was deleted as a possible copyvio because an earlier version exists off-wiki. Since then I’ve done everything I know to do: I added an on-wiki authorship + CC BY-SA 4.0 statement, linked the Zenodo DOI and the preprint, and I’m ready to format it as a proper Wikiversity Paper. I’m also happy to replace any figures and follow whatever checklist you recommend. I’m not trying to bend rules—just learn and do it right.

    Would you mind taking a quick look and telling me the next, correct step? If I should file an undeletion request, or go via Request custodian action, I’ll do that immediately. And if you think a fresh, teaching-oriented rewrite (single-column HTML, learning objectives, glossary, exercises) is the right path instead of a verbatim import, I’ll start that today.

    I’m anxious about messing this up, and I’d be grateful if you could stand by me and make sure I’m following the community’s way of doing things. Your word will mean a lot, and I’ll follow it to the letter.

    Links for context:

    • My user page: [[User:Tomlovesfar]]

    • Colloquium thread:https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Publishing_text_from_ResearchGate_in_Wikiversity_as_a_copy

    • DOI (Zenodo):https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15287972

    • Preprint:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391195563_Securing_and_Enhancing_Web_Browser_Security_through_Cookie_Encryption

    Thank you for reading this and for any help you can give. I really appreciate it.‍‍ TomLovesFar‍💬06:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Matmo

    [edit]

    Hi Liz. I noticed that you've deletedDraft talk:Deleted---. It's in fact, before MAS0802 moved them all around, the talk page of what you have moved underDraft:Matmo. Would you please restore it under the correct title, i.e.Draft talk:Matmo. Thanks.203.145.95.215 (talk)06:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello again. I have taken the liberty and IAR torestore the content of the talk page. Very much grateful of you could restore its edit history. Many many thanks.203.145.95.215 (talk)07:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz. Would you help restore the edit history of the talk page (which Mas0802 has moved further to Draft talk:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025), or would you recommend going to RFU/DRV instead?203.145.95.215 (talk)17:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ll look into this tomorrow morning.LizRead!Talk!03:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Liz.203.145.95.215 (talk)20:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reversion of G8 deletes

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, your deletions ofTrial for the 2022–2023 coup plot in Brazil andAP 2668 needed restoring not deleting perWP:G8"Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move". I believe you should of checked incoming links before hitting the delete button, as this would have indicated something wasn't quite right. I know you work fast in the deletion world and I appreciate that, but please double check things future. I have now restored the links and re-synced talk pages. Regards,CNC (talk)10:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,CNC,
    I agree. Editors should also be more careful moving long-standing articles to different page titles just to make small changes in the page title and they should always, always leave a redirect behind.LizRead!Talk!03:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, there are no excuses for that imo. I did also notifyArionStar via diff when fixing that was fortunately acknowledged. For context the reason for not leaving them a talk page message as well is that they are not a mop-wielder who I believe should be held to a higher standard, as effectively the last line of defence in this case, even though they also should of known a lot better. If the move was done by a page mover for example, I wouldn't of left it at that either. That might sound harsh, butwith great power comes great responsibility as they say.CNC (talk)11:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note

    [edit]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Young_Joe%E2%80%93Goalorious_Mothers_SC#

    take a look regarding unsourced edits please93.140.197.21 (talk)17:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Trial of Augusto Heleno

    [edit]

    Hello Liz. Can you restore the page "Trial of Augusto Heleno" since the target has been recreated.BodhiHarp02:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,BodhiHarp,
     Done If that article was moved back to its original page title, there are probably more redirects that could be restored.LizRead!Talk!02:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Move warring issue

    [edit]

    Hi Liz.

    After the closure ofthis discussion and discussing with Fram and onthis AN thread, I draftified the alphabetical lists. Habst has now moved them back to mainspace,against a warning from Vanamonde93. As was also pointed out,the issue Habst raised was not a reason to bring the articles back to mainspace. I tried move-protecting to stop the move-warring but they just carried on and doing it for all 96 of the articles in question just takes too much time. I don't feel they're leaving any other option but blocking, but I'd like your input.FOARP (talk)18:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • What you said wasnot a reason to bring the articles back to mainspace actually was shown by Habst to be a valid reason to return them. He asked forone single day to sort things out and said that then they could be draftified. What is wrong with respecting that request? Why is it appropriate for you, as the main editor in the content dispute, to be fully-protecting the pages yourself and threatening toblock him, given that you're participating in 'move-warring' as well?BeanieFan11 (talk)18:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's over now, and a project involving the list is about to be presented at the NYC Wikipedia hackathon. There are participants in that RfC here IRL. The redirects are important; I responded to Vanamonde93's concern about it. I agree with the consensus established and will draftify the articles. Please, give us until the end of the day which I think is a reasonable request. --Habst (talk)18:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK chaps. Will see what you’ve done tomorrow. I really wouldn’t repeat this TBH. Move-warring like that, with multiple admins (not just me) telling you to stop, was a very bad idea.FOARP (talk)20:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I won't. Will you agree to never post derisively about other good faith editors behind their back as inUser talk:JoelleJay/Archive 5#Our mutual friend about this subject, and that this is not OK behavior for an admin? --Habst (talk)20:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to plaintext your signature

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I see you voting on the current Arb Case as I write. You don't need to plain text your signature btw, us other Arbs with fancy signatures use them there too.CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓18:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,CaptainEek.
    So, I can just leave my regular signature? Everyone else's signatures were very plain so I removed all of the code from my signature. Thank you for letting me know.LizRead!Talk!23:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, me, Worm, and HJ all have fancy signatures so yeah it's totally chill. Everyone else just has the bog standard signature as default anyway.CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical question on deletion

    [edit]

    I came across a new user who posted a promotional biography both on his user page and his user talk page. (Doctor posting "Why choose Dr..? office hours, contact info, etc.) Easy to {{db-G11}} the user page. However, on the user talk page, there were message from other editors after the initial "CV" posting, and updates to the "CV" after, followed by more messages. Is there a way to speedy delete nominate a section & then ≥delete only the promotional section? —ERcheck (talk)22:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,ERcheck,
    If there is unsuitable content, I think you can remove it. I've done that before with User pages rather than deleting them. We run into this a lot because many new editors think their User page is for a personal profile. I accept more personal content than many editors/admins do but I draw the line at links to social media accounts.LizRead!Talk!23:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel request

    [edit]

    Can you look atThis edit toUgly, and possibly also remove the edit summary from public view?Cyberthetiger🐯 (talk)01:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,CyberTheTiger,
     Done This is borderline for what revision deletion was meant to cover but I think you could consider it "disruptive content".LizRead!Talk!02:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Review deleted page

    [edit]

    I noticed deleted page Seido juku (G8 (redirect): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadashi Nakamura (martial artist)

    closed as soft delete (XFDcloser)

    Is it possible to find out why Seido Juku (also known as Seido Karate) and Tadashi Nakamura were deleted and see the page for review to be put back? As both are legit and still exist.2600:4041:7948:9A00:F091:8076:151B:AA19 (talk)01:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Existence and/or legitimacy are not grounds for an article. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques02:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The page did exist and was deleted. What is needed to get it back?2600:4041:7948:9A00:F091:8076:151B:AA19 (talk)02:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,2600:4041:7948:9A00:F091:8076:151B:AA19,
    It helps to provide a direct link to the article you are talking about. Are you referring toTadashi Nakamura (martial artist)? Are you asking for its restoration?LizRead!Talk!02:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Although it is easier to confirm if I could see the page. But nothing comes up when clicking on it2600:4041:7948:9A00:F091:8076:151B:AA19 (talk)02:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what is needed to restore the page for Tadashi Nakamura and Seido Juku2600:4041:7948:9A00:98F8:2B59:AB2F:929 (talk)01:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2600:4041:7948:9A00:98F8:2B59:AB2F:929, the AFD for Tadashi Nakamura (martial artist) was closed as a Soft deletion so I was able to restore it. I'm having more problems with the other one, we don't have a deleted page forSeido Juku andSeido Karate is a different page that was a redirect that was deleted in 2010. Can you be more precise and give me a link to this other deleted article? I can't review the reasons for deletion if I can't find the page.LizRead!Talk!01:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this help?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Seido_juku2600:4041:7948:9A00:98F8:2B59:AB2F:929 (talk)02:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz! Just wanted to see if I can find any other information to get the Seido Juku page mentioned above back up. Thank you!Seidokarate1976 (talk)18:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the page "Seido juku" was just a redirect to Tadashi Nakamura, and when the page Tadashi Nakamura was deleted, it was deleted alongside it.Katzrockso (talk)08:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD for Brad Hefton

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I was wondering what your basis was for closing the AfD on Brad Hefton as "no consensus" rather than "keep" was.

    ThanksKatzrockso (talk)18:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Katzrockso,
    Can you provide me with a link to the article or AFD you are concerned with. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!05:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz, I apologize for not including that in the first post, my apologies.
    This is the discussion[20].
    ThanksKatzrockso (talk)05:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article still exists. What's the problem?Phil Bridger (talk)18:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the AfD and had a different understanding of the consensus. A keep AfD has a different standard of precedent than a 'no consensus AfD so I was just curious about the reasoning. There is no problem.
    Thanks,Katzrockso (talk)03:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It also matters in this particular case, since I presume a No Consensus close would mean the article is still susceptible to speedy deletion due to the creator being a sockpuppet, whereas a Keep decision in an AfD supersedes that. And outside of one of the delete arguments bringing up the creator, the OP and the other delete vote specifically mentioned lack of sourcing, but then didn't address the large amount of sources found by 4meter4 and which was subsequently used as keep votes by 4 other editors. I don't understand how this is a No Consensus close either.SilverserenC03:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if that really does matter in the long-run, because there are substantial edits by others: I believe the substantial body of the text was added by user CapitalPun (my count is 5147 bytes added), who is currently not banned or blocked. Additionally, user Hack added 1305 bytes of text to the article, also not a banned user. Consequently, I have a hard time understanding Pppery's rational for a speedy deletion.Katzrockso (talk)04:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless,Liz, could you explain your close rationale on that one? Because I don't really see how a No Consensus close makes sense from that discussion itself and you didn't give an explanation in your close statement.SilverserenC23:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey,Liz, I know about your page notice at the top and your talk page is often a lot in general, so I don't want to harass you in any manner. But I also don't want to just avoid a conversation at the same time, you know?SilverserenC22:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in the middle of a task,User:Silver seren but I'll come back to respond to your message.LizRead!Talk!22:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Katzrockso, I saw three strong opinions for Deletion including the nominator and one of the Keep arguments could be discounted as the editor was a sockpuppet. And a number of the "Keeps" were on the order ofa "per X" argument which is not as strong as an editor presenting their own conclusions about what the outcome of a AFD discussion should be. "Per X" arguments, whether pro or con Keep/Delete, carry less weight for me than an original argument. I don't close that many AFD discussions as "No consensus" as editors who are either pro-Keep or pro-Delete are dissatisfied with a NC closure but in this case, I thought it was the only closure that honored both editors who thought the article should be Deleted and those who thought it should be Kept.
    As for me, whether or not an article is Kept through an AFD Keep closure or a NC closure doesn't affect any future AFD closures that I perform. I've seen opinion swing widely on AFDs even within the same year so I look at each one with fresh eyes. I hope this helps.LizRead!Talk!23:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Restore G8 deleted redirects in project space

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I am so sorry for creating so much work for you lately betweenUser talk:Habst#Speedy deletion nomination of List of Olympic competitors (Om–Oz) and this request, especially when it could have been avoided. I'm very thankful for your help.

    PerWikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Redirects to lists of Olympic competitors/Jesper Garnell, can you please restorethis list of redirects you deleted under G8? I can remove the actual redirect part when they get created so they won't immediately be G8 deleted again. (The reason is that my understanding is at least some of them were BLARed articles with important page history about historic Olympians).

    I originally tried to request this under REFUND as it was a technical deletion but was asked to ask you directly. --Habst (talk)20:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Habst,
    These were all broken redirects toLists of Olympic competitors. Where would you have them redirected to if they were restored? They can't be redirected to Draft space.LizRead!Talk!21:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just comment out the redirect part so they aren't redirects any more. The utility would be having the page history (and possibly Wikidata item links). Thanks, --Habst (talk)21:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have to have a page to target, I guess it could beWikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Redirects to lists of Olympic competitors.Habst (talk)21:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the problem with having subpages of a project page redirect to draftspace?jlwoodwa (talk)19:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,jlwoodwa,
    It's how I've interpretedWikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects in the past.LizRead!Talk!21:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz, sorry for the ping, was wondering if you could restore these pages if you have a moment? You can comment out the redirects (or I can) if it would be an issue. Thank you so much for your help with this. --Habst (talk)00:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, can you at least comment here that you give permission for aWP:REFUND administrator to restore the pages? I think that should be sufficient, because these pages were deleted as the result of a technical process and not by a deletion discussion. --Habst (talk)00:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz, sorry for the ping on this again, confirming if you could restore the page history of these redirects or confirm that a REFUND administrator can do it? Thank you so much for your understanding and great work here. --Habst (talk)13:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    if these have page history, then they probably shouldn't have been moved out of the mainspace, but kept as deleted pages there. That keeps the logs there (who created, why was it deleted) and makes it easier to undelete the history if they ever get recreated.Fram (talk)13:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not true; the logs will always be in mainspace regardless of whether they are moved to project space. --Habst (talk)14:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For e.g.Wikikreator, I can go tohere and see at the bottom who created it and when. ForJesper Garnell, if I go tohere that info is no longer there.Fram (talk)15:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unrelated – Garnell's article was created in 2010, before page creation was logged.jlwoodwa (talk)16:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with FRAM here: these should stay deleted. Redirects are not a save-function for deleted articles, that is what undelete is for.FOARP (talk)15:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with FRAM's rationale but it was based on a premise that turned out not to be true. These pages were only deleted as the result of a technical process; they weren't deleted by any discussion or consensus, so technically we don't even have to have the deleting admin's permission to REFUND. As an admin, can you undelete them then? --Habst (talk)16:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theclassicalmusicwriter

    [edit]

    I need a gut check. I blocked the above editor for a week for personal attacks, in direct response to their sarcastic response to my post of yesterday. I'm not impressed with their behavior, and I think they've been given too many second chances, but I'll be honest; their tone, and their conduct atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoAnna Cochenet, have gotten under my skin in a way that rarely happens. Am I out of line with the block? I'm not convinced I'm thinking straight any more. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.05:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dromagh Castle draft page inquiry

    [edit]

    Hi Liz,

    We are part of a year 1 undergraduate course in Digital Technology at LIUC (Milan, Italy), and will as a supervised student team be working on a digital publishing project that involves creating a new article draft.

    We noticed Dromagh Castle listed among the requested articles. After researching several sources, we planned to create a draft page for it. However, while preparing to create the draft, we noticed that a previous version had been deleted.

    Our group would like to recreate the page with improved, well-sourced content that fully meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

    Could you please share the specific reason why the previous version was deleted? Knowing the original concerns will help us ensure our recreated draft adheres to all community standards and avoids repeating past issues.

    Thank you very much for your time and guidance!

    Best regards,

    Group Members:User:DKJKEditor •User:LIUCNick17 •User:LIUCfede22 •User:LIUCna23 •User:LIUCryu7 •User:LIUCsophie03

    DKJKEditor (talk)13:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) Request for undeletion in this specific case (the former draft was considered abandoned as it was not edited at all for a set amount of duration) isthataway.Not sure why Liz's summary thing was being repeated on G13 deletion but oh wellAlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)14:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

    [edit]

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

    Administrator changes

    removed

    CheckUser changes

    removedVanamonde93

    Arbitration

    • Aftera motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections atWP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g.[[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
    Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk)15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I think you accidently deleted this articleVíctor Rosso. It was BLPPROD, but I found multiple reliable sources that supported claims in the article and added them there, so it was no longer eligible for PROD deletion. I was also working on cutting down some of the material, which was exceptionally long for the subject.

    Thanks,Katzrockso (talk)10:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Katzrockso,
    You are correct. About an hour before the article was due to be deleted, you added some references to it. I handle PRODs by having a day's worth open in tabs on my computer and I should have refreshed that tab before deleting the article but I didn't and that was my mistake. Just because last minute changes rarely happend with PROD'd article doesn't mean that they never happen and this was my oversight. Thank you for bringing this to my attention so I could fix my error.LizRead!Talk!20:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries Liz, I understand there is a lot going behind the scene!
    Thanks for undeleting the page.Katzrockso (talk)20:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Katzrockso,
    Well that is very understanding of you. It's appreciated. Some editors who disagree with a deletion or admin decision come in, guns blazing, and I'm glad we could discuss the outcome here calmly.LizRead!Talk!20:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarify AfD

    [edit]

    Hi, could you kindly explain your judgment of consensus inthis case in more detail? In my view, the majority of participants, or half if you don't include the nominator, supported either merge or delete.FaviFake (talk)19:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,FaviFake,
    I saw two editors arguing to Keep this article and one of the editors was arguing for a "Keep and Merge". I don't see this as a consensus to Merge in any way. I won't revert my closure as I think my closure was correct but I am willing to relist this discussion if this is an outcome you would prefer. In these situations, I allow another closer to handle any future closures of the discussion. Just as an aside, we are having these problems frequently in AFDs these days because we have so many fewer editors participating in discussions. The closure would be much more definitive if we had 6 or 7 participants weighing in with their arguments.LizRead!Talk!20:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! If i recall correctly, the same (or another editor) editor voted to keep and merge somewhere else, but actually meant keepthe content and merge it, thereby blanking and redicting the article (but I might be completely wrong!). Unfortunately they never replied tomy comment. Thanks for your willingness to relist it.
    @Reywas92 Inthis comment of yours, did you mean you wanted to keep the article or to merge it? Or you don't mind if either choice is made?FaviFake (talk)14:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes a merge in some form is fine.Reywas92Talk14:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92 Thanks. While from your AfD comment it seemed, at least to me, that you were in favour of a merge, I'd like to understand if you meant to also vote for akeep as well, or if you only meant to vote for amerge. Did you meant to vote in favour of either one, or just merge or just keep?FaviFake (talk)15:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting that in the related discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest law firms by profits per partner, the relisterOwen commented this, regardingReywas92's similar "keep and merge" comment:

    "Keep and merge" is the same as "Merge". We don't delete the history behind the resultant redirect. [...]

    If anything, it seems there is a misunderstanding in the meaning of this !vote between related AfDs.FaviFake (talk)15:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant only merge, but without specifics of how to do so with the related articles. — Reywas92Talk15:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification!FaviFake (talk)15:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please revert it

    [edit]

    Hi Liz. Hope you're doing well. As per my user talk page, I tried to revert my relist action but I am struggling to do ithere. Please help me out there. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)15:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Fade258,
    I was not aware of a discussion on your user talk page, is this situation resolved now or did you still need some action from me? I tend to respond to messages on my user talk page at the end of the day.LizRead!Talk!02:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, My initial question was to revert my AfD relist as I had struggled to revert, which is asked in my user talk page. Now, there's one votes after relist. I request you to look at that AfD and tell me whether my relist is appropriate or not. Thank you!Fade258 (talk)08:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Fade258,
    If you are writing aboutWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boo (Mario franchise), no I don't think a relist was inappropriate and it might even be relisted again, depending on who reviews it next. There are a collection of different opinions and as a Non-admin closer, in my 5 years of AFD experience, you couldn't have handled it any other way. What Zxcvbnm was asking from you was for you to interpret the arguments and this was a close call so that would have been inappropriate for a Non-admin closer to do. Although I understand the comments left on your User talk page, it is not unusual for remarks like this to come from editors who are seeking a quick closure in favor of their point-of-view. They might be right in their conclusions but what they were asking you to do would not have been appropriate according to our guidelines for Non-admin closers and you have nothing to apologize for.
    These kind of complaints are not at all uncommon once you start closing or relisting AFD discussions. So, if you wish to continue to be involved in AFD administration as an Non-admin closer, I'd just advise you to stay away from close calls or any discussions that seem controversial. It is easy less fun to be called to come over toWikipedia:Deletion review but with some divided discussions, you just know that whatever the outcome, there will be objections to your closure.LizRead!Talk!21:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There be whales here

    [edit]

    In light ofWP:ANI#UtherSRG, would you like to revert your re-addition of my removal of the CfD tag onCategory:Humpback whale?SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,SarekOfVulcan,
    I'm sorry for the delay in my response, I was not aware of the ANI discussion. But it looks likeUser:Pppery got to the category right-away. I was not taking sides in this dispute, I run a query throughout the day that searches for empty categories to tag and this one popped up. Looks like it is no longer empty so untagging it is appropriate.LizRead!Talk!02:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tout-fait

    [edit]

    hi i'm just following up from a box that said to let you know i've created an article that hopefully doesn't have the same problems as the one you deleted! you can find it hereTout-Fait: The Marcel Duchamp Studies Online Journal. would love for you to review!!— Precedingunsigned comment added byAn undesired fidelity (talk •contribs)19:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,An undesired fidelity,
    I just wanted to tell you thatTout-Fait: The Marcel Duchamp Studies Online Journal was deleted as a Proposed deletion (PROD), not through an AFD discussion, so you could have come to me orWP:REFUND and asked for deleted article to be restored although it was probably wise to start over from scratch to avoid any association withUser:Socrynpinfeb, the former article creator who is now blocked. I hope you are not Socrynpinfeb, returning to edit as doing that could get you blocked as a sockpuppet.
    I usually don't review articles being examined at AFD discussion until it comes time to close a discussion but since you made a request, I'll check it out. Together with the blocked editor, this was a bit of a controversy so I'd look over all of the associated discussions with Socrynpinfeb and this article so you can see where the reviewers are coming from when they come to participate in the deletion discussion. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!20:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing ANI

    [edit]

    Hello, I'm contacting you since you are an active administrator and frequently on ANI. If you have time, would you mind readingthis ANI report I filed and commenting on it? This looks like it's not gonna get any input before getting archived.

    For the record, I'm not asking you to pick my side. I could be wrong. I want this to get noticed by uninvolved users because I find the case as a long-term disruption that must be dealt with. I already tried RfC/3O but nobody ever came down to resolve it.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)11:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Emiya Mulzomdao,
    Well, first, the RFC you tried to set up was not done correctly. There is no shame here, RFC need to follow very strict guidelines and it's a challenge for many people to do so properly. I think you should try running an RFC again, go tothe Teahouse for help. Once the RFC is correctly posted, it will be advertised on a number of other WIkipedia pages and noticeboards and so more editors will know about it and hopefully participate because it will get more publicity.
    As for the ANI, it seems like a problem you have had is that talk page discussions are limited to just you two editors and you need to have more editors to join the discussion. The complaint posted at ANI can help with that but it is rather long and many editors won't take the time to sort out the problem if the complaint posted to the noticeboard is lengthy. It can help to post messages like you did here, on editor's user talk pages or on a relevant Wikiproject talk page (say for Korea or Women's issues) as long as the nessages are absolutely neutral so that they are not seen as canvassing. That means not encouraging editors to support your point-of-view and just inviting them to participate.
    I just glanced over your ANI complaint as it required more time than I have at the moment but I'll return to it. If you are looking for advice, I'll just say, don't bludgeon the discussion which will discourage other editors from participating in it which means, don't feel like you have to respond to every comment made by the other editor. If a discussion looks like it is dominated by a back-and-forth between two editors, other editors will not want to join the discussion because they think it has gotten personal, rather than about Wikipedia policy. Leave space for other editors to participate and don't make the discussion any longer even if that means going a few days with no comments on the discussion. I'll post right now that I haven't analyzed the discussion, I have no point-of-view on one "side" being more correct than another and I have not been canvassed, just asked to look over the discussion, not take sides.LizRead!Talk!20:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reviewing the situation. I think I did followWP:RFCOPEN beat by beat, including publicizing the RfC on other Wikiprojects. But I look into it again.
    I'll refrain from disrupting the discussion as you suggest.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)11:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You've got mail

    [edit]

    Liz, please read and respond ASAP.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)00:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Understood,ScottishFinnishRadish.LizRead!Talk!00:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    October 2025

    [edit]

    Information icon Hello, I'mThatOneTechNerd. I noticed that you made a comment on the pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Fiesler that didn't seem verycivil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page.Harassment against another editor.ThatOneTechNerd (talk)07:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies, this was sent to the wrong user.ThatOneTechNerd (talk)07:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,ThatOneTechNerd,
    I'm glad you said you were mistaken as the only edit I can see I made toCasey Fiesler was to remove an AFD tag in April 2024 which doesn't seem uncivil to me. I think you not only got the wrong editor, you got the wrong article because there hasn't been any activity on this article since June 2024.LizRead!Talk!20:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, have a great day!ThatOneTechNerd (talk)20:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 19

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on September 26. Please helptranslate.

    Upcoming and current events and conversations
    Let's Talk continues


    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Product Safety and Integrity ·Readers ·Research ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

    Dark Mode will soon be available on all Wikimedia sites.
    • Mobile Editing:Insights on mobile web editing on Wikipedia in 2025 are now available. This report highlights that ~95% of IP mobile users editing via wikitext open the editor but make no changes at all, a vast untapped potential. It also pinpoints where contributors most often drop off.
    • Dark Mode:Dark Mode user interface will be rolled out on all Wikimedia sites on October 29. All anonymous users of Wikimedia sites will have the option to activate a color scheme that features light-colored text on a dark background. This is designed to provide a more comfortable reading experience, especially in low-light situations.
    • Community wishlist extension:The new Community Wishlist extension has been released. This will allow users to add tags to their wishes to better categorise them, and (in a future iteration) to filter them by status, tags and focus areas. It will also be possible to support individual wishes again, as requested by the community in many instances.
    • Paste Check:22 Wikis are now testing a new Edit Check feature,Paste Check, to help avoid and fight copyright violations. When editors paste text into an article, Paste Check prompts them to confirm the origin and licensing of the content.
    • Tone Check: The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a new check for newcomers:Tone check. Using a prediction model, this check will encourage editors to improve the tone of their edits.
    • Search Suggestions:Search Suggestions was deployed on English Wikipedia. Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users see suggestions of articles for further reading. The feature is available on both desktop and mobile.
    • Unsupported Tools Working Group: A newUnsupported Tools Working Group has been formed to help prioritize and review requests for support of unmaintained extensions, gadgets, bots, and tools. The group has chosenVideo2Commons as the first tool for its pilot cycle. The group will explore ways to improve and sustain the tool over the coming months.
    • Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week40 and41 including aboutSub-referencing – a new feature to re-use references with different details.
    • Wikimedia Research Showcase: Don't miss the next Wikimedia Research Showcase, "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata's Role in Learning and Culture" taking place onOctober 15 at 16:30 UTC.

    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events

    Foundation statements

    Other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery14:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin URL Access Help

    [edit]

    Hello! As a recently active admin, can I ask for your assistance? Would you mind setting impactmontreal.com/ to a dead domain on theIAbot? The team renamed themselves a few years ago and all pages from that domain redirect to apage deleted spot on their new website. EDIT: I forgot to mention that, since I'm not an admin, I can't set it myself.Elisfkc (talk)18:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking someone else, since I think you just got offline. All goodElisfkc (talk)18:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Elisfkc,
    I'm glad you found someone else to help you out because I don't understand what you were asking me to do for you.LizRead!Talk!20:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reflection on my start on this site

    [edit]

    I may have been a disruptive on this site initially (I made positive contributions as well before my first block), but I've grown from that now. I believe that I could have faced a better outcome if some things were different:

    1. In response toTemplate:Inappropriate, I was told to readWP:NODISCLAIMER andWP:NOTCENSORED
    2. When my uses of{{confused}} became disruptive, I was told to stop using that template altogether.
    3. In response to my bad page creations, I was told to read relevant guidelines.

    Also, my initial treatment for my first contributions related to things like Carnatic music was a bit harsh. I was clearly well-meaning.Faster than Thunder (talk |contributions)Tamil speakers: Contribute here01:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Odei Martin

    [edit]

    @Liz:, Would you be able to draftifyOdei Martin? I never realized that it was proposed for deletion until today when it exprired. Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)09:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Das osmnezz,
     Done You can find it atDraft:Odei Martin. I'm sorry for the delay in replying, I sometimes take some time to get back to people and answer their questions.LizRead!Talk!02:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New article draft

    [edit]

    Hi Liz! Where can I get the info box when I create an article for Wikipedia? Thanks in advance for your help!!! Thanks! (King of the Universe all (talk)16:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

    Hello,King of the Universe all,
    I think you are likely to find editors who know more about templates than I do if you bring this question tothe Teahouse.LizRead!Talk!02:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange Redirects

    [edit]

    Can you check out the contributions for @Humanbeing9? Some of the redirects they have made are incredibly weird. I marked two for speedy deletion but I don't fully know if they are wrong.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)00:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    they are not wrong since they are names used by someHumanbeing9 (talk)00:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adolf Hitler 2 redirecting to the Israeli President seems extremely NPOV.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)00:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,LuniZunie,
    Another admin got to a lot of them and the redirect creator has been blocked. Thanks for the notice. If you find some that haven't been deleted that you think are inappropriate, please nominate them atWP:RFD.LizRead!Talk!02:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ThatOneVideoGamer

    [edit]

    The redirectThatOneVideoGamer was not R3. As is mentioned inThe Completionist#Early life, it was the original name of his channel. Can you reverse the deletion please?Warudo (talk)01:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Warudo,
     Done Thank you for informing me. I'm not familiar with this subject. This editor created way too many redirects to this article so you might find others deleted, either through CSD or RFD.LizRead!Talk!02:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Kuvan-Darya

    [edit]

    I noticed you relisted the bundled Battle of Kuvan-Darya nomination but I don't think you should have done that because they are not part of a series even though they were authored by the same person and the nominator did state his concerns.Logoshimpo (talk)04:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Logoshimpo,
    It helps if you provide a link to the article you are talking about. So, your concern isWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kuvan-Darya? Well, now that the discussion has been relisted, any closer can close the discussion at any time, it doesn't need to stay open another week. I relist discussions when it's not clear what the closure should be and that was the situation here. You are welcome to share your opinions in this discussion. I often avoid closing discussions that I have relisted to give another closer a chance to participate so I'm not sure when a closer will get to this AFD discussion. But I'm not going to revert this relisting.LizRead!Talk!04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Restore draft content

    [edit]

    Hi, I was working onDraft:Mohamed Ishfan some time ago, but it was deleted after remaining unattended for over six months. Now that a new user has attempted to publish an article about the same actor, my content has been replaced with the new version, and I am unable to restore my draft since it is not available in the page history. Is there any way to recover the previous data that was stored in the draft space?ShappeAli (talk)17:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Louisvilleborn

    [edit]

    You G8edUser:Louisvilleborn minutes after I moved a draft from there toUser:Louisvilleborn/Marc Spiegel.Fat finger, or did I miss something there?Paradoctor (talk)02:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Paradoctor,
    I saw this page on a list of Broken redirects. But since you object, I'll restore it to you and you can take responsibility for it. My apologies.LizRead!Talk!02:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just trying to create my page and have it read my name at the top, not my user name67.166.198.41 (talk)02:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello IP user. I'll assume you are Louisvilleborn, just not logged in. I will reply atUser talk:Louisvilleborn.Paradoctor (talk)02:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Broken? That shouldn't have happened. I'll check. Thanks for letting me know.Paradoctor (talk)02:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it looks like Louisvilleborn tried to turn my soft redirect into a hard one andbroke it in the process. Which I couldn't see as the page was already gone.C'est la vie! 🤷Paradoctor (talk)03:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now fixed the 2x redir. -UtherSRG(talk)14:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Canadian people of West Asian descent has been nominated for merging

    [edit]

    Category:Canadian people of West Asian descent has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Hassan697 (talk)20:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 20 October 2025

    [edit]
    • Traffic report:One click after another
      Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
    *Read this Signpost in full *Single-page *Unsubscribe *MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help - Accidental tagging!

    [edit]

    Hello, i mistakenly flagged this page for AFD which is not the intended, is there a way to help remove the tags?Murali Chand Ginjupalli (educationist)BiomeScribe (talk)20:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,BiomeScribe,
    I don't understand, the article is tagged for an AFD discussion but then the AFD page is tagged for a CSD speedy deletion. Are they both correct? Did you mean to delete the AFD page? Can you just remove the AFD tag on the article and state in the edit summary that it was a mistake?LizRead!Talk!20:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A filter is denying that option saying i can't remove the AFD tag, that it has been dissallowed. So instead of running out of options, before the community start discussing on the page, i just marked the discussion page for CSD. See:
    An automated filter has detected that you are attempting to remove anArticles for deletion orMiscellany for deletion notice from this page, so it has been disallowed. Please understand that removing it will not stop the discussion from taking place, and discussions should only be closed by experienced users. If you oppose the deletion, please comment at the respective page instead. If you did not remove any such notice, pleasereport this error.BiomeScribe (talk)20:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you immensely Liz!BiomeScribe (talk)20:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,BiomeScribe,
    This wasn't so complicated. Be more careful in the future. Also, I noticed that you didn't post a notification to the article creator, CHrt1, in the future, when nominating an article, category, template, redirect, etc., be sure to notify the page creator of the deletion discussion. This is done most easily by usingTwinkle and checking off the box that says "Always notify page creator." Thank you.LizRead!Talk!20:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, and all corrections taken! Happy editing!BiomeScribe (talk)20:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Growth News #35

    [edit]

    A quarterly update from the Growth team on our work to improve the new editor experience.

    New releases

    [edit]

    English Wikipedia gets "Add a Link" Structured Task

    [edit]

    Wereleased the"Add a Link" Structured Task to 100% of accounts at English Wikipedia on Tuesday, September 2nd (before then it was available to 20% of accounts).

    Growth features for Wikidata

    [edit]

    After examining if the Growth features and Mentorship could be adapted to Wikidata, we activated the Growth features onBeta Wikidata to allow for testing and discussion (T400937).Although some features, like Suggested Edits, are Wikipedia-specific, the Growth team designed most features to be more wiki-agnostic.

    Work in progress

    [edit]

    Revise Tone Structured Task

    [edit]

    The Growth team is making progress onthe technical architecture, onboarding design, and early user testing.We are targeting an A/B test before the end of this year, with constructive edits by newcomers as the primary success metric.

    Add a link to more wikis

    [edit]

    The machine learning team has been working on a new model that can suggest links to more languages, including Urdu, Chinese, and Japanese Wikipedias.We are starting to release the “Add a Link” feature to Wikipedias that weren’t supported by the previous model.

    Add a link, which can beconfigured by the community locally, increases the chance that a new contributor will make their first edit and then continue to participate in Wikipedia.

    Research

    [edit]

    The Growth team is involved in several research initiatives to help guide our future work:

    Progression System – We havepublished initial findings from interviews with 10 English and French Wikipedia newcomers.The research examined motivations, challenges, and feedback on a prototype system intended to help editors build confidence, develop skills, and contribute more constructively over time.

    Mobile Web Editing Research – This project combines quantitative and qualitative data, community feedback, and user journey analysis to identify possible ways to enhance the mobile editing experience.

    Newcomers Survey – This project surveys successful newcomers on English Wikipedia to understand their early editing experiences, tool use, and community interactions.

    Community events

    [edit]

    The Growth team participated in several community events to listen, share, and collaborate on improving newcomer experiences across Wikimedia projects.

    Wikimania -Organizers as key partners to support newcomers' growth in our movement

    This session invited organizers to share how they introduce newcomers to Growth features and the challenges they encounter. The discussion focused on common newcomer questions and opportunities to strengthen collaboration in supporting new editors.

    Wikimania -Lightning Talk: Structured Tasks

    This talk demonstrated how Structured Tasks help newcomers take their first successful steps on Wikipedia. It shared impact data, community configurations, and a demo of “Add a Link,” illustrating how these tasks make editing more accessible and sustainable, particularly for mobile contributors.

    Wikimania -Building a Sustainable Future for Wikimedia Contributors

    With active editor numbers declining, theContributors Strategy aims to create a clearer, more engaging path for participation. This session, led by the WMF Contributors group with involvement from the Editing, Growth, Moderator Tools, and Connection (formerly Campaigns) teams, highlighted efforts to streamline contributor experiences, offer structured and mobile-friendly workflows, and foster meaningful engagement. Participants learned about ongoing initiatives and shared feedback to help shape a more inclusive and sustainable future for Wikimedia contributors.

    CEE Meeting -Retaining beginners and improving content moderation: an inclusive and sustainable future for Wikipedia contributors

    Many communities face a decline in volunteer engagement. Newcomers often leave soon after joining, while experienced editors struggle to manage increasingly complex workflows and overwhelming backlogs. We presented theContributors Strategy and the different features and workflows that can help communities to address these challenges. We listened to the specific needs of the CEE communities to help guide the Contributors teams' work.

    Growth team's newsletter prepared bythe Growth team and posted bybot •Give feedback •Subscribe or unsubscribe.

    10:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

    Jan Zarzycki

    [edit]

    @EALCCJJ @Piotrus @Ldm1954 @Russ Woodroofe Unfortunately, I don't know where the deleted page ended up, or where the discussion surrounding its deletion is. Could it be that my fellow editors don't respect the work of others? Gathering the details and considering the advisability of editing this article took some time, as it required consulting numerous sources and verifying their credibility.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Zarzycki (2nd nomination)

    It is deleted but why? From the discussion it is obvious for me that C1 and C5 are confirmed!!! By decree of 18 October 2004, the President of the Republic of Poland awarded Dr. Hab. Eng. Jan Zarzycki the title of professor of technical sciences.[1]

    1. ^"Resolution of the President of the Republic of Poland of 18 October 2004, No. 115-8-04, on the awarding of the title of professor".Monitor Polski (in Polish). Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland. 31 December 2004. Retrieved15 October 2025.

    Perhaps distinguished professors face higher standards at some universities. However, a presidential appointment is not a political one, but a merit-based one. The president legitimizes a highly demanding procedure. Therefore, the very fact of being appointed a professor indicates that the individual has achieved exceptional competence and made a significant contribution to science.

    I have read the following, but I am not qualified enough to launch an "appeal". I would be happy to add additional arguments, but I need time for that - editing articles for the wiki is an interesting, but still complementary activity in my calendar.

    =>The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    KSz at OWPTM (talk)16:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I was pinged, so will respond, although I am not Liz. The page was deleted because the consensus was that notability criteria were not met. You can appeal the close atWP:Deletion Review, but I think that there is little chance of success: the close is supposed to assess the arguments for delete and keep in light of Wikipedia policy. Liz is an experienced administrator with many AfD closes, and in particular I think that her close in this case correctly assessed the arguments. My best advice is toWP:DROPTHESTICK and give up on this article. You could file a deletion review, or make a draft and run it throughWP:Articles for Creation, but I do not see either of these ending in success. Do not make a new article directly in main article space under any circumstances: that's likely to lead to salting of the article. You've pinged me 5 times in the last couple of days on this, and written large amounts of text: please carefully consider whether the essayWP:BLUDGEON has anything to say to you.Russ Woodroofe (talk)18:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article can beWP:USERFYied per the request the editor made at my talk page and their comments indicating that they find the DELREV procedure complex. Then they can try to learn Wikipedia rules by working on other content and gaining experience in determining what is notable and how to find reliable sources. Or they can give up, leave, or get banned by not dropping the stick. Sigh. But we shouldWP:AGF first. Let's userfy this, pass the ball to their court, and see what happens.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,KSz at OWPTM,
    The reason why the article was deleted is all in the AFD that you linked to,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Zarzycki (2nd nomination). You may also look at the first AFD to,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Zarzycki, because that discussion can influence a later AFD. The first AFD was closed as Delete and in spite of that, was recreated so sometimes editors who participate in AFD discussions can be a little harsher to get their point across that this subject is not ready for their own article when there is so little time between AFD discussions (2 in one year!). If the article is immediately recreated a third time, you can expect the same outcome and, perhaps, for the page title to be "salted" to prevery any future recreations which is a very bad outcome if you eventually want to try another article for this subject in the future.
    It's clear that you have a different opinion than the participants in this deletion discussion. I don't know if the bar is higher for academics depending on what institution they are affiliated with but, this is my own opinion, I think the bar is higher for professors than for other professions like politicians, athletes or actors. What happens with academics though is that it can be too early in their career to have a standalone article. As their career progresses, they can often be considered more eligible as they produce more well-known work or, for example, if they are currently an assistant professor and then become a full professor in a more important position.
    Thanks toPiotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus for addressing this question as he is more well-informed about standards for higher education than I am.LizRead!Talk!22:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus@Russ Woodroofe@Liz Thanks you for the clarification.
    My resubmission of the article for consideration and publication was not due to a lack of understanding of the editors' arguments for its removal. I calmly supplemented the points that weren't considered clearly and emphasized what demonstrates Zarzycki's unique character. In Poland, the president awards approximately 20-40 professorships in technical sciences annually. This may be a lot compared to the 3-5 in mathematical sciences, but the scope of technical sciences is also much larger. Obtaining the title is linked to significant research results in the discipline and a role in educating faculty – promoted PhDs. However, there are only 3-5 universities in Poland with a faculty of electronics (depending on how you count them), so leading such a faculty as a dean is an unusual attribute for the nominee.
    All these facts were incorrectly assessed by the editors, and the analysis was reduced to speculation about the number of published papers – which is unacceptable in my field. Quantity does not mean quality. Significant results are usually recognized years later. This year's Nobel Prize in Physics was for a result from 1988!
    KSz at OWPTM (talk)10:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And when Zarzycki gets his Nobel Prize, rest assured, we will restore his article here immediately.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I belive that wiki is not only for NPW.😀37.30.42.105 (talk)11:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Piotr,
    I have asked @Liz to "restore" deleted page of Jan Zarzycki "to my user space" for further development.
    With best regards,
    KSz at OWPTM (talk)KSz at OWPTM (talk)12:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @KSz at OWPTM I noticed and support your request. Good luckPiotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Liz,
    I would like to kindly ask whether the deleted articleJan Zarzycki (2nd nomination) could berestored to my user space for further improvement.
    I fully respect the AfD outcome and understand the reasoning behind the deletion.
    My goal is only to work on the text privately, learn Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards, and prepare a properly referenced version that can later go throughArticles for Creation orDeletion Review.
    I also plan to strengthen the article withindependent and reliable sources — that is, publications or documents created by third parties not connected with the subject (for example,Monitor Polski, national bibliographic databases, or academic references citing his work).
    It is also worth noting that in the field of technical sciences,the impact of a researcher’s work is sometimes difficult to document publicly, as many projects may be covered by confidentiality clauses, national security restrictions, or patent protection. This can limit the number of openly available secondary sources, even for distinguished scientists.
    If possible, please restore it to:
    →User:KSz at OWPTM/soundbox/Jan_Zarzycki
    The subject holds the title ofProfessor of Technical Sciences, awarded by the President of the Republic of Poland in 2004 (Monitor Polski No. 115-8-04), which satisfies at least C1 of WP:PROF.
    Thank you for your time and understanding.
    Best regards,
    KSz at OWPTM (talk)08:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vega flight VV17

    [edit]

    Remember that purge of Vega rocket launches back in 2023? Flight 17 seemed only the most notable as it was the second Vega rocket to end in failure, so I think it should have been kept. I restored it, but didn't notice your "restore page" in time. My apologies.Tigerdude9 (talk)16:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Tigerdude9,
    No need for apologies because I don't know what you are referring to. It really helps if you provide a link to the exact page where the article was or is.LizRead!Talk!22:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This Vega rocket launch failure. I felt that it was still notable because it was the second Vega rocket to end in failure.Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Tigerdude9 (talk)22:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Want to edit during daytime only.

    [edit]

    Can I request my account to be globally locked for a few days to prevent Wikipedia addiction or is just controlling it myself easier?DareshMohan (talk)18:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) Stewards do not do temporary wikibreak global locks. You might be interested in theWikiBreak enforcer script.jlwoodwa (talk)19:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anomie: I amtrying to use your script[21] although I'm not sure how to. I've installed it.DareshMohan (talk)22:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DareshMohan I suggest asking Bishonen who takes these kind of requests for en.wiki. Like jlwoodwa says, only stewards can globally block.S0091 (talk)22:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Hello,DareshMohan,
    It looks like you are finding alternative methods to take a WikiBreak. There are some admins, like Bishonen, who are known for offering blocking services but as Jlwoodwa alluded to, only a steward could do a "global block", regular admins can only block editors from the projects where they are an admin. And I've never heard of a block only certain hours of the day or night.LizRead!Talk!22:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, if theScript to lock out the account during certain times of the day.[22] (see bottom link) doesn't work, I'll self enforce it. If self-enforcement doesn't work, I will ask for a admin-administered wikibreak for this week. Sorry for any time wasted. (If the lock out script doesn't let me log back in, I will ask an admin via email).DareshMohan (talk)22:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Somhlolo National Stadium

    [edit]

    Re[23], as I mentioned in the edit summary, the article does not mention anything about it being an athletics venue, athletics here meaning sport of athletics.Kaffet i halsen (talk)10:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Kaffet i halsen,
    The article states, the stadiumis used for soccer and rugby matches, and athletics events. I assume all of these activities involve "athletics".LizRead!Talk!20:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks to @Greenman for recent additions.Kaffet i halsen (talk)00:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging the MyNetworkTV affiliates page onto the Fox affiliates page

    [edit]

    Since you decided to delete thelist of MyNetworkTV affiliates article, I decided to add them back onto theList of Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates page. I clearly wanted the article to be kept and merged, but you feel like you wanted it deleted because its now impossible to maintain a list of television stations with specific call sign letters to remember, especially thelow-poweredClass A stations, which doesn't even have its own list to maintain like thefull-powered stations.2600:6C50:57F:BA33:845C:908E:8313:5499 (talk)03:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,2600:6C50:57F:BA33:845C:908E:8313:5499,
    I can't look into this situation until you give me a link to the page of the article you are concerned with. Otherwise, it's impossible for me to know what you are talking about. You mentionList of Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates but it doesn't looke like there are any problems with this article. If you provide more data and supply the questions you are interested in, I can look into the circumstances of the page deletion and be able to give you a fuller answer. But I look at hundreds of pages every day and you can't rely on my memory to know who you are and what you are referring to. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!03:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Fox actually provided some new acquired programming rather than being lazy to provide newer shows in recent years, then I'm sure that MyNetworkTV would get an audience it deserves, and that many stations with a full-time affiliation would have their own schedules of their to maintain rather than letting the service act as late night or overnight filler that sometimes shares secondary affiliations withmulticast television networks carried ondigital subchannels.2600:6C50:57F:BA33:845C:908E:8313:5499 (talk)04:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be the return of the IP user that was supposed to be rangeblockedfollowing an ANI discussion, but it didn't get properly applied. I'vebrought the matter back to ANI.WCQuidditch☎✎18:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here that I have just fixed the misapplied block to reflect the outcome of that discussion.Mfield (Oi!)19:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    French word RfD close

    [edit]

    I was surprised by the Delete close of theWP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_18#French_word, but can you enhance your close summary? I will wait for your rationale. Jay 💬06:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Jay,
    I added a sentence to my closure but I'm sure it will not be satisfactory to you. I believe that the consensus among discussion participants was that this redirect should be deleted. It wasn't anything deeper than that. I'm not willing to change my outcome but if you would like this discussion to be reslisted, I'm willing to do that. I'm really not sure what you are looking for here as a "Keep" would have been a very unlikely outcome decision.LizRead!Talk!06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, the addition to the close statement does not help really. What I'm interested to know is how you concluded there is consensus to delete, and what did you think of the keep votes or opposition to delete. I want to rule out that my thinking could be biased. Maybe you are seeing something I am not. Jay 💬06:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the discussion has been relisted. All I can say is that while I don't go by a headcount, the fact that more editors were arguing for Deletion does make that option carry more weight in my mind. I would never judge whether or not you or any other editor is "biased" but I look at the strength of the arguments and part of that stength is in numbers. That's not the only factor but that is one factor is a part of how I determine consensus.LizRead!Talk!07:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that is how closes should work. I was interested in your analysis of this particular RfD, but I guess I won't get that now that it is relisted. Jay 💬08:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Veni Markovski

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I just wanted to let you know that I have reopenedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni Markovski – an AfD you closed as soft delete – because the result wascontested atWP:REFUND. So, I've restored the article and relisted the AFD. Best. — Salviogiuliano07:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Salvio,
    That's fine. I appreciate you letting me know.LizRead!Talk!19:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Aggro Crab AfD close

    [edit]

    I am asking if you reconsider your closing onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggro Crab (2nd nomination). The closing comment said "almost unanimous support for Keeping" but two of comments are "weak keep", so it feels more like little support for deletion in my view. I have asimilar AfD nomination open, which I feel I would just withdraw if this AfD standard is applied. RegardsIgelRM (talk)20:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,IgelRM,
    I said "almost unanimous" because there was the nominator of the AFD discussion which kept the consensus from being unanimous. But, honestly, how else could I have closed this discussion? If there were a few editors arguing for Deletion, I could have closed the discussion as No consensus but there were none. Generally, I'm pretty flexible about relisting a discussion I've closed but I really don't see a realistic alternative to Keep. What are you seeing that, in your eyes, I'm missing?LizRead!Talk!21:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also argued against two of the keep arguments. So while I didn't comment a formal "Delete", unanimous makes me feel overlooked. From my view, the rebuttals including mine under the keep are sufficient to not just count by the bold prints. I had hoped for perhaps a final relist to address the recent comments. I agree that an alternative outcome is unlikely, but the closing comment is still relevant.IgelRM (talk)15:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your thread has been archived

    [edit]
    Teahouse logo

    HelloLiz! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Tabs on Top Menu, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

    You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread.

    See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk)03:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liz this is Urgent. Please read!

    [edit]

    I can't believe you brought an editor's hopes down for agood faith mistake they committed. Did you really have toscare them off with a block? Did you seethe reply they gave you? Using your admin power to give block threats to editors can't be permitted unless in this situation was not needed! And in a lost world rising in population, with idle kids loitering around on the internet, we need high long hourly active anti vandal users likeUser:Criticize is. I appreciate other users handling the vandalism when they can, but still. You have been here for 12 years and should know better how to confront editors politely for making mistakes, especially when they do them for the first time. But the main reason im here is because you told Criticize their "editing makes no sense at all". Have you seen the contributions the user has done before the page moving mistake? What was it with you anyway!?

    And while you're reading this, Can you please snap Criticize out of it and try to motivate him/her back to contribute again since I find theirlate response surprising.

    Tbh, I find this user's anti vandal work much better compared to others.And lastly, just to be sure. Please don't question my account. I created this 2 years back so I can read articles better and use stuff like 'add to watchlist' etc. So this message should not look like im being suspicious. Thank youXpad (talk)15:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) Hi @Xpad. Can I ask what your relationship is (or isn't) with Criticize? Also, are you friends with41.210.147.208? Thank you :) --tony16:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TonySt, Nothing at all! I just noticed the user isn't contributing and i wonder why. It's great to see anti vandal users who are active all the time. I read alot of articles as one of my hobbies and have no interest to edit. Tbh, it's very annoying when I select an article to read and see slur language or find text that don't make any sense, mostly nonsense or texts without any single reference. It has been more of a problem for me lately.Xpad (talk)22:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page gnome) @Xpad, I see I'm not the only who is wondering why almost all of your 19 edits are to Criticize's talk page, or to other editors' talk pages, trying to advocate for Criticize when she have not asked you to do so, and almost goading her to return to editing. If you really don't know Criticize, then this looks almost like harassment.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)07:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz, I would like to+1 this.
    I had noticed Criticize has left editing for a little while, and after doing some digging I found out that, while it was for a few reasons, one of the main reasons for his extended leave wasthis message you sent. Criticize had been acting in good faith and has been a good-faith editor for a long time now, and I think the comment left was unprecedented. While I do not think your comment was at all fully to blame, I do find it concerning that such a good-faith editor took a break right after the message, and sourced it as one of the reasons why the break occurred.
    Anyways, as always, happy editing =)
    (I do agree that this user, Xpad, is incredibly suspicious)    –LuniZunie ツ(talk)03:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,LuniZunie,
    I am always behind with reviewing messages on my user talk page and I didn't notice this one at all. I'll review this and see if I need to take any further action. Sorry for the delay.LizRead!Talk!04:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think the concernmay still be valid, due to recent events regarding Criticize, I have decided to strike this comment.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)19:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 20

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on October 11. Please helptranslate.

    Upcoming and current events and conversations
    Let's Talk continues


    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Product Safety and Integrity ·Readers ·Research ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

    The naming contest for the new Wikimedia project, known until now as Abstract Wikipedia, is ongoing.
    • Making it easier to say thanks: Users on most wikis will now havethe ability to thank a comment directly from the talk page it appears on. Before this change, thanking could only be done by visiting the revision history of the talk page.
    • Account security: Improvements toaccount security and two-factor authentication (2FA) features were enabled across all wikis. Another part of the project is making 2FA generally available to all users. Along with editors with advanced privileges, such as administrators and bureaucrats, 40% of editors now have access to 2FA. You can check if you have access atSpecial:AccountSecurity.
    • Abstract Wikipedia:The naming contest for the new Wikimedia project, known until now as Abstract Wikipedia, is ongoing.Voting is now open until November 3.
    • Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week42 and43 including the community-submitted tasks that wereresolved last week.
    • Wikimedia apps: The Wikipedia iOS App launched an A/B/C test of improvements to theTabbed browsing feature into Beta for select regions & languages. Called“More dynamic tabs”, the experiment adds user-requested improvements and introduces article recommendations within the tabs overview, showing “Did you know” or “Because you read” content depending on how many tabs are open.
    • CampaignEvents extension:Campaignevents extension will be deployed to all remaining wikis during the week of 17 November 2025. The extension currently includes three features:Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List. For this rollout,Invitation List will not be enabled on Wikifunctions and MediaWiki unless requested by those communities.
    • Event registration tool: Autoconfirmed users onsmall andmedium wikis with the extension can now useEvent Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.


    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events

    • Digital safety: Explore how you can help make Wikimedia safer by taking our new self-paced course,Safety for Young Wikimedians.
    • Wikimedia Core Curriculum: The Wikimedia Foundation has developedseven online video learning modules covering the core English Wikipedia policies. You are invited to use, adapt, and translate the course.
    • Advocacy: The Wikimedia Foundation has signedonto a statement that calls on governments and UN bodies to keep discussions about the future of internet governance accessible to non-government actors like industry and civil society. This statement is part of ongoing joint advocacy with affiliates to influence UN discussions about the future of internet governance such as theGlobal Digital Compact campaign andWSIS+20 deliberations.
    • GLAM: The Wikimedia Foundation and several affiliates have signed onto theOpen Heritage Statement, which supports galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM institutions) to have the legal rights they need to collect, preserve, and provide access to cultural heritage.


    Foundation statements


    Other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Guidance: Brian Doubles Wikipedia Article - Previous G4 Deletion (2020)

    [edit]

    Dear Administrator Liz,

    I am Jennifer Highsmith, Vice President of Executive Communications at Synchrony Financial. I am writing to seek your guidance before attempting to create a Wikipedia article about our CEO, Brian Doubles.

    Disclosure: I work for Synchrony and am transparently disclosing this conflict of interest upfront.

    The Situation:

    I understand you deleted a draft article about Mr. Doubles on November 29, 2020, after it was moved to draft space by editor MER-C in December 2019 for “covert advertising.” I want to do this correctly and avoid repeating those mistakes.

    What Has Changed:

    Since 2020, there has been significant independent media coverage of Mr. Doubles:

    Note: Brian Doubles is already listed on theSynchrony Financial Wikipedia page as CEO in the “Key People” section.

    My Questions:

    1. Does the coverage I listed above meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for a standalone biographical article?

    2. What were the specific concerns with the 2019 draft that I should avoid?

    3. Should I submit through Articles for Creation (AfC), or would adding more detail to the existing Synchrony Financial page be more appropriate?

    4. Given my COI, should I work with an independent Wikipedia editor instead?

    I will not create or submit any content until I receive your guidance. If a standalone article isn’t appropriate, I completely understand and respect that decision. Thank you for your time and for maintaining Wikipedia’s standards.

    Respectfully,

    Jennifer Highsmith

    Vice President of Executive Communications,

    Synchrony Financial

    Wikipedia Username: JHighsmithSYF‬!https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Homepage&source=personaltoolslink&namespace=-1JHighsmithSYF (talk)16:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks — seeking content-focused guidance

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, thanks for the note and the Teahouse invite. Understood about Wikipedia’s scope.My focus is editingDraft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio and ensuring it meets sourcing policies. I’ve added independent Bulgarian sources (journal, textbook with page numbers and appendix, proceedings) and a regulated issuer’s report. If you or another reviewer have a moment, I’d appreciate guidance on whether the current sourcing is sufficient for a short entry. Many thanks!Петър П. Петров (talk)11:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Henry Stickmin Collection (2nd nomination)

    [edit]

    Hello, Liz.

    As soon as this AfD was closed asdelete, the creator of the pagereposted it as a draft, with the following edit summary:I won't ever get why all the sources mentioned were considered unreliable and the article got deleted. I feel that people are too strict, which isn't good per WP:BUREAUCRACY for example, even though there were explanations as to why the sources were unreliable throughout the discussion. How should this be approached? Thanks,1isall (he/him) (talk |contribs)11:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, what I'm trying to ask is: was it appropriate draftification or editing against consensus? Thanks,1isall (he/him) (talk |contribs)16:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The draft has been tagged withCSD G4. Thanks,1isall (he/him) (talk |contribs)21:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update 2: Draft was deleted. I do not believe I need to continue talking here. Thanks,1isall (he/him) (talk |contribs)01:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bertha McNamara

    [edit]

    Damn! Thanks for catching that monumental f'up! Not sure how I did that - or how I missed it - real rookie mistake! Thanks again.KylieTastic (talk)23:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,KylieTastic,
    You were already an experienced veteran when I registered this account in 2013 so you are hardly a "rookie!" No problem with the article, I was just worried that I restored an article than you had merged elsewhere so we had two versions of the same content. I gather that's not true.LizRead!Talk!23:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK "rookie admin" error. I think it was an issue with default keyboard actions on the special merge page, I just need to be mindful of that and just use the mouse (and double check end result). I've checked everything looks correct now, and all good. I was merging in old history fromBertha Bredt from 2007 into that article. Thanks again —KylieTastic (talk)23:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking for clarity on removal of my prod

    [edit]

    Hello Liz hope you are having a good day. I wanted to ask why a one word explanation mentioning notability is the issue not allowed? I ask because when two of my articles were prodded someone only gave WP:N as a reason and those who removed the prods didn't object to that so I thought this kind of reason was ok so I would appreciate some clarity on why it isn't allowed if that is ok. Thanks in advance if you respond.GothicGolem29(GothicGolem29 Talk)23:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,GothicGolem29,
    First, different admins behave differently. Some do not ask many questions, others require all of the "t's" to be crossed and all of the "i's" to be dotted. I probably remove more PROD tags because of inadequate deletion rationales than other admins. I am very dissatisfied with our current PRODding standards. This is a situation where admins review PROD'd articles and files to ensure that the criteria for proposed deletion are met. PRODs are supposed to be "uncontroversial deletions" so sometimes PROD tags are removed if an admin think that the situation isn't uncontroversial. It's a judgment call.
    I can't respond to the other PRODs you submitted that weren't questioned but please look over the list of this week's PROD'd articles atUser:DreamRimmer bot II/ProdSummary. You'll see a wide variety of deletion rationales but I think that the editor doing the tagging should provide an actual policy-based reason, written in sentences that is more than one word. You just wrote "Notability" and I think you need to write more than that to explain what about our policies on notability in the tagged article calls for this article to be deleted. One word is insufficient. I think that is also true for "WP:N" but at least that rationale refers to a policy that the word "notability" doesn't. But ideally, I think a PROD's deletion rationale should be as comprehensive as that for an AFD nomination.
    I advise you to nominate this article for anWP:AFD discussion if you want to see it deleted. But if my answer here isn't sufficient and you want to pursue this, you could file an appeal atWikipedia:Deletion review.LizRead!Talk!03:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. I will not file a appeal at Deletion review as I understand your response in terms of different admins doing things differently(I do do
    disagree on your Notability point slightly as me referencing Notability is referring to the policy on that just like them putting WP:N is but that is not enough for me to appeal given the rest.) And thanks for the advice on AFD I will consider if that is something I will pursue.GothicGolem29(GothicGolem29 Talk)16:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    List of minor planet discoverers

    [edit]

    Thanks for closingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planet discoverers. I have now moved the trimmed down version we've been working on on my user page to mainspace. Could you delete the redirects toList of minor planet discoverers to finish it? (Most of those redirects are now broken anyway; all of them can be removed.)Renerpho (talk)00:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If it helps, here's a list of the redirects that should go. I know it's a long list. I hope it doesn't cause too much trouble.Renerpho (talk)01:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Renerpho,
    I'd like to help you out here but there needs to be a deletion rationale. What is the basis for this deletion request? Is there a CSD criteria that applies to them? Perhaps you could take this toWP:RFD and get a consensus there. It's not that I think these pages should be preserved but I hope you understand that I can't delete these pages "becauseRenerpho asked me to". I wouldn't be an admin for very long after that! Think of it this way, it will be much easier to get approval before deletion than deal with the outrage that would occur if I just went ahead with this request.LizRead!Talk!02:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to temporarily remove the list you posted because the code that closed the collapse wasn't correct and everything I just wrote was inside the collapsed portion.LizRead!Talk!02:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with removing the list.
    As for your question for a rationale, I'm a bit confused because -- at least as I see it -- deleting the redirects was part of the consensus reached in the AfD discussion, as part of the compromise to keep the article itself (first suggested by User:David Eppstein, whose proposal got a lot of support, and explicitly supported by other editors who commented on that, with no objections raised).Renerpho (talk)03:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll look more carefully at the AFD but that sounds like an unusual arrangement to me. I've never seen that kind of situation. But you could be right.LizRead!Talk!06:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I feel like this was a bit of an unusual AFD. Thanks for taking a look again.Renerpho (talk)06:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talal Maddah albums

    [edit]

    Please could you restore this and I'll AfD it, as it seems to warrant discussion? I thought I had removed the PROD but apparently not in time. Thanks,Ingratis (talk)06:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Ingratis,
     Done No, you are correct, you did de-PROD this article but, in the future, please don't wait until the last minute to de-PROD a tagged article. This has now happened to me twice recently when editors untagged an article 10 minutes or less before it was due to be deleted. It's more likely for mistakes like this to happen. Plus, I can tell by your activity de-PRODding many articles that you review them on a daily (or almost daily) basis so just look at the day's PROD'd articles the day before they are due to be deleted. Sound good? Thank you for reviewing PROD'd articles, they don't get the attention of articles at AFDs do.LizRead!Talk!06:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Liz. I take your point - sometimes I just forget, or get interrupted at the wrong time. I will try harder... All best,Ingratis (talk)06:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, and short note regarding Zinfandel / Kratošija

    [edit]

    HelloLiz,

    I wanted to thank you for your neutral handling and professionalism during the previous redirect situation concerningKratošija (it was on October 12 — I hope you remember). Although we haven’t been in direct contact before, I truly appreciated the balanced way you addressed the issue and your reminder about the importance of open discussion and consensus.

    For a long time, it wasn’t entirely clear how to proceed, since the discussion atWP:ANI was closed and the matter was moved toTalk:Zinfandel.

    I’m now preparing to post a structured proposal onTalk:Zinfandel, focused on improving verifiability and balance within the article — particularly regardingKratošija (the Montenegrin grape variety genetically identical to Zinfandel / Primitivo / Tribidrag).

    My aim is purely content-related and supported by reliable, peer-reviewed sources, fully in line withWP:NPOV andWP:V principles.

    If you happen to have time, I’d really appreciate if you could keep an eye on the discussion there — your perspective would be very valuable and appreciated.

    With sincere respect, —VitisArchivum (talk)10:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Archaeological Survey of Israel

    [edit]

    Hi Liz. Sorry, was there an "Archaeological Survey of Israel" page deleted? Could you please point me to the discussion, or anywhere where I could understand what happened? Thank you!Arminden (talk)22:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Arminden,
    I was deleting a lot of broken redirects that came from some article deletions. One deletion that created a lot of broken redirects wasRoman roads in Judaea. If you look at the deletion log for Roman roads in Judaea, you can see that its deletion had to do with copyright issues and you can find out more information atWikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 October 23 for details. I don't deal with articles with copyright complaints but if you want more information on what are standards for deletion or of the process for handling copyright concerns, I'd go toMER-C who is a pro at deailing with these complaints. Good luck.LizRead!Talk!22:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Liz!Arminden (talk)22:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Guide to temporary accounts

    [edit]

    Hello, Liz. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

    Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

    How do temporary accounts work?

    Editing from a temporary account
    • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
    • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
    • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
    • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
      • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
      • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

    Temporary account IP viewer user right

    How to enable IP Reveal

    Impact for administrators

    • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
    • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
    • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. OnSpecial:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should useSpecial:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

    Rules about IP information disclosure

    • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access isgenerally not allowed (e.g.~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
    • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward3RR, but notHey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
    • SeeWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

    Useful tools for patrollers

    • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via theUser Info card, available inPreferences →Appearance →Advanced options →TickEnable theuser info card
      • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
    • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
    • Similarly,Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
    • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

    Videos

    • How to use Special:IPContributions
    • How automatic IP reveal works
    • How to use IP Info
    • How to use User Info

    Further information and discussion

    Most of this message was written byMz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Email regarding RevDel request

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

    jcgoble3 (talk)04:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mail Call

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

    No rush, no answer needed.StarMississippi15:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wondering if I should report a potentialWP:SOCK problem at DYK

    [edit]

    Liz, I know reportingWP:SOCK behavior requires a certain kind of evidence. I'm not sure if that exists in this case, and thought I would get an admin's opinion before pursuing a formal report. One of the hooks I reviewed (still technically waiting for a reply),Template:Did you know nominations/City of Oaks Marathon, was recently rejected inthis edit by user Sodanight. This user is a newly created account. SeeSpecial:Contributions/Sodanight. They also approvedTemplate:Did you know nominations/Hopton, Derbyshire. I overturned their rejection at City of Oaks Marathon because I am still the reviewer and the nominator still has time to address/fix the issues under policy. In checking the /Hopton, Derbyshire review I discovered that it was not compliant withWP:DYKCRIT's guidelines for time. I strongly suspect that the Sodanight account was created by User:U1ajl5xge2 (seeSpecial:Contributions/U1ajl5xge2) who nominated Hopton, Derbyshire at DYK in order that they might approve their own hook and avoid being caught as a late nomination. Am I crazy for thinking this, or this something I can legitimately report? Best.4meter4 (talk)04:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My rude comments back in December 2024

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I wanted to take some time to write you this note. I sincerely apologize for having lost my temper and yelling and swearing at you back in December 2024. It was very rude of me and I lost my cool, I really apologize. I better understand the rules and functioning of Wikipedia now and will not repeat this behavior. I was incorrectly associated with ConsumersDistributingonline even though there was no proof linking me to them, you can see the Global unlock request here:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2025-w43#h-Global_unlock_for_TitCrisse-Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding-20251026100000

    I wanted to know if you could please help me in undeleting my draft on Pedro Cuperman? Might you also be able to please give me back access to my other 2 accounts, Pramod8375 & Mamani1990? They were also locked for the same reason as TitCrisse, lock evasion, but this was incorrect as I was never part of ConsumersDistributingonline. Thank you, regards,TitCrisse (talk)23:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:November 2025 sports events in Chile

    [edit]

    Category:November 2025 sports events in Chile was created (with a CfD banner) during the discussion of similar categories in the now closedWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 21#Category:2020 in Chilean sport by month (to merge). Is it possible to interpret the decision to also merge that newly created category as it has been tagged? I've not seen that situation before and emptying it would look like out-of-process emptying if I did it.Kaffet i halsen (talk)11:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Solved by @Fayenatic london.Kaffet i halsen (talk)23:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ante Čedo Martinić

    [edit]

    Hello Liz, would you mind re-opening this discussion? I'd like to add several additional sources to the discussion such as[24][25][26] and an eight year anniversary memorial of his passing[27]. Thank you!SportingFlyerT·C13:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

    [edit]

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

    Administrator changes

    addedToadspike
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    addedasilvering

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Schmear" listed atRedirects for discussion

    [edit]

    The redirectSchmear has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 4 § Schmear until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk)17:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Notifying you as the closer of the recentSchmear AfD. There was some disagreement among participants about how to handle the redirect following your close. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk)17:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz, new email about a recent AfD

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

    Hey, Liz! I'm having doubt on something about Wikipedia's policies. I've sent you an e-mail about it.Deathnotekll2 (talk)06:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Deathnotekll2,
    Thanks for the notice. I'm not sure when I'll get to my Inbox but I will look for your email message.LizRead!Talk!06:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Liz! You have a new e-mail. The situation I discuss in it is quite surprising.Deathnotekll2 (talk)01:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Deathnotekll2,
    Why can't you just describe the situation here on my user talk page? Is there a reason why this information has to be kept confidential?LizRead!Talk!01:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. I used the e-mail because we were previously talking there. Anyway, as you requested, I'll post future replies to new topics here (as the e-mail has already been sent).Deathnotekll2 (talk)01:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Joshua Johnatan has attacked me repeatedly for proposing an RfC regarding a source from the same organization as "Vimalaramsi's". His behavior can be seen in the RfC proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC%3A_Request_for_comment_on_self-published_source_used_to_support_unverifiable_claims
    RfCs and AfDs should not be a place for personal attacks, and yet this user is relentless in doing so. I have not provoked him or invited him to the discussion.
    (This is a follow-up to the previous e-mail, in which the situation hadn't escalated that quickly). I have sent you this talk page message because the e-mail system failed.Deathnotekll2 (talk)08:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is the "personal attack"? SeeWP:ASPERSIONS, and your comment atUser talk:Deathnotekll2#Aboutsome non-notable figures that have been put to the test of Wikipedia's Notoriety are fighting back to retaliate through their many likely proxies. That's expected of any ardent follower and honestly, predictable. You could, and should, have noticed that Vimalarmasi is dead, and that I'm a Zen-Buddhist, who's interest is in the history and interpretation of meditation. Accusing me of aWP:COI is far-fletched. And who exactly are the "many likely proxies"?Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!08:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my talk page. I have not nominally cited you anywhere on that quotation, highlighted in green.
    You have also posted your own personal opinions in these talk pages, had people affiliated with you send me multiple unsolicited warnings in what I viewed as veiled collective intimidation and, in the end, also accused me of being anWP:SPA with no evidence.
    In no other space in Wikipedia have I attempted to include personal opinions of any nature: not in Article talk pages, not AfDs or RfCs.
    I work as a professional editor here, and policy will be applied to a religious leader and his pages weather his supporters - whoever they are - like it or not. They are not above investigation or discussion.
    That's it. I am not favorable or unfavorable to your religion or anyone else's.
    It's quite surprisingthis article, withthese sources, affiliated withthis specific organization would mobilize such a great effort against its takedown, discussion or scrutiny in Wikipedia.Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, and ask yourself: are there really "people affiliated with you [who] send me multiple unsolicited warnings," or is it that your behaviour invites those warnings? Also, you've been warned now sevearly times againstWP:ASPERSIONS, yet you state[you] had people affiliated with you send me multiple unsolicited warnings in what I viewed as veiled collective intimidation. Please provide evidence that those editors are "affiliated" with me, and that this is a collective endeavor to intimidate you. If not, consider the possibility that you don't have (yet) what it takes to contribute in a meaningfull way to Wikipedia. Maybe, just maybe, if so many people tell you that your behaviour needs some improvement, then maybe those people have a point, and show you something you're not aware of (yet). Maybe.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!21:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I'll let you have the last say as you wish.
    No further comments will be added by me, as this discussion is getting disrespectful to the editor/admin who is within the rights of her own user space. Enough escalation.
    Let further discussion to this topic be made in more appropriate forums.Deathnotekll2 (talk)23:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles for deletion/Tarik Sadouma

    [edit]

    HI Liz,Thanks for closingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarik Sadouma. I believe I have merged the relevant information intoThe Unsafe House and completed the steps for a merge. There still remains this improperDraft:Tarik Sadouma. It has been hanging around since October 16th and was live at the same time the article was. Can you direct me to the steps for removing this draft? Thanks.WomenArtistUpdates (talk)01:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,WomenArtistUpdates,
    Thanks for your help with merging articles. That's a task that doesn't get a lot of attention. As for the draft, there is no CSD criteria that applies to draft versions of main space articles so the options I see are let it expire as a CSD G13 in a few months or turn the draft into a redirect to the main space article. Either of those options sound appropriate here?LizRead!Talk!01:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thanks Liz! I picked the redirect option :) --WomenArtistUpdates (talk)17:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Message about your AFD warning to me

    [edit]

    @Liz Hello Liz I hope you don't mind me contacting you here as well as my response on my userpage but I am quite concerned about the warning about me getting my AFD clerking privileges revoked and I don't know if you would check my userpage for a response. I wanted to ask why did you say that I need to stop closing early after that close? The XFD closure tool listed the timings for Modus Cup as green and I have now checked the timings with a calendar more times than I can count now and it was 7 days since the afd was opened on 30th October at 15:20 and when I closed the AFD on the 6th November at 22:00 and that is within the rules nad your comment that they should be Open at least 7 days. I would also like to ask if I could do snow closures once I get more expereince early as the rules allow for that sort of thing if I recall(which will be quite a while as A I don't want to do them at the moment just in the future and B alot of the AFDS don't meet that or are closed by Admins or non admin closers before I get the chance so getting experience will take a while even after I am eventually wanting to do it again.)GothicGolem29(Talk)17:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please can I get a response to this @Liz?GothicGolem29(Talk)12:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dušan Janićijević (athlete)

    [edit]

    I usually find your AFD closures to be excellent, but in this case I'm very surprised at the outcome of "redirect". There's two editors saying "keep" along with three "redirect", butnone of the those arguing redirect had any sort of rebuttal to the keep argument at all, even though they were all pinged. In fact, it seems only one of them even saw the sources, which were pretty obviously SIGCOV. Could we get a relist here? Thanks,BeanieFan11 (talk)23:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,BeanieFan11,
    This one was a close call. There was a point some months ago where I got the message from our AFD participants that I was doing too much relisting of discussions so I've been trying to do more closures, even when opinion is divided. Let me think about this tonight.LizRead!Talk!00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any update on this? Or should I take it to DRV?BeanieFan11 (talk)14:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    YourWP:SD message being sent to the wrong person

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, I recently found a speedy deletion message on my talk page although i did not create the article I just moved it back into draft space as it was unfit for wikipedia like how it was done many times before. Could you please put the message on thecorrect users talk page. Thank you for understanding.‪Theknoledgeableperson‬ (talk)— Precedingundated comment added21:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CfD of Category:American politicians of Middle Eastern descent

    [edit]

    Hey Liz, regarding your reversion of my closure, Marcocapelle has posted acomment saying why the discussion need not be kept open. I also agree with that reasoning and would appreciate if you could chime in there. If you have no objection, I would like to close it and list it for action as before. Thanks!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Bunnypranav,
    I was just heading to bed so I probably won't see the discussion until tomorrow. I trust you two to use your judgment and do the right thing. But thanks for letting me know.LizRead!Talk!07:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'll go ahead and close it then. :)~/Bunnypranav:<ping>08:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reversing the deletion of 2 figure skating pages

    [edit]

    Hello Liz,

    Could you please reverse the deletion of these pages?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Jean-Hans_Fourneaux&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=C%C3%A9lina+Fradji&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist

    https://web.archive.org/web/20240203034636/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Hans_Fourneaux

    https://web.archive.org/web/20230712233902/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9lina_Fradji

    As you will note on this page, they are the only ice dance team with red links:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025%E2%80%9326_ISU_Grand_Prix_of_Figure_Skating#Ice_dance

    They are international level competitors, they are absolutely eligible to have a page. They're gonna rise in prominence too, they were juniors previously and this is now their first season in seniors.

    They were 5th at the Junior World Championships last year:https://skatingscores.com/fra/dance/celina_fradji_jeanhans_fourneaux/

    They were ranked the #3 junior team last year:https://results.isu.org/events/jgp2024/jgpsdance.htm

    And they are currently ranked #23 in the world (this ranking has juniors and seniors combined):https://www.isuresults.com/ws/ws/wsdance.htm

    (Apologies for anything I might have done wrong. I'm new to Wikipedia, I created an account just for this. Thank you.)— Precedingunsigned comment added byCil2025 (talk •contribs)22:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war and unsubstantiated reverts

    [edit]

    Hello @Liz.

    I am writing to raise an issue regarding a persistent conflict with User:@User4926 on the article ofZagreb. Despite engaging in a discussion on the article's Talk pageTalk:Zagreb, User4926 continues to revert my edits without clear justification or new discussion.

    - User4926 is a pretty frequent editor onZagreb page. They mostly edit policital administration paragraph which started this whole dilemma. You see, the paragraph was untouched since 2022, and it seemed that they were upset over the imagery on that paragraph which represented Zagreb’s rich historical monuments. He deleted them. I reverted the edit, he deleted and left a message on talk page. I reverted the imagery, they wrote a Bible on how the imagery has nothing to do with the paragraph, I moved them to another paragraph so they aren’t on the same paragraph, I kept quiet until User decided to remove them again from the new paragraph with the reasoning “ Deleted images as per discussion”. No discussion was discussed about that. [this dif][28]- The information I added is supported by years of untouching changes for those 3 imagery. Those are cultural and historical monuments of high value to Zagreb’s page. I believe it contributes to a more balanced and up-to-date article.- User continues to revert my changes without addressing the sources I provided or engaging in meaningful discussion. This seems to be happening in violation of the [mention specific Wikipedia policies, such asWP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) orWP:AGF (Good Faith), which neither of them suits the reasoning for this editor. It seems like they keep pushing some source of Political Agenda, since they are full-time editors ofWe Can! (Croatia). Not to mention, the user was already warned about their edit by another user which left a message on User4926 Talk Page.- I have tried to explain my edits on the Talk pageUser talk:User4926 but the user has not been receptive to further dialogue.

    Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia for everyone to use and edit. No reason to delete someone’s work because you simply don’t like it.

    I request the assistance of an administrator to review this issue and help mediate a resolution. Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Sincerely,PublicityVote (talk)02:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello.
    Just to add context to the message:
    I amnot a member of any political party, and if I ever were, I would make it clear on my user page and this conversation. I edit articles of people of all political backgrounds.
    I want theZagreb Wikipedia article to be stable, neutral, factually correct and of good quality. It is not in my interest to have any edit warring on the article, and all my edits are made in good faith.
    There is adiscussion about this very topic, in which I laid all my arguments. As of now, the last message was left by me on October 26.
    I am very sorry all of this this had to be brought up.
    Best regards,User4926 (talk)18:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: a compromise has been made. Consider this topic now irrelevant. ThanksUser4926 (talk)16:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please complete AfD

    [edit]

    After you removed the prod forAdam Brooks (wrestler) I have followed the instructions for a non registered account. Could you please complete it for me? Thanks.~2025-32464-30 (talk)03:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 10 November 2025

    [edit]
    *Read this Signpost in full *Single-page *Unsubscribe *MediaWiki message delivery (talk)12:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Research

    [edit]

    Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

    1 What does the editor think and feel:

    2 What does the editor say and do:

    3 What does the editor hear and see:

    4 What are is pains:

    5 What are is gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

    thanks to whoever will participate in this survey :)Tartaluca (talk)16:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Convection door talk page

    [edit]

    I am little confused what happened to the talk page forConvection door. I created one at the old title since there wasn't a talk page and someone moved to page fromConvection doors toConvection door but somewhere along the way the talk page got deleted.Katzrockso (talk)22:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Katzrockso,
    I think this is resolved now. A new editor renamed and moved the talk page (twice) and then it was deleted as an orphaned talk page. This is not uncommon, for some reason, inexperienced editors like to test their ability to move pages and sometimes they do so a dozen times. I think everything is back where it should be.LizRead!Talk!20:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Sorry for the bother.Katzrockso (talk)20:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird

    [edit]

    I thinkTalk:Venezuelanalysis.com/Archive 1 was created by some kind of mistake. The actual edits are atTalk:Venezuelanalysis. I thinkTalk:Venezuelanalysis.com/Archive 1 can be deleted.

    AlsoTalk:Covert incest/Archive 3 (wtf) can be deleted.

    AndTalk:Lubna Olayan/Temp.

    Thanks,Polygnotus (talk)01:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Polygnotus,
    I'll look into these. There does have to be a policy-based reason to delete a page and I'll see if there is one. Admins who delete pages "just because" find they aren't admins for much longer. Thanks for the alert though.LizRead!Talk!20:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They all fall under db-a3 (no content)Polygnotus (talk)20:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Liz (just a small complaint)

    [edit]

    I noticed you alerted me about a speedy deletion of a redirect, I just wanted to say that I would like for you to stop giving me those alertsshane(talk to me if you want!)19:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,shane,
    No problem. The reason you get these notices is that when you draftify an article from main space to another namespace, you should tag the original page with a speedy deltion tag, CSD R2. If you take care of this step like you should, I should have no reason to also tag these pages and you won't receive any more notifications. The reason you get these reminders is to alert you that you should be tagging these pages R2 but they weren't tagged. If you start, I won't need to and problem solved. Sound good?LizRead!Talk!20:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    okshane(talk to me if you want!)20:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please remove not just unlink

    [edit]

    I've noticed that a lot of the time you simply unlink deleted articles rather than removing them from navboxes and lists. Please fully remove them to save others the time of having to go back and do so. There is no reason to retain, for example, names of people without articles on lists of notable people. ♠PMC♠(talk)20:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,PMC,
    Sorry but I spend most of my daylight and night time hours working on this project. I delete hundreds of pages each day. I don't have time to check every single link to all of these pages. I think I will instead stop unlinking deleted pages if that would be a better solution. I was told when I was a new admin to remove all of the red links but if that is causing problems, I'll just stop unlinking them.LizRead!Talk!20:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This response makes no sense. I assume you're usingXFDcloser like everyone else? When I close an AfD using this tool, it automatically unlinks the article from all pages except those preceded with bullet links (ie, entries in lists and on navbox templates). Those links are thenpresented to me manually and I can click "keep item", "keep and request citation", or "remove". All I'm asking is that you click "remove" rather than unlink for lists and navboxes. ♠PMC♠(talk)20:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am once again asking you to simply click the "remove" button rather than unlinking non-notable people on lists and navboxes. I cannot understand your refusal to extend this courtesy to others considering all it takes is to click a different button on the same tool you are already using. ♠PMC♠(talk)04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I don't want to deal with your complaints,PMC, I don't do much work with AFD any more. It's easier for me to adjust and work on different areas of the project than try to accommodate your frequent demands. And I doubt you'll find any other admin who will also carry out your requests but for some reason you have focused on me even though I imagine all admins behave likewise to me. Good night.LizRead!Talk!04:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really disappointing to see you respond this way. One request, asked a second time, is "frequent demands"? I don'thave to ask other admins to do this, because they take the time to do the removals, as a courtesy to others. If you want to stop doing AfDs because someone politely asked you to click one button rather than the other, that strikes me as an unnecessary overreaction, but do as you like. ♠PMC♠(talk)05:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I share PMC's disappointment, this isn't just one editor making special requests. Many editors have asked you politely to stop leaving delinked or redlinked items in lists, navigation templates, etc that are only supposed to include bluelinks. Please take the time to use your tools properly and remove these items appropriately. It's time to stop relying on what you were apparently taught many years ago, on the few occasions that I've seen other admins making this mistake I've simply pointed it out to them and they've changed their ways. You're receiving multiple complaints about this because you're the only one who refuses to change. –dlthewave☎16:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And my mind is boggled that you can't understand how much extra work this request involves. I delete hundreds of pages each day, some have 3, 10, 40, 100+ links to other articles, and you are asking me to check every single link here. I work on this project about 80 hours/week and I can't add another 20 hours for checking links on every article I delete. I think I will instead pass on my tasks to you two since this is so important to you. I'll send you an email outlining my responsibilities.LizRead!Talk!21:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another disappointing response. If you are closing so many AfDs that you cannot take the time to look at what you are de-linking and perform the task correctly, the solution is to take the time to do things correctly, even if it means you personally close fewer AfDs. The encyclopedia will survive, and others will thank you for not forcing them to waste their time tidying up after you - as I'm sure you're aware, you are not the only editor whose time is valuable. I am a volunteer just like you, so I will continue to allocate my time as I see fit. Nevertheless I look forward to your email. ♠PMC♠(talk)21:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been on this platform for 12 years and had my share of disagreements but this dispute is unnecessarily unpleasant and I'm not sure why you are being so condescending. You don't like the way that I edit so I thought I would pass those duties along to you so that you have everything done exactly as you like. I thought this would be a solution to your complaint but you don't like this resolution either. I don't know what to do at this point except retire which I'm not ready to do yet. And, yes, I'm disappointed in you as well. Doesn't that feel horrible to read?LizRead!Talk!22:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you all must be talking at cross-purposes with each other. Liz, I don't think anyone's asking you to go through and look at every single link every time you close an AfD: this is just about the rare case when the "keep/remove" dialog box pops up on XFDcloser, like in the picture on the right. It sounds like PMC and dlthewave just want you to click the "remove" button a little more often, which I think is a reasonable ask. I'm thinking part of the confusion may be that Liz does a lot of unlinking with the Twinkle tool, which (if I remember correctly) doesn't give the list-item removal option like XFDcloser does. PMC/dlthewave, would you mind listing some of the diffs that prompted this conversation? That way we can at least be on the same page in trying to find a way forward, because I'm sure no one wants anyone to retire or stop closing AfDs or anything like that.Extraordinary Writ (talk)22:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    EW, here are a few just from the last couple days:[29],[30],[31],[32].
    As dl and I have both said now, we are asking for Liz to hit the "remove" button when de-linking from lists and navboxes, both of which are almost always supposed to contain only blue links/notable items. If something has been deleted, there's no reason to leave it on those pages. Removing these items does not require looking at every single link a page has, just moving the mouse an inch to the side to click a different button.
    Liz, I'm being condescending because you're being condescending. Your response to a clear, polite request for a smoother process has been to go on about your valuable time and workflow, exaggerate what's being asked of you, threaten to stop doing a task you self-assigned, then finally suggest you'll assign me something to do. None of that is a real proposal for a solution and you know it, so forgive me if I understand your tone as patronizing. ♠PMC♠(talk)22:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I suspected, those are all with Twinkle, whichI've just confirmed doesn't offer any option to remove the whole list entry. That's presumably why Liz is so confused here, because she's not seeing any "keep"/"remove" button at all and is assuming that you want her to just check every link manually. There are a couple of other scripts that don't have this problem: I useUser:Evad37/Xunlink, and I think Explicit just uses the "XFDC Unlink" button, both of which are built on XFDcloser rather than Twinkle. But yeah, I don't think Liz is just deliberately choosing to push the "keep" button when it isn't warranted.Extraordinary Writ (talk)23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but then the obvious desired response to a polite request that you maybe don't understand the context for is to ask for clarification. If I'm talking about a "remove" button and you've never seen one on your screen, ask what that is. I did say that I assumed she was using XFDcloser (which I linked to), and she didn't say otherwise, so I was operating under the assumption she was looking at the same set of buttons as me and therefore understood what I meant. ♠PMC♠(talk)23:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but hopefully now we can find a solution. Liz, I think this is an issue with PRODs more than anything else. The next time you delete a PROD, instead of using the "Unlink" button, would you try using the "XFDC Unlink" button instead? (For me it's under "More"; it won't appear untilafter you delete the page.) This is the button that Explicit uses for PRODs, and while it hassome problems of its own, it should at least take care of this issue. If you try that and don't like it, let me know and I can suggest something else.Extraordinary Writ (talk)23:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 21

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on October 24. Please helptranslate.
    Upcoming and current events and conversations
    Let's Talk continues
    Wikimania Santiago will happen in 2027.

    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Product Safety and Integrity ·Readers ·Research ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

    • Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week44 and45 including the community-submitted tasks that wereresolved last week.
    • Activity Tab: The Wikipedia Android app expands the newActivity tab to all users. It offers a complete view of your Wikipedia activity: reading time, saved articles, edits, and donation history (for known donors). This change aims to make Wikipedia a more engaging experience for readers and contributors alike, while keeping all personal data private and stored locally on your device.
    • Tabbed browsing:Tabbed browsing is now available on the Wikipedia App for iOS. Tabs will let you keep more than one article open at a time, making it easier to explore complex topics, follow links without losing your place, and pick up where you left off.
    • CampaignEvents extension: Autoconfirmed users onsmall andmedium wikis with the CampaignEvents extension can now useEvent Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.
    • Image browsing: The Wikimedia Foundation launchedimage browsing, an experiment that puts images on top of your Wikipedia article reading journey, on Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias.
    • Temporary accounts:Temporary Accounts are now enabled on 1,000+ projects including English Wikipedia.
    • Abstract Wikipedia naming contest:The first round of “abstract content wiki” naming vote has ended and the first legal review had begun to determine the 6 names that will make it to the second round on November 17.
    • Wikifunctions:Wikifunctions is now deployed across 12 Wiktionaries and 4 Wikipedias.

    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events

    Digital Safety Resource Center provides tips and tools to protect yourself online.

    Foundation statements


    Other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery23:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review forSpecial.̇CSD log/BodhiHarp

    [edit]

    An editor has asked fora deletion review ofSpecial.̇CSD log/BodhiHarp. 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. -BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk,contributions)06:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,User:BodhiHarp,
    Thank you for letting me know. Maybe now you can explain to me what this page is for.LizRead!Talk!06:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2027 Formula One World Championship

    [edit]

    Hi, you deleted this page per a deletion discussion. I had requested it throughWP:REFUND a couple of months ago to work on as there is enough information to expand it as a draft, and it will be relevant for mainspace within a couple months' time (and I want it to be ready before then). I never intended for it to be published to mainspace prior to January, and I tried to mention this in the discussion. Could you please return it to a draft?Electricmemory (talk)15:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am actually quite disappointed it was deleted as it contained a huge amount of finished content, and myself and other's don't want that work to be lost and another person to recreate a blank draft before we can get this one back.Electricmemory (talk)16:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should mention that the full article version of2026 Formula One World Championship was created on 5th May 2024, more than a year and a half before the season actually began, and nobody had problems with its existence.Electricmemory (talk)16:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz Penny for your thoughts?Electricmemory (talk)03:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Electricmemory,
    Did you make a request atWP:REFUND? What did they say?LizRead!Talk!03:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz I thought to inquire with you first as you deleted the page this time around.Electricmemory (talk)05:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz It's been dealt with at REFUND. Free to archive this or whateverElectricmemory (talk)17:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Test for category redirects

    [edit]

    Question about yourremoval of the redirect inCategory:Test for category redirects. What do you think about the result of the discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#Category:Test for category redirects? —⁠andrybak (talk)08:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale draft differences

    [edit]

    Hey Liz, you just handledDraft:Anthony Graham. Would you mind taking a quick look at it and letting me know if it differed significantly fromDraft:Anthony Graham (academic). I doubt it because if it had, it would have likely had edits to reset the clock, but I want to know if I continue to work on the disambiguated version, I won't be missing any additional information written about or using sources provided by another editor.

    Thanks,Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Bobby Cohn
    It looks like they are the same person. The lead sentence isan American educator, scholar, and academic administrator, currently serving as the Chancellor-Elect of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (UAPB). which looks pretty much identical to the second draft. I'll go back and see who the main contributors to the page were.LizRead!Talk!21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is weird. You created this page as a redirect when you moved the draft article to the other page title and later, for some reason KylieTastic used (clean up (DraftCleaner)) and it removed redirect and filled out the article. I've never seen an AFC reviewer do this so you might ask KylieTastic why she did that edit and since she is now an admin, she has access to the deleted content on the page. But, at this point, I think they are probably identical versions of the same article since there were no edits to this draft after KylieTastic's edits.LizRead!Talk!21:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks

    [edit]

    Thank you for keeping Wikipedia intact as you did atUser talk:Ashwin2022.

    Spritor (talk)03:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    hello

    [edit]

    Hello! (XLs6 (talk)17:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

    2020 Democratic Party for the People leadership election

    [edit]

    Hey there, I noticed that about four years ago you deleted2020 Democratic Party for the People leadership election following a PROD regarding notability. I've been updating Japanese political party leadership elections, including for the DPFP. English language sources for this one are scarce, but Japanese ones, which I have primarily been working from for other pages, are plentiful -ja:2020年国民民主党代表選挙 has 65 citations. Would I be able to recreate this page or would there still be notability issues in your judgment?Erinthecute (talk)07:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Erinthecute,
    It's difficult to judge a deleted page but since it was a proposed deletion (PROD), I can restore upon request. If you would prefer, I could then move it to Draft space where it is unlikely to be deleted again. Let me know what you want.LizRead!Talk!22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Restoring it and moving it to Draft space would be great. Thanks so much.Erinthecute (talk)23:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Erinthecute,
     Done You can find it atDraft:2020 Democratic Party for the People leadership election. If you look at the page history, you can find and read the PROD deletion rationale. Good luck with your work.LizRead!Talk!23:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    December 2025 administrator elections - schedule

    [edit]

    Administrator Elections |Schedule

    • The December 2025 administrator elections are set to proceed.
    • We plan to use the following schedule:
      • Nov 25 – Dec 1: Candidate sign-up
      • Dec 4 – Dec 8: Discussion phase
      • Dec 9 – Dec 15: SecurePoll voting phase
    • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask atWikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk)08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for guidance regarding ongoing Zinfandel / Kratošija issue

    [edit]

    Hi Liz,I’m reaching out because you were the only person who previously noticed and acknowledged the unilateral redirect of the Kratošija article to Zinfandel. I really appreciated that, and it stayed with me because it was the first time someone recognised that there was no prior consensus.Since then, I’ve sincerely tried to follow every instruction that was given at ANI. I moved everything to Talk:Zinfandel, announced all proposed edits in advance, provided full sourcing, and avoided re-adding anything that had been reverted. I tried to handle everything as calmly and procedurally as possible.However, editorUser:Dalida has continued to remove all of my edits with summaries such as “NPOV and misinformations”, but without explaining on the talk page what exactly is considered incorrect. Aside from that, the explanation I provided on the talk page was also ignored specifically by Dalida, not by you or any other editor. I have opened several detailed sections on the talk page and pinged Dalida, but there has been no engagement. The reverting simply continues without clarification.This pattern of reverting without discussion seems to run against several core policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TALK, WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN and WP:OWN, because there was no attempt to specify what exactly was incorrect, no engagement with the sources, and no effort to work toward shared wording.

    I have been trying very hard not to take this personally and not to escalate anything, but at this point I genuinely don’t know how to proceed when one editor continually reverts but refuses to discuss the content. I would really appreciate your advice — not to take sides, just guidance on the correct next step.

    Should I open a DRN case, start an RfC, or is there a better approach?Here are the relevant links:• Latest revert by Dalida:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinfandel&oldid=1322708866

    • My previous edit that was reverted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinfandel&oldid=1322707166

    • Talk page posts where I explained everything in advance:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zinfandel#Proposal:_Improving_structure_and_sourcing_consistency_regarding_Krato%C5%A1ija_(synonym_of_Zinfandel)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zinfandel#Implementation_note_%E2%80%93_History_subsection_updatehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zinfandel#Clarification_%E2%80%93_Budva_and_Venetian_administration

    Thank you very much for any guidance you can offer. I really want to handle this in the right way and remain fully within policy.VitisArchivum (talk)20:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your proposal and your own communication onTalk:Zinfandel appears to be AI-generated. We aren't interested in communicating with AIs, or including AI-generated content. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)20:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Anachronist,
    Thanks again for getting back to me.
    This time you say: “We aren't interested in communicating...” As I initialy wrote to Liz, on her talk page, I expected that conversation will continue there... Anyway, since We've already spoken , I'll say the following: I think, It would be good if we could be focused on source verification and the substance of the text, in the interest of our shared goal, of making the text as neutral and accurate as possible, and covering all aspects of the given topic. As for the AI, not a single source, reference, or anything of substance is, or can be, AI-generated in this text. Everything is verifiable. I kindly ask you to check every quote, read all the cited references, which are available online, and then we can continue the discussion. AI is a tool for language assistance and proofreading, especially for people who are not native English speakers. We are all aware of hallucinations and various other anomalies that AI brings with it. It would be strange to assume, that someone relies on AI for the essence of the work, the verifiability of references, citations, etc. In times when AI didn't exist, people used Google Translate and various online translators, as well as programs for tables and diagrams like Excel, Word, and later Grammarly, ProWritingAid, etc. Since AI detection tools are not considered reliable evidence on Wikipedia, and cannot determine whether a comment is AI generated, I belive it is important that instead subject "AI", we stay focused on disscution about sources and content , since those are central to the article. Very important sources and facts pertain to the very essence of the topic. I would like you to join the talk page for Zinfndel, so we can have constructive discussion about the essence of the topic of the Zinfandel article, that our goal be substance, not form. Most important is content accuracy and verifiability. Wording can allways be refined collaboratively, in good faith. AI can't provide the kind of historical and scientific details, I presented on the talk page of Zinfandel. As one of the significant , long-time editors of the article, your engagement with the cited sources would be valuable. I am looking forward to see you on the talk page for Zinfandel.
    By the way :
    Although I studied LLM isue myself, I am grateful to some honest, experienced editors who guided me to WP:LLMCOMM.
    Now, LLM matter seems resolved, I hope we can finally move to the main topic .The issue at hand. The Zinfandel article, slowly, detail by detail, and all with the best of intentions, I hope. I look forward to your participation on Talk:Zinfandel.VitisArchivum (talk)14:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Translated with DeepL.com.VitisArchivum (talk)14:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of statsmodels page: request for undelete

    [edit]

    Hi LizYou deleted the statsmodels page on 24 May 2024

    The google scholar page currently has `Cited by 7564`. This year, so far, it has close to 1600 citations mainly in scientific journals across many fields.Statsmodels the main statistics and econometrics package in Python, and usually shows up in top 10 or top 15 Python packages for data science and related areas.

    If this does not count as "notability", then what does?

    Also there are books, online courses, college and university courses that uses it. Statsmodels is part of the current dominance of Python as a programming language with a wide range of applications.

    What can I do to reinstate or undelete the statsmodels page?

    Because of the missing statsmodels page, statsmodels was also deleted from `https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_statistical_packages` which is really annoying to me because it include many niche packages with few users compared to statsmodels. And my effort to maintain the information there is wasted.Josefpktd (talk)22:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Josefpktd,
    Please give me a link to the deleted page and then I can have an answer for you. I don't delete pages for no reason so I need to review the page to find out what that reason was. Thanks.LizRead!Talk!22:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Statsmodels_(2nd_nomination)
    I don't have access to the original page. The link is the deletion discussion.
    Also, there are essentially still no traditional review articles.
    Introduction and popularity comes from online material (many examples, blog posts) and educational material (courses, online courses and books).
    For example, a listing of online courses that seem to use statsmodelshttps://www.classcentral.com/subject/statsmodels
    or a recent review (including critical comments at the end)https://www.econometricstutor.co.uk/econometrics-libraries-and-packages-statsmodels-python
    Here is what copilot tells me about statsmodels:
    "Mature and widely cited in tutorials and educational material; commonly recommended when statistical inference matters"
    It's widely used, but it is not a main part in the current machine learning and data science hype because it does "boring" traditional statistics and econometrics.
    just another example
    DATA 0250. Applied Statistics in Python. is a course at Brown universityhttps://bulletin.brown.edu/datascience/#courseinventory
    The last sentence is "Students from the humanities and social sciences are particularly encouraged to enroll in this course." which is typical for the fields that need traditional statistic.
    Most of the citations for statsmodels are in natural sciences like biology, humanities, medical and similar areas.
    Aside: I did not get an email notification of your reply. So, I'm sorry to reply late.Josefpktd (talk)19:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    just another example, that I found funny when I saw it initially:
    The announcement of Python in Microsoft Excel explicitly mentioned statsmodels and sklearn packages
    https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/excelblog/announcing-python-in-excel-combining-the-power-of-python-and-the-flexibility-of-/3893439
    Furthermore, statsmodels is included as a core library by default
    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/open-source-libraries-and-python-in-excel-c817c897-41db-40a1-b9f3-d5ffe6d1bf3e
    So at least Microsoft finds statsmodels useful and "notable".Josefpktd (talk)20:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

    [edit]

    Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

    TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

    If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Croatia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2025

    [edit]

    Hi! Could you pls restore this page? I would like to add Wikiprojects templates. Why don't I just create a new page? I would like to keep the early history of the page and continue it. Thanks :D -- 04:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Nurtenge (talk)04:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Nurtenge,
    Please provide me with a direct link to the page you are concerned about so I can see why it was deleted. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!08:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Croatia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2025 here you are --Nurtenge (talk)08:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Can you please kindly check that?Nurtenge (talk)19:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Books & Bytes – Issue 71

    [edit]
    The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
    Issue 71, September–October 2025
    • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
    • Frankfurt Book Fair
    • Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template
    Read the full newsletter

    Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team –15:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (This message was sent toUser:Liz and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

    Auto archive

    [edit]

    @TonySt I believe Liz is fine with auto-archiving since they previously liked my edit. The page is long, and it looks like Liz has been archiving it manually, so adding the bot should help. @Liz, let me know if you’d like me to set it up.Cinaroot (talk)04:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Cinaroot,
    Please do not do anything like that, once an editor imposed a bot archiving content and it completely messed up my archives and I've never had the time to straighten it out. I'll manually archive messages, you just can't expect me to do act on demand. I'll get to it when I get to it. I have a lot of duties here.LizRead!Talk!04:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry — not trying to impose. I just wanted to help. A bot with a simple {{Archives}} setup would take care of it automatically, just FYI. Your call. Thanks.Cinaroot (talk)04:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,Cinaroot,
    The bot that was used here a few years ago, randomly put messages in archive folders that had space, rather than placing them in folders chronologically. At some point (never), I need to go through the 40+ folders and rearrange them according to date, not available space. I just don't want to go through that again. But thanks you for trying to help that was kind of you.LizRead!Talk!05:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Re AfD talk page notifications

    [edit]

    The reason I have not been doing this is because, at least when I started Indiana, none of the people who created these articles had contributed in several years, andpro forma notifications of the retired are a blight. There is only one of these who ever payed any attention to the notices anyway. I see thatUser:Evking22 has returned, and I will resume notifying them.Mangoe (talk)12:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FPT Software

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, back in JulyI !voted to merge FPT Software with the article on its parentFPT Corporation. A subsequent discussion on theTalk:FPT Software turned up some sourcing which meets the criteria for establishing notability. Had this sourcing been highlighted at the AfD, I would have !voted to Keep. An attempt to restore the article was overturned byPppery (pinging now) citingWP:CONLEVEL which, in my opinion, ignoresWP:CCC. Given the original AfD had minimal participation, I personally don't see why the article shouldn't just be restored and the new sourcing added, or even the article is restored and sent back to AfD. I was about to do this myself but thoughts it might be best to ping the closing adming instead (that's you!). Can either you or Pppery let me know what should be the next step? HighKing++18:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored that article and I'll fix it up and add new sources as perWP:CCC. If anyone wants to stick it back in AfD, feel free. HighKing++12:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reshat Ramadani

    [edit]

    Hey Liz, may you please DRAFTIYReshat Ramadani, he just made his international debut and I reckon will pass GNG now. I will spruce up the page to see. Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk)20:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Ortizesp,
     Done You can find it atDraft:Reshat Ramadani. I don't recommend moving it back to main space or it is likely to get tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. Good luck!LizRead!Talk!05:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks. Someone already moved it to draftspace, but it's spruced up and should be good to go going forward.--Ortizesp (talk)14:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FilmLight Colour Awards

    [edit]

    I don’t remember exactly, but can you tell me what happened to the page thatFilmLight Colour Awards was redirected to?Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)05:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,Jeraxmoira🐉,
    Oh, this is no problem to check, you created this redirect toColorist Society International#Relationship to awards. This page was later moved to Draft space and/or deleted.LizRead!Talk!05:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_do_I_get_sanctions_lifted?

    [edit]

    Hi! Mentioned you here and wanted to drop a note. Not sanctions you're involved with, but you had two G2 notes on @FloridaArmy's Talk, and I think it was script error. They don't create test pages and all I see in the history looks like the usual dummy edits to reset G13 clock. Anything in particular you remember from this to weigh in? Thanks either wayStarMississippi13:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Wilderun" Article Recreation

    [edit]

    I've noticed that you deleted theWilderun article way back in 2016. Since their album releasesVeil of Imagination (2019) andEpigone (2022), they've become fairly notable for independent articles and sources. I even just finished the base draft on mysandbox page. Would it be alright to submit it as a standalone article, and then build on it?SenselessRumble (talk)21:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion highlighting script

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, could you possible help me with a link of the script/CSS which highlights links of pages tagged for deletion as you mentioned earlier on my talk? It will help me avoid mistakes likeUser talk:Bunnypranav#Mistaken CFD filing. Thanks a lot!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>03:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ko Yong-suk

    [edit]

    If you'd bothered to check, this redirect was just NPP'd and if you'd read my edit summary, you'd have seen I'm working on the target, seeUser:MisawaSakura/Ko Yong Suk.MisawaSakura (talk)02:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It was erroneouslypatrolled by a bot. That doesn't make it acceptable to create broken redirects.jlwoodwa (talk)06:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was working on the article and finished it about 45 minutes later and had to recreate the redirect. I put that fact in the edit summary. All this delete did was cause uneeded extra work when STOPPING and thinking (see top of this talk page) would have prevented all this. Several wiki "rules" make no sense.MisawaSakura (talk)12:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now what would make sense is if Liz would archive most of this overly long 551K talk page.MisawaSakura (talk)12:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete justification forMaybe Mars

    [edit]

    I had left the justification in the edit summary so didn't properly put it in the box: "The article is about a record label with almost no independent coverage, self-promotion, possibly paid to inflate the label’s presence because of all the other similar articles of artists under the label"

    Something else noteworthy about article is the clean up tag from 15 years ago indicating the lack of citation problem isn't solvable.Underminer1000 (talk)06:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cliff Divine

    [edit]

    Hi. I seem to remember the article had a photo of Cliff Divine themself. Can you get me that file name? I can't find it via Commons search. (Please ping me if you respond.) Thanks,The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk)08:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) It wasFile:Cliff Divine.jpg, which wasdeleted on Commons.jlwoodwa (talk)16:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that saves me the trouble of nominating it for deletion as no longer being in scope..The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk)19:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Elections - Call for Candidates

    [edit]

    The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions atWikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates.

    Here is the schedule:

    • November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
    • December 4–8 - Discussion phase
    • December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

    Please note the following:

    • The requirements to run are identical toRFA—a prospective candidate must beextended confirmed.
    • Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewingsuccessful andunsuccessful RFAs, reading the essayWikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting anoptional poll on their chances of passing.
    • The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
    • The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There isno official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
    • Administrator elections are also avalid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

    Ask any questions about the process at thetalk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

    If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 22

    [edit]
    Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on November 7. Please helptranslate.

    Upcoming and current events and conversations
    Let's Talk continues

    Join the celebration for Wikipedia’s 25th virtual birthday party.

    Annual Goals Progress onInfrastructure
    See also newsletters:Wikimedia Apps ·Growth ·Product Safety and Integrity ·Readers ·Research ·Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia ·Tech News ·Language and Internationalization ·other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

    • Tech News: Some of the latest updates from Tech News week46 and47: Wikimedia Foundation is experimentating withreading lists on mobile web, allowing logged-in readers with no edits to save private lists of articles for later; One new wiki has been created: a Wikisource inMinangkabau.
    • Wikifunctions: The second round of voting for naming the wiki with abstract content is kicking off withsix name proposals to vote for.
    • Reference check: The A/B test forreference check has begun on English Wikipedia and will run until December 17. This is a feature which prompts new editors to add citations before they publish an edit adding content to an article.
    • Image browsing: Wikimedia Foundation is launching an experiment called "Image browsing" to test how to make it easier for readers to browse and discover images on Wikipedia articles. This experiment, a mobile-only A/B test, is taking place on on Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese wikis, affecting a small number of users.
    • CampaignEvents extension:Campaign events extension is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. The extension offers tools for running and coordinating events and other on-wiki collaborations. These features includeEvent Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List, plus a new feature,Collaborative contribution, which helps organizers and participants see the impact of their collaborative activities. Join theupcoming learning session to see the new feature in action and share your feedback.
    • Dark Mode: Dark mode is now available on all Wikimedia projects for all anonymous users! This enhancement aims to deliver a more enjoyable reading experience, especially in dimly lit environments.Learn how to activate this feature.
    • Wikimedia Apps:The Activity tab in the Wikipedia Android app is now available for all users. The new tab offers personalized insights into reading, editing, and donation activity, while simplifying navigation and making app use more engaging.
    • Usability Improvements:Improvements for talk pages is beingrolled out. Users can opt out of these changesin their user preferences in “Show discussion activity.”

    Annual Goals Progress onVolunteer Support
    See also blogs:Global Advocacy blog ·Global Advocacy Newsletter ·Policy blog ·WikiLearn News ·list of movement events

    Annual Goals Progress onEffectiveness
    See also:Progress on the annual plan

    Board and Board committee updates
    SeeWikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard ·Affiliations Committee Newsletter

    • Affiliations Committee:Draft recommendations on three strategic areas that need continuous consideration to best support Wikimedia affiliates.

    Foundation statements

    Other Movement curated newsletters & news
    See also:Diff blog ·Goings-on ·Planet Wikimedia ·Signpost (en) ·Kurier (de) ·Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) ·Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) ·Wikimag (fr) ·Education ·GLAM ·The Wikipedia Library ·Milestones ·Wikidata ·Central and Eastern Europe ·other newsletters

    Subscribe or unsubscribe ·Help translate

    For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see theproject page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


    MediaWiki message delivery17:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Social Reckoning

    [edit]

    Hi, it looks like we disagree on whether the pageThe Social Reckoning should be placed inCategory:2026 biographical drama films orCategory:2020s biographical drama films. I believe it should be the latter because the page has already been automatically categorized intoCategory:2026 films, so it stands to reason that it's appropriate to move it into any relevant subcategories.ThanatosApprentice (talk)06:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bus Route AfDs

    [edit]

    Hi Liz, you've just closed a few of the Bus Routes AfD as no consensus, and perhaps that is right, but in this one, for instance, there is prima facie 5:3 majority for delete. Of course, WP:DISCARD ought to apply to the nom., but the same could be said of a vague wave to sources, and the procedural keep has no policy reasons to keep either, so I don't see how that skews things back. Only one keep !vote discusses any sources at all, and the next three !votes disagreed, and in mine IAjf773 specifically reviewed and attempted to refute the argument from those sources. There's a viable ATD. Would you be able to expand on why you think there's no consensus there? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

    ETA: I have just noticed that Ajf773 !voted on that one twice. That puts it more in line with the others, but still, it is not totally clear why that is no consensus and not a consensus to do something. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

    Hello, Sirfurboy,
    Most of these AFDs had been relisted twice and I didn't see an obvious consensus for most of them (I did close one as Delete). I have a full day here as it's the day before a big holiday and I don't want to spend it arguing so I accept that in the one you pointed out that you are correct and I read the discussion incorrectly so I have reverted my closure.
    By the way, have you ever considered becoming a NAC closer for AFDs? I think you'd do a very thorough job and we are short on AFD closers right now. I realize that you participate in a lot of AFD discussions but there are still plenty of other discussions we could use your help with. Please consider this suggestion. Most of the NAC closers that come our way are pretty new editors and you have a great deal of knowledge and experience. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!19:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz. Well I hadn't thought of closing AfDs so much as I think you once encouraged me just to get involved in participating in them. But if you are short of closers, I'll certainly look at doing some. Have a happy Thanksgiving, and all the best to you and yours.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)19:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks 🙏

    [edit]
    The Minor Barnstar
    Thanks for finding the most tiny error, but helped a lot. Thank you and congrats. 🇳🇿Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿08:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz&oldid=1324389051"
    Hidden category:
    [8]ページ先頭
    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp