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. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013 Well said!LizRead!Talk!
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.
While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)
Hi! I saw that you are the editor that deleted the Raleigh Memorial Auditorium article. I was wondering if you would be able to undo that, or provide the old body from the previous article so that I can add that in when making a new article under the auditorium's new name "Martin Marietta Center for the Performing Arts"? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. Willthacheerleader18, you are better off starting from scratch. Since its creation, the page has been almost entirely lacking in independent verifiable sources or any real facts to show that it meets the notability criteria. It's also promotional in tone (recently enhancing the space to blend state-of-the-art technical amenities with traditional theatre traditions... a unique experience perfect for ballet, opera, concerts, and comedy... this space is also the idea blank slate for video shoots, meetings, and corporate luncheons) and a substantial copyright violation of the theatre's website. In any case, the G12 precludes restoration as a draft. Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Maybe you can explain WP:REDLINK and MOS:BIRTHDATE to Robin82346? They won't listen to me, and they've been deleting red links with the editsummary Fixed dead link. Many of their edits are subpar, and many of them should be reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the categories of North Indian and South Indian descent.
Greetings,
I noticed that you placed a speedy deletion tag on the categories Category:American people of South Indian descent and Category:American people of North Indian descent. I would like to offer some reasons why these categories should be retained, as they highlight important aspects of diversity within the broader Indian-American community:
Recognition of Cultural and Regional Diversity:
India is an incredibly diverse country with distinct regional identities, languages, cuisines, traditions, and cultural practices. Categorizing individuals of South Indian and North Indian descent helps acknowledge these unique aspects within the diaspora, which otherwise might be overlooked in broader, generalized categories.
Better Representation:
These categories allow for a more granular understanding of how various communities contribute to American society. For example, South Indian Americans have made significant contributions in fields like technology and classical arts, while North Indian Americans are prominent in areas like politics and Bollywood-inspired media.
Facilitating Research and Accessibility:
Scholars, journalists, and readers looking to explore specific contributions or experiences of South Indian or North Indian communities in the U.S. will find such categorization invaluable. It ensures that resources and information are easier to locate and study.
Reflecting Diaspora Identity:
Many Indian Americans identify strongly with their regional heritage (e.g., Tamil, Kannada, Punjabi, or Gujarati). These categories validate and reflect the lived experiences and identities of people within the diaspora.
Consistency with Other Ethnic Subcategories:
Wikipedia frequently recognizes subcategories for other ethnic or national groups, such as Category:American people of Basque descent or Category:American people of Scots-Irish descent. The proposed categories are consistent with this practice of nuanced representation.
I believe these categories enrich Wikipedia’s diversity and inclusivity by acknowledging the varied and vibrant backgrounds within the Indian-American community. I hope this perspective provides a reason to reconsider the deletion proposal.
Looking forward to your response! SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this message is supposed to mean. Why are reposting a message from May 2024 on my User talk page? What are you asking for? LizRead!Talk!02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea either; you can contact the original commenter. I was just moving a message that had been misplaced on the wrong page in case it meant anything. Passengerpigeon (talk)03:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Liz! My name is Jayson Sherlock and I'm a musical artist and have been on Wikipedia for many years, I have many fans worldwide who use Wikipedia to find out information about me. I have no offensive material on my page and would never accept anything of that nature. I hope you will reinstate my page so my fans can continue to learn more about me. Thank you so very much. Blessings, Jayson. 115.64.107.101 (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to entertain the notion that it's someone related to the recent ArbCom case? I have filed an SPI request yesterday (under a different IP, as my home IP granted by my ISP is dynamic), but it seems that the request was shot down by an admin before it could have been reviewed.
I have been detailing that account for a while now and with their recent harassment by copypasting a CTOP warning (intended for themselves) to their victim (which is reminiscent of their behaviour on the Japanese wiki), I am confident to say that it is the very same person behind it, from the topics involved to the account they're (currently) harassing, as well as the edit timelines between the 2 (1 has been active, while the other has stopped completely). I have also sent an email with updated info regarding this to the CU team, perhaps you should ring them up regarding this.
On a final note, previously I was told off by users with something along the lines of "that misconduct on non-EN wikis aren't indicative of a user's behaviour on EN", I would like to think otherwise, misconduct is misconduct and a leopard never changes its spots. 14.192.215.18 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liz! I was wondering if you could RevDel this diff that I made to my userpage (and the first edit of my userpage) in November of 2020, it unfortunately has my real name in it and I don't want to be self-doxxed on Wikipedia, especially since I'd assume people go to "first diffs" of pages just to see how they've changed over time. Thanks! EF517:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I saw that you handled one of these for EF5, and I was wondering if you could get everything from this diff back to the beginning of the user page, and for the same reasons.
Done And I took care of 2 edits on your User talk page, too. But there is a message in your talk page archives you're going to want to remove as well. LizRead!Talk!19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get that one; is there anyway to RD the name from my talk page history or am I just going to have to live with it?
Yes. The reason I didn't say anything is because of the renaming policy, where it says something about linking to previous names. As long as it's OK to delete that, I would love to.
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Liz! I saw you made edits on the Simple Wikipedia. I have no idea what site is that, but you said it is your name. This is a famous convicted scammer with the fake agency for bots and fake accounts online.All the articles there are paid and fake and you can see that when you check them. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano
I am really not well acquained with the Simple English Wikipedia and how to nominate articles for deletion. Every Wikimedia project has their own system. But I do know that Vermont is an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia. I'd recommend posting a request on their Simple User talk page] and see if they can look into this matter for you. But admin privileges are not transferable so I am just a basic editor on that project and I don't visit it very often. Good luck! LizRead!Talk!20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be careful when discussing this editor as we have had conflicts in the past. It's not an accident that they happened across this draft deletion. I'm sure they will be reading this discussion, too.
I'll just say, thank you for addressing the mistake so quickly. All systems like bots have errors and the important element is to note when they happen and fix them promptly which it looks like you did. Thank you for your efforts to be responsive and for creating GalaxyBot. LizRead!Talk!02:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Hey. You left some comments in this discussion in November 2024. That discussion was eventually archived and no actions were taken. However, that same editor wrote this edit summary yesterday, which is once again targeted at me. Actions by administrators must be taken, because this has been going on for far too long. – sbaio20:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a polite edit summary, I'll admit, but why on Earth are you editing a draft that this editor created when you have a history of disputes with them? Stop looking at their contribution history and just keep distance between the two of you. I'm not going to sanction this editor for snapping at you when you came to a draft they created and were working on and chose to edit it, given the past history between you two. Don't monitor each other. Just work on your own projects. LizRead!Talk!22:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that draft was largely abandoned about five months. In addition, that draft is a WP:CFORK of multiple pages that have all that information. And I see that editor's contributions, because there are some pages on my watchlist that are sometimes edited by that particular editor. The "snapping" has been going on for more than a year and it all started when I tried to explain about WP:DATERET, which that editor ignored. So yes, I have a very good reason to look at history, because someone is getting away by constantly making personal attacks and breaking guidelines/policies. – sbaio22:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I PRODded this article on November 26 and then the page creator proceeded to remove the PROD template, which led to the category for the proposed deletion being deleted (by you). What should I do here? CutlassCiera23:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to need more information here. The category for the day's proposed deletions (like Category:Proposed deletion as of 27 November 2024 for today) is deleted at the end of the UTC day when all tagged articles and files have either been deleted or de-PROD'd. It's a maintenance category and the day has passed. You must mean a different category. Can you provide a link to the category you are concerned about? LizRead!Talk!23:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cutlass, once an article has been de-PROD'd, you can't PROD it again. A PROD happens only once. An editor removing the PROD tag doesn't need a good reason to remove the tag or offer any reason at all. You'll need to bring this article to WP:AFD if you are still seeking its deletion. LizRead!Talk!01:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can remove a PROD tag, the article creator, a registered editor, a random IP editor. I think you are thinking of CSD Speedy deletion, for CSDs, the page creator can not remove a CSD tag. And no one can remove an AFD/RFD/CFD/etc. tag until the discussion is closed. I hope this clear things up. LizRead!Talk!01:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: Prod is for deletions which are relatively uncontroversial–if anyone disagrees with the tag, then by definition the deletion is not uncontroversial. --Finngalltalk06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking some direction on this deletion discussion. The main reference being argued for showing notability was discussed here where even one of the keep votes suggested it needs additional consideration, and here where there is clear consensus that it is not reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also did not want to taint the discussion but this user who voted keep is awaiting behavioral review at SPI. Was hoping they would have been blocked before the end of the discussion but SPI appears to be busy. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking me to do here. Reconsider the AFD closure? Even if Sunuraju is judged to be a sock, I don't know if they would be a sockmaster or a sockpuppet and that would affect whether or not their AFD argument was struck. I'm not going to judge evidence on an SPI when a checkuser has been requested and, unfortunately, SPI is usually backlogged. And I wouldn't be surprised if there are some open cases from October that haven't been closed yet! And Sunuraju wasn't identified as a sock in the first two instances of this SPI in November that were closed so it is far from clear whether they would be identified as a sock in the current open investigation.
But even if Sunuraju's AFD argument was struck (and it wasn't even an argument so I didn't give it any weight), then I still think there was enough support for a Keep of this article or, at the least, a No consensus closure and the Keep arguments relied on more than the Youlin Magazine reference. Are you considering taking this to Deletion review? LizRead!Talk!19:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Liz. I am not asking based on the SOCK. I think I am mentioning it because of the SOCK activity that we see in these pages and don't want one of their keep votes to influence others to vote keep. The SPI was just re-opened which is a separate issue so please disregard me even mentioning it.
I don't feel like wasting time with a deletion review. You made the best decision based on the information presented so not questioning why you closed it. I think that I should have at least left a comment prior to close about the discussion with Youlin not being considered reliable by the film taskforce. This could have possibly led to a no-consensus at the least but not sure. So no, I won't be at DRV as you made the decision based on the information presented. Maybe hoping you could turn it into a no-consensus based on the new information about the source being unreliable. If not, that is fine as well. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you put a speedy deletion tag on Category:Peruvian companies established in 2011 because it's currently empty. The problem is: I've detected that someone created Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú S.A.. I then created this category according to the model of other already existing categories Peruvian companies established in yyyy, and added the 2011 category to this new article. After this, another fellow wikipedian moved the new article from mainspace to draftspace where it's now awaiting revision: Draft:Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú S.A.. So that emptied my category.
So what should I do? Wait whether the revision will be successful and then create my speedy-deleted category again? Remove the speedy deletion tag because I assume the new article will be moved to mainspace again soon?
Empty categories are easy! You can only remove the CSD C1 speedy deletion tag from an empty category if it is no longer empty. We don't keep empty categories because they might be needed in the future. But here's the thing about CSD C1s...if the category is ever needed in the future, it can just be recreated! Either by an editor or you can go to the admin who deleted it or go to WP:REFUND and ask that it be restored. No problem. So, don't worry about a category that you might need when your draft is in main space, the category might not be deleted yet but even if it is, poof! we'll just restore it. Sound good? LizRead!Talk!08:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I nominated the European Cricket League 2023 for deletion with the suggestion it could be merged with the overall league page. You kindly agreed with this and closed the AFD today. But I checked and the page is still there. I'm still quite new to this process so could you explain how the merging happens and do I need to do anything as the AFD nominator? Thanks for your time reading this. Best wishes.
Hello again Liz. After lots of reading into page merging, I've made sure the relevant content has been included and set up a redirect. Hopefully I did it correctly. Anyway you can ignore my question now. Sorry to trouble you. All the best, Shrug02 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with asking questions although it can take me a while to respond. Who actually takes care of a merge is really up to whomever wants to take on the project or which editors if more than one person wants to be involved. The AFD closer only tags the pages, they don't handle the merge. Unfortunately, some merges can sit for a long time before an interested editor takes on the work. LizRead!Talk!22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merge. The process looks complicated but just follow the steps to set up a discussion on the article talk page and post the notices. Once the discussion is over, an uninvolved editor will close it for you.
If you have other questions about where to find information on this enormous project, I recommend visiting the Teahouse. I know a few things having edited for years but at the Teahouse, you'll find the combined knowledge of all of the editors who visit it to answer questions. It's more than I can help you with with my limited experience. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!22:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I had tried and waited over three days and never got a response.
That's why I did the AFD as it has a more public platform.
If I was to be honest, I feel like there should be a MFD but it has become inactive as of late and the project seems to be abandoned and if I could I would re-establish it but idk the proper procedures for it.
Reader of Information, what were the articles involved in this proposed merge? Maybe there is a related WikiProject where we can find interested editors. But three days is not a long time on this project, some Merge proposals are open for a month or two before they are closed. LizRead!Talk!22:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was II Corps into the hatnote linked article which can be seen here:
Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.
Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June.
Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here.
Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.
To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Wow, well, thanks for letting me know. I'm bummed that you didn't get in. I hope you will consider running again next year. I remember meeting you at the Wikipedia Conference in 2019 with "Katie" and I was looking forward to getting to work with you. I really admire you, putting yourself through a process you could expect would be adversarial. That shows grit. LizRead!Talk!00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that means a lot to me. I was looking forward to it as well, but this obviously isn't really a surprise. I'm sure the team you are coming in with can ferret out whatever it is that has been making the committee so apathetic lately, perhaps just the influx of perspectives and personalities will have the desired effect. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today01:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz - congratulations on your resounding win. It is clearly a sign that the community recognizes the many ways you've contributed to the project, both in your personal qualities and in the work you've done. If I may throw a word of caution out there - as an arb I found people less willing to extend me good faith than they did before. So I would suggest to the extent that you're going to continue your admin work around deletion that you follow the pledge you made at ANI not to close things early, something you've done a few times even since that thread (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_Pichincha). Fortunately XfDCloser makes it easy to know when you're closing something early. You have some great new colleagues on the committee but if there are anyways I can be of assistance to you please don't hesitate to reach out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Barkeep49, I think. You are sending a pretty mixed message. The AFD you highlight was closed 15 minutes early which I don't think is egregious. We have some NACs who close AFDs a day early. At this point, I have closed hundreds (thousands?) of AFDs so I wouldn't be surprised if I made a mistake on a few of them. And if you could spare a few hours a day to help out closing AFDs, your help would be welcomed there.
I agree with you that the 10 AfDs (from a review of the close of the AFD to Dec 2) and 2 PRODs (from the review of a single day) all were 30 minutes or less early which is one reason I hadn't said anything prior to now. But also people like me who don't close early can't possibly pitch in if others close early (and thanks for the note about NACs happening a day wearly; I will try to spend some time watching for that as that is far more troubling). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AMAZING. Congratulations and well deserved. FWIW, 15m early is a non issue but you know I'm one of the guilty early closers. But if I may make one minor suggestion, slightly more archiving? Currently choking my admittedly four year old computer. StarMississippi03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dear Star Mississippi! Believe it or not, I just archived all of the messages from September 2024 from this page, I thought having 2 months' worth of talk page messages was okay. Maybe I should reduce it to one month.
This election result was a surprise. It almost takes the sting away from my tumultuous RFA nine years ago. I try not to reflect too much on the past but, boy, that was a brutal experience. For any talk page stalker, running for ARBCOM is much less abrasive than having an RFA. So, consider that when November 2025 comes around next year and editors ask you to consider being a candidate. LizRead!Talk!03:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm it's much speedier now. Perhaps my cache caught it at the wrong time or something more techy that I don't quite get. I don't think I'll have the on wiki time to ever be an Arb, but your feedback on process is reassuring. Congrats again! StarMississippi00:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2025 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.
Please use the EmailUser function to indicate the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business.
Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the VRT users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45). Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed them. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.
Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.
Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.
L235, this notice makes it sounds like it should be soooo easy but it took several tries to even get to the correct page. The first instruction should be "Log in". And then it took me to a general Phab ticket page. But the deed is done. But it would be great to update this notice with the correct link. Thanks again for the welcome! My email Inbox will never be the same. LizRead!Talk!04:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps I did some quick math and arbs sent only 7920 emails to the main ArbCom list in 2024 (down from 10410 in 2023, 10370 in 2022, and 12098 in 2021) (though data is somewhat incomplete for this year as the year is not yet over). KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L235, oh my Lord. I mean, I knew from my years as a clerk that there was a lot of email but I had no idea, numbers-wise, that it was in the thousands of messages. LizRead!Talk!18:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These numbers are only for the main ArbCom mailing list, and perhaps not all of it. There's also the -b and -c mailing list, the clerks mailing list, the functionaries mailing list, the global checkuser mailing list, the checkuser VRT queue, the oversight VRT queue, the COI/UPE VRT queue, and various direct emails that people will send you simply because you're an arb. I just looked through my own inbox, and I received 21,086 emails in 2021, and 22,433 in 2020. And people wonder why arbs don't edit much. – bradv19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, not sure you're going to have any time to look into this given your new responsibilities and all, but this user's AfD nomination pattern, communications in response to you, and contribution history tingles my Spidey sense like someone who's lowkey butthurt over the lack of Scott Pilgrim characters, or possibly an LTA account. I'm going to keep an eye out, but you see far more AfD's than I do. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Electoral Commission is pleased to announce that you have been appointed for a two-year term to the Arbitration Committee effective January 1, 2025. Congratulations on the appointment.
Thank you for all of the congratulations. Yes, and I'm so lame that it has actually swung back around to being hip. You wait long enough and even workholic, rule-followers who post Welcome notices can become fashionable. LizRead!Talk!22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the official notice, Cyberpower678 and for all of the work that you and your fellow Electoral Commissioners did to have such a smooth election in 2024 with timely results. It sounds like it was a big change from last year, in a very positive way, thanks to this year's Scrutineers. LizRead!Talk!22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some changes for sure. I think the biggest changes that made coordinating easier was all the automation I implemented a few years back. Automated watchlist notices, automated status headers, automated mass message templates, and so forth. I'd like to think that's made coordinating ACE much easier over the years. :-) —CYBERPOWER(Merry Christmas)03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberpower678, our technologically gifted editors have made so many changes, tools and innovations that have helped out the rest of us in visible and less visible ways. I know that the committee isn't "pro-active", looking for problems to resolve, but if there is anything I can ever do to assist editors in receiving cooperation from the development team at WMF, let me (or us) know. Of course, I can't make any promises but I've been hearing about problems for years now and it would be nice if some assistance could be provided to you all. LizRead!Talk!03:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also came here to say congratulations, Liz! Your responses to editors in difficulty at the various admin boards have always struck me as some of the calmest, most thoughtful and helpful comments there, and this election is well deserved. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, StartGrammarTime. Unless there are just blatant violations occurring, I believe in deescalating conflict. Often, two editors in a dispute have gotten themselves in a "me vs. you" situation that makes one person a winner and the other a loser. It's much better to get other editors participating in a discussion so that a consensus can be determined so the disagreement becomes less personal. We have lost a lot of talented editors who got themselves into a feud that they just couldn't let go of. It's interesting how often difficulties becomes less about policies and guidelines and more about getting along with other editors who have different opinions from your own. LizRead!Talk!04:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, count me amongst those who are very heartened to see you take up a position on the committee. Without intended commentary on the other worthy candidates and electees, I have to say that your election to the post is, for this community member, the best news to come out of the election. I am confidently of the opinion that this community and project are about to face some of our most consequential developments, decisions, tests, and times, and knowing that you will be in such a central position to interpret and shape policy and to influence the collective community discussion and voice is a bright spot at the end of a year that has at times been largely defined by worry about both the immediate and the near future. I was confident of your success in the election and I'm even more confident of the benefit that will accrue to us in having elected you. SnowRise let's rap06:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Snow Rise, for your vote of confidence. But while I think the committee may help interpret policy by judging when it has been violated, I think it's debatable that they actually shape policy. I don't think that's seen as a role for the committee by the community although it might happen indirectly. I am a bit concerned about my daily routine as I've seen editors and admins who join the committee become less and less active on the project as editors and I currently have a very busy schedule. But if I have to cut back on those activities for two years, I guess that's just a price that I'll need to pay. LizRead!Talk!19:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I largely agree with you that this is how the division of authority should work, and was originally meant to work, but let's be honest: it hasn't been that way for a long time. To take just one example from relatively recently, the last ArbCom decided it was within their authority to take such a monumental decision as to not only ban all non-registered users from editing articles in contentious topics, but indeed to ban them from even supplying perspectives on the talk pages of such articles. Rather than putting the issue to community. That's not just "shaping" policy: that's creating policy whole cloth for the entire project, via fiat.
And apparently the larger community is just willing to let the kind of assumption of authority go unchallenged, because there was not the kind of pushback I would have expected. In that case, acceptance may have been bootstrapped by the populairty of such a move with a once small but growing (though in my opinion, ill-conceived) movement to lock down access to the editorial process more and more, especially with respect to those who choose not to (or cannot) register. But even if that's the case, it's clear that my perspective is somewhat out of step with the broader community, because I would have expected more people to oppose that kind of over-reaching of a dozen-ish users setting policy for the entire project on principle. Even if they liked that particular idea. But there was barely a squeak.
So yeah, ArbComs power is arguably at its zenith right now. I would argue that if the consensus norms that govern this project's core functions are going to survive, we're coming up on a time when we are going to have to set some institutional limitations and clear rules on the scope of ArbComs authority, because through rulings like that, ArbCom has slowly absorbed more and more power into its remit for, frankly, decades now. It honestly bears a striking resemblance to how the Supreme Court of the U.S. established its role in the early decades following the establishment of the nation. Thankfully for democracy in that nation, jurists in that body and outside forces eventually saw the need to pause the growth of the court's powers and to adopt the much lauded (if somewhat mythologized) "checks and balances" era of governance.
But it remains to be seen if ArbCom itself will eventually develop a sitting body of Arbs and a culture willing to self-restrain itself in that way--or in the alternative, when, if ever, the community at large will step in to better define the limits of the committee's authority. Food for thought, anyway! In the meantime, ArbCom really does have massive potential to shape policy, for better or worse, and what we should hope for so long as that is the case, is that such authority should at least be in steady and contemplative hands. That is one of the major reasons I am very happy to see you take a position in the body. SnowRise let's rap06:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what happened, Anachronist. I find my current round of routine editing tasks really enjoyable but I thought that after 11 years as an editor, I should really help out with some more serious work on the project, to help out with the "less fun" activities and ARBCOM is at the top of that list, along with going through an editor's entire contribution history looking for copyright problems and reviewing unblock requests. So, on to consider some of those "intractable" disputes. LizRead!Talk!19:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly emerging from hibernation to add myself here. Way back in the day, I opposed your RFA, and ever since I've been consistently proved wrong. ‑ Iridescent03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, DFO, anything is better than your former name which was unpronounceable. By the way, anyone who devotes their free time to work on an online encyclopedia for free is a lame nerd so you're in good company. LizRead!Talk!23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the hardest time tracking down templates that I want to use. Right now, I'm looking for the one that advises blocked editors that they have lost talk page access and need to use UTRS. It's not in Category:Wikipedia administration templates, can you tell me where to find it? You do so much work on UTRS, I'm hoping you know. I've looked for it multiple times and have never been able to locate it. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Deepfriedokra, so I should have looked in Category:User block templates? Template:Uw-blocknotalk says it's for a temporary block but I guess there are parameters I can change to make it indicate an indefinite block. Before seeing your message, I found a copy of the template on a different editor's user talk page and copied it over. Not all of the information is accurate for this block but at least this notice gives a link to UTRS which is what I wanted. Thanks for pointing these out to me. LizRead!Talk!08:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, I get frustrated by admins who block without posting a notice on the user talk page explaining why an editor is blocked and how they can appeal the block. It's just so unnecesary if you just use Twinkle to block an editor. LizRead!Talk!08:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I'd like to ask if it's okay if I edited the source assessment table in my initial post with the updated sources I added to the AfD. My assumption was that everything above the relisting line should be left alone, but I feel like my most recent argument addresses all of the issues others have brought up so far. Thanks for the help! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be okay for you to edit a source assessment table that you created but please note this fact by putting a note like "Updated by GregariousMadness, December 9/10 (depending on where you live)", knowing that this last part can be replaced by your signature, ~~~~. This note that the table has been updated will hopefully cause participants to review it again. This updating it much better than posting yet another table. Thank you for checking in about this. LizRead!Talk!00:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Draft:Wole Olusola wasn't eligible for CSD G13 today. I often have pages/tabs open and this draft would have been eligible but I didn't notice that the article had been recently edited. I'll remove my talk page notice on the user page of the draft creator. I've deleted so many of these expiring drafts and after six months of inactivity, it's very unusual to see editing in the hours right before the expired deletion time. But I'll be more careful.
Did this draft pop up on your "mistaken deletions" report? I use to review that to see if any pages I deleted appeared on it but I've lost the page title. I appreciate you catching this one. LizRead!Talk!05:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was up for way too long when I had written what I did and I am sorry. I hope you can also understand given my age. Thank you for your query, I understand now that you were just trying to look out for the best interests of the site. Again, I am really sorry and hope we can turn a new leaf. :)
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 1 January 2025:
Outgoing members are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their terms on the Arbitration Committee. To that effect:
Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing members, who have not chosen to retain them, after 31 December 2024:
CheckUser: Firefly, L235
Oversight: Firefly, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees
Outgoing members are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. That will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
All outgoing members will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
All outgoing members will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Firefly, Guerillero, and Moneytrees, who have chosen to remain subscribed.
To respond to your edit summary, this comment by Yngvaddottir (03:31, 19 November 2024) is worth repeating:
ArbCom is also en.wiki's primary defence against the WMF, which also does great damage to the projects with its overreach and its misplaced priorities.
Hi L., I noted you put up a "Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Portuguese all-female bands" and posted a notice on user Kjell Knudde's Talk page. I am posting this having found you by tracing back from a number of quite odd categories recently added in bulk to the "Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle" page, e.g., diff. Many of these categories seem pretty dubious, and many of them were started by users that have been blocked (potentially all just one user?). I am suspicious of the situation for one, for another, a Category like "Comics about anthropomorphic deer and moose" seems a waste of time, and for another, I rather object to bloating down articles with excessive Categories. I don't quite know how to proceed, so I ask for your second opinion. This general situation seems like it might be a problem, or perhaps it is all on the up and up. It smells like the time I looked up Hurricane (cocktail) and noted it stated dryly that the drink had been invented by Ernest Borgnine, that is, something that seems all on the up and up, but is in fact vandalism. Thanks! (I am just a writer...not a Wikipedia expert...) Bdushaw (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, any time you refer to a page on the project, please provide an active link to it so it can be easily checked. Otherwise, I have to cut and paste, go to the search bar and I'm still not sure if I end up on the page you are talking about.
Second, I'm not sure what your question to me is. You seems to have some kind of suspicions but I'm not following your comments. If you are concerned about an individual category, then mention that category, what the problem is and a link to it. LizRead!Talk!01:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply; sorry I was not clear. I have a broad suspicion that there is an malicious (?) effort to add Categories and so bloat up articles or for some other nefarious purpose. I noticed this with the recent additions of a large number of Categories by this article diff, and that many of the categories added had been started by users (or perhaps only a single user?) that are now blocked. User Special:Contributions/Kjell_Knudde seems to be vigorously adding Categories to articles, in what seems to be a "sole purpose" manner, and irrespective of what seems me to be the dubious nature of many of the categories. I may be way off base in all this, but I came to you only because I saw you had posted on User_talk:Kjell_Knudde talk page about deleting one such category. As I noted, many of these categories don't seem me to have much sense or merit to them. I know of no way of ascertaining whether the problem is real, or what to do about it, whereas you seem to know what you are doing. I'll let the matter drop here; I don't have an axe to grind here (other than being somewhat annoyed at an overload of Categories on at least one article, viz. The_Adventures_of_Rocky_and_Bullwinkle_and_Friends). Best regards, Bdushaw (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Kjell Knudde's user talk page, you'll see a number of messages to them about their misuse of categories. But this editor has been active for 16 years now and has over 100K edits, I don't think that this is anything malicious or "nefarious", I just don't think they fully understand how categories and subcategories work. This is really not that unusual, we have had a number of editors who don't seem to "get" how categories function as an organization tool. As for the notice I left, one of my regular tasks on the project is tagging empty categories so I post messages like that on a daily basis.
Overcategorization is an ongoing problem on this project in general but I can't see how it benefits any one on- or off-Wikipedia to add unnecessary categories. If you feel that any categorization they have done is problematic, I'd approach them on their talk page to discuss it or you can remove them from an article or category. Right now, I don't see a need to escalate things to a noticeboard-level discussion. LizRead!Talk!02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking! I've regularly run across things that did not look quite right, but on further inspection turned out to be that seemingly-innocent-looking vandalism. It has given me a hint of paranoia... Happy Holidays! Bdushaw (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just archived messages from September 2024 about a week ago, I thought that would help with the size. But you're not the first person to mention this recently so I'll archive October messages this weekend. This talk page gets a lot of traffic though and it can take me a while to notice some messages in the middle of the page and respond so I like to keep at least a month's worth of messages up. LizRead!Talk!06:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been very active editing lately. Regarding [1], I did jump the gun there and I believe I had reverted my edits by the time you replied. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the request but I don't feel comfortable closing an AFD after it has been open only a few hours unless it qualifies for a Speedy Keep. But if the discussion continues like this, the article will clearly be deleted, if not now than soon. I know that there are other closers who wouldn't hesitate like I'm doing. Do you think it would qualify for a Speedy deletion criteria? LizRead!Talk!06:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very understandable. To answer the question, the author themself said that the article probably doesn't meet GNG in the AFD, so it could go under criteria A7. I would also just invoke WP:IAR personally, but hey, I'm not the admin here. TheWikiToby (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, I address you to this request from today. It is the second request. The former request from Nov 19, 2024 was declined. I have not done anything wrong.
An additional information is here. The essay is exist also in Hebrew. I would suggest that as a member in the AC, you would decline the user from editing in the En WP. Thank you, Dgw|Talk16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this editor is so focused on you (for unknown reasons) but our jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia and I have no influence on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Their request was rightly denied (no local admins can globally block an editor). I hope you let me know if another request happens on Meta. I also have no influence there but I can at least leave a comment on Meta while I do not have the ability to communicate in the Hebrew language on that project.
As for the Arbitration Committee, I don't join the committee until January. It does include some additional privileges and many new responsibilities but I can't arbitrarily block an editor for what they are doing on another project. But if they violate their Interaction ban on the English Wikipedia, inform me or open a case on ANI. I hope you can put this editor out of your mind and focus on productive editing. You don't want to let them take up residence in your head. LizRead!Talk!03:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Dominic3203 has heard you, loud and clear. I do know other editors who run Citation bot but, Dominic3203, if you could give StarryGrandma some space and be considerate about other editors' User space, it would be appreciated. LizRead!Talk!03:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been playing along to Christmas songs on piano and guitar and doing my own jazzy arrangements the last few days, I suspect that's why I am! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Quangminhvilla, one of the editor on Wikipedia. I hear that you are one of the admins on Wikipedia, so I want to ask you for help. In the few months before, the article 2023 AFC Asian Cup had an user name RealLifed was vandalism the article so many. Since the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, there was no third place match. But he always edited the third and the fourth ranking on the 2023 article, which lead to many user have to reverted the article many times. He always said that the reason was he used it from the AFC website, although there was no source about it. I have already gave him a warning for this, but he said threatly for me and always said by using CAPSLOCK to tell many user when they said to him politely. I think this user not only used incorrectly sources but he also one of the dangerous user that threaten anyone. So this message today is can you help me block this user please? Because if anyone warning to him about it, he will not change and still violated to them. Thank you for reading this message. Hope you have a good time during this week. Quangminhvilla (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I think there's been a mistake with a deletion review regarding 15.ai. Ever since I posted the new sources on the AfD after the discussion was relisted, all of the subsequent votes have been either keep or a striking of a deletion, but the closing admin marked it as a delete instead. How can I challenge this result, and would it be appropriate to do so? Thanks! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd advise you to either approach User:Cryptic and ask them to unclose the Deletion review or start up a second DRV to review the new closure. But you should first go to User:Barkeep49 with your questions before opening up a new deletion review if that is what you choose to do. You should always initiate a discussion first with an AFD closer before starting up a review of a discussion closure. Sometimes, this can lead to an adjusted closure decision or change in a closure statement but it's also considered polite to inform the closer that you have some questions about how this AFD discussion was closed. Considering how divisive this discussion was and the history of this article, these questions shouldn't be a surprise. After having closed hundreds of AFD discussions, there are some that you just know will end up at DRV and no matter how this one was closed, it was easy to see that any closure with this article would be contested. LizRead!Talk!19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if the close decision is endorsed, would it be okay to recreate the article using the new sources I found? I'm still confused by how a deletion review can be endorsed due to bad behavior even though I dug up new sources that demonstrate notability and significant coverage. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, slow down! Do not create a new version of an article deleted through an AFD if that closure is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. What if that closure is overturned and the article is restored, then you'll have two articles existing on the same subject. So, be patient, and see how the DRV is closed.
Second, if the second AFD closure is endorsed and the article is kept deleted, the proper approach is to create a new draft version in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Do not move it back to the main space of the project or it can be tagged for speedy deletion CSD G4 as a recreated article of an article deleted through an AFD decision. The only way I know to overcome an AFD Delete closure is to work on a new article in Draft space and see if an AFC reviewer will approve it. This takes time but there really is no quick way to overcome an AFD Delete closure. So, in your DRV statement, put your best foot/argument forward on why the closer overlooked some important information or didn't take some factor into account and then wait for some senior editors to assess your argument. Do not make your argument personal and DO NOT CANVASS a deletion review, this will just backfire on you. The editors who regularly participate in deletion reviews are fair and knowledgeable about policy. Having some new accounts pop up on an obscure Deletion review page will not help your cause as this isn't a vote count or a numbers game but an assessment by experienced editors on whether or not this closure was appropriate given the arguments that were presented.
The typical results coming out of a Deletion review are "Endorse" the closure, "Overturn" the closure, "Relist" the AFD discussion for another week or "Allow recreation" of the article in Draft space. Deletion reviews typically run one week but can be closed early if there is a Snow closure which means that there is one outcome that all participants are arguing in favor of. I hope this helps you understand the process better. LizRead!Talk!19:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm new to all this and I can't help but feel nervous that I'm doing something wrong. I felt so proud to have done all the research last week only for the discussion to be closed as a delete without warning, so I'm left thinking that I did something wrong, especially since most Wikipedians aren't very patient with my mistakes (unlike you, so thank you very much for your kindness). I'm hoping that I'd be able to at least be able to rewrite it as a draft because I do think that the discussion was closed prematurely. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz. I’m not wiki literate yet so please forgive me for struggling with the wiki protocol.
I am trying to query an edit on the PANDAs (medical condition) page and I’m finding some of the language used by the original poster to be inflammatory and out of date.
I’ve tried to discuss on the talk page and am now seeking a “second eye” for the edit.
The specific edit revolves around the removal of “controversial” to a more nuanced “emerging medical knowledge” and I have posted links to recent publications such as that by the APA.
I can across your page whilst searching for dispute
resolution and you seemed the friendliest page out of some that seemed designed to keep out new posters! Please do redirect me if I am not following the correct protocol. I feel very passionately about the topic and want to ensure I am doing all I can for the clarification. BeccaW1986 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not edit in articles about medical topics. There is a much stricter rule about sourcing requirements which you can read about at Wikipedia:MEDRS. It seems like you are already having a constructive discussion on the article talk page where you outline your opinions and arguments. But, especially with articles on medical conditions, Wikipedia only uses the highest quality secondary sources so these other sources you bring up might not be acceptable at this stage.
I think the editors you are discussing PANDAs with have a much deeper knowledge about MEDRS than I do and it would be best to heed their advice. Content disputes on Wikipedia are resolved through the process of reaching a consensus opinion based on reliable sources so I can not go in and "overrule" them especially when they seem familiar with the literature on this subject and I am not. You can try going to the Dispute Resolution board to get an editor who could facilitate a discussion on this disagreement. But know that medical knowledge can change over time and perhaps Wikipedia can adjust its language as more accepted studies are published in the future. But if mainstream scientific literature calls a condition "controversial", then that is the language that we must use as well. Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be "cutting edge" but to reflect the mainstream scientific perspective and is especially conservative when it comes with articles on medicine, medical subjects and treatment options. LizRead!Talk!21:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, I would like to write an article about Mrs. Moriya Almkiass. She is a Deaf Israeli woman, who serves the news of the The Israel Deaf Sports Organization [he] (Asach).[1][2] She is professional and signs perfectly. She is fluent, stares at the camers, smiles and is not confused. Mr. Bar Vanunu, who is a professional Hearing interpreter, responded to the video: "Extra Excellent". Michael Kadosh, who is a Deaf sportsman and is shown in the video, is married to Shirly Pinto.
She is married to Mr. Shafir Hafif, a Deaf goalkeeper of the Ashdod Dolphins [he], who plays vs Hearing teams, as well as in the Deaf Champions League [he] games. She also participated the Miss & Mister Deaf World contest in South Africa when she was single.
Hi Liz, I’m sorry to bother you about this, but I followed your advice above on rewriting the 15.ai article as a draft and sending it through AfC, but someone has tagged it as a speedy delete regardless. Did I do something wrong? What can I do? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who tagged it. I did not retain the original article so I cannot tell the extent to which what you have is a rewrite, but as I said elsewhere, just click the link to contest the speedy deletion and an admin will compare your version to the deleted one. If they are indeed substantially different, then speedy deletion will be declined. Nothing more to that. If the articles are the same, it will go, if they are different, it will not be speedy deleted.As to what you did wrong: well I would say this was all a bit hasty. I gave you advice on your talk page as to how you might demonstrate notability, and keeping the article in draft for now would have been better. We could all have helped, and also identified continued issues. By submitting it at once for AfC, you have an article back in mainspace even before the deletion review is closed. Even if speedy deletion is declined, this could find itself back at AfD very quickly. It is better off in draft, which is a safe space to incubate the article. But that's up to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I was writing the draft, it said that AfC could take 8 weeks, so I figured I should submit it now and continue to edit it. I didn’t expect it to be accepted so quickly. I didn’t mean to do it in a haste. I was just following directions. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this new passed draft, but have not been party previously so I believe this might best be settled by the discussion already at DRV. BusterD (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, the article was deleted even before I could post my rationale. There are many reliable sources that has in-depth coverage about the person which clearly meets WP:SIGCOV such as [2] or [3] etc.
I strongly believe the article is salvageable so can you please be kind enough to re-open the Afd to have a more clear consensus? Thank you. Herinalian (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to reopen this AFD because the discussion had already been relisted twice and you were the only participant who was arguing to Keep this article. Another editor reviewed the sources and found them not to be adequate.
I am willing to restore this article to Draft or your User space if you wanted to continue to work on it. Please know that since this article was deleted through an AFD discussion, you won't be able to move it back to the main space of the project or it will be tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. But, when you believe it is "ready", you can submit it to AFC for an editor to review. Let me know if this option is acceptable to you. LizRead!Talk!23:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I haven't had time to check the noticeboards lately. Seems like some of the folks with the strongest opinions are editors/admins who don't close discussions themselves or even participate in deletion discussions. We could use a little more help in AFDLand especially at some hours of the day/night, both for participants and closers. LizRead!Talk!01:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you removed a page a couple of weeks ago for Celerity BBS which I have involvement in. This is primarily a pre-WWW software product, but copies of it are extant and more references and details can be provided. Can you please restore it so I can improve the article? Bytre (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do about this page. It doesn't meet CSD but it is an autobiographical article by a user who is circumventing the AfC process. Already a version of this article has been draftified, but the user then just moved their sandbox into mainspace. I tagged it and removed one blatantly promotional statement but I'm not sure what else should be done in this case. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for speedy deletion, CSD A7, as an article on a non-notable person. This is often what happens with autobiographical articles that are unfortunately moved into main space. I'm not going to delete it myself, I'd rather let another admin review it but if it is still around at the end of the day, I'll probably take action here. You have to be careful with CSD A7s as this criteria only applies to a limited range of subjects but these are outlined at WP:CSD. LizRead!Talk!21:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, someone else tagged it for A7 after I commented. I figured since there are sources, A7 doesn't apply. I figure it might not survive AfD but that is also a more laborsome step than is needed. I have left a few messages on their talk page, including a warning for logged-out editing and may take them to ANI if they persist since they are being rather disruptive and possibly showing WP:NOTHERE behavior. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Found a sandbox from the old account too that I just tagged with G11. Might keep an eye on the pages they created in case they need to be salted. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing,
— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, the amount of work you do for Wikipedia is staggering, and you do it with your signature empathy, kindness, without sacrificing any quality. You are always welcome on my talk page with your category questions. I love them because I normally learn something myself :) You didn't get NYB-esque numbers at WP:ACE2024 for nothing, and I really look forward to working with you as a clerk during the term! Best to you and yours in the new year, and happy holidays! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those words just touch my heart. I think that is the sweetest thing that has ever been posted on this page. You know the work keeps me busy, fills my day with purpose, but there is a reason why about 50% of my edits are to User talk pages. Most are just formal notices but I also like to check in with other editors, either when I have questions or if I see them struggling. And I know on Wikipedia, we prize the project over the people but I don't think I'd still be editing after 11 years if I hadn't encountered so many genuinely good-hearted and well-intentioned people of which I count you. Have a wonderful holiday, however you celebrate the end-of-the-year festivities. LizRead!Talk!06:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution to the Wiki. On October 9, you deleted the Creatio company page (Creatio) , which had been there for many years. This page was handy for everyone who is interested in the Creatio company and its products.
Creatio is a worldwide company with a $1.2B valuation and a presence in 25 countries. The company is a leader in the market and well-known among different analytic agencies (we have a lot of mentions from Gartner, Forrester, Nuclear, etc.). The company's products are a new era of CRM software with no code, and they are transforming the market. Outsystems, Mendix, Appian, and many other companies from this market have pages on Wiki, but in this case, you decided to delete the page.
Can you help me understand how the Creatio page on Wiki can be restored (or how we as a Company, we can improve it from the content standpoint)?
While we can try the redirect method again, I will point out that that has repeatedly failed multiple times in deterring past students each semester assigned to create this draft. They've removed the redirect, uploaded their work as the new draft and leave, completely unaware of how Wikipedia works, and ignoring the real article on Kim Abeles. They don't return after the upload and a minor edit or two right after. @Belbury's template was very effective this fall on this draft as no edits occurred between your June and Dec edits. Early Dec would have likely been another round of this likely assignment reappearing. This and multiple other articles have been seasonal regulars of new drafts of existing subjects from a "rogue" teacher's Wikipedia assignments, and while I agree that having the redirect is the normal solution, this is not a normal case, and I'm not optimistic that the teacher assigning these is yet aware of the issue (but I've not followed all draft cases, just this one).
I don't recall if a request for page protection on these pages occurred, or if that would be appropriate in these cases with the ~6month reoccurrences, but I feel like it's been clear that having it as a redirect has not been a deterrent for recreations. Like I said at the top of this message, happy to try it with the redirect again, but I'm not optimistic. It will likely be late April/early May when the Spring finals approach when the likelihood is ripe again. Regardless of opinions, hope you have a happy, safe, and calm holidays. Zinnober9 (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I was not aware of that update and will relax on this being a redirect given the promising details of that conversation and the lack of any repeating occurrences this fall from the pages/files you were aware of. I had seen yesterday's changes as a return to a state that had not worked in the past, and was seeing your template as an effective solution so far, but still in the test phase since it had only been up for one semester. I'm glad this issue appears to be concluded now. Happy holidays to you as well, Zinnober9 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!.
I can see that a page i had create almost two years back has been deleted, i want to undelete it and update its content and references, could you please help in this regard?
Just a reminder, DFO. When you restore a draft/sandbox that has been deleted due to CSD G13, you need to make a minor edit to the page or it becomes eligible again for a G13 speedy deletion. That's something you learn if you help out at WP:REFUND which is actually a more enjoyable admin task than many others I've tried. It's like you have to remove the PROD tag from restored PRODs. But thanks for being a very helpful TPS and I hope you have a great end-of-the-year holiday! LizRead!Talk!20:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Davidindia (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 26th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 August 2024. At press time, over 94% of the world has legally fallen prey to the merry celebrations of "Christmas", and so shall you soon. It's been a quiet 4 months, and we hope to see you with way more new scripts next year. Happy holidays! Aaron Liu (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Very useful for changelist patrollers, DiffUndo, by Nardog, is this edition's featured script. Taking inspiration from WP:AutoWikiBrowser's double-click-to-undo feature, it adds an undo button to every line of every diff from "show changes", optimizing partial reverts with your favorite magic spell and nearly fulfilling m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Partial revert undo.
Doğu/Adiutor, a recent WP:Twinkle/WP:RedWarn-like userscript that follows modern WMF UI design, is now an extension. However, its sole maintainer has left the project, which still awaits WMF mw:code stewardship (among some audits) to be installed on your favorite WMF wikis.
DannyS712, our former chief editor, has ascended to MediaWiki and the greener purpley pastures of PHP with commits creating Special:NamespaceInfo and the __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__ magic word to exclude a template from Special:UnusedTemplates! I wonder if Wikipedia has a templaters' newsletter...
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Andrybak/Unsigned helper forks Anomie/unsignedhelper to add support for binary search, automatic edit summaries after generating the {{unsigned}} template, support for {{undated}}, and support for generating while syntax highlighting is on.
Polygnotus/Move+ updates BilledMammal's classic Move+ to add automattic watchlisting of all pages—except the target page(s)—changed while processing a move.
Is the removal of the draft on Pony too soon or can it get put back up? There are some newer books on the programming language that are out. Language appears to be relevant and seems a bit much to start from scratch again.
Deleted link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pony_(programming_language)
Saw that you tagged seasons 3,4 & 5. I agree that they could be tagged, I have a work meeting I need to attend before I can finish moving things from the supercategory to them. Is there a way that I can do this so that I don't waste your time? I'd really prefer to create them all at once, I'm not sure if there exists an equivalent of template:Underconstruction. (And I'm probably going to doing this to split the contestants in at least 3 other franchises of Drag Race. (Agreement on that at the Wikiproject.)Naraht (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Vertiport? The creator has moved it back to the Wikipedia namespace once again. I'm not sure whether the subject meets GNG or why the creator didn't submit to AfC review, but they seem to be trying to create the article in the mainspace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor actually has some writing experience so I don't know why they thought they should move a draft to project space. I have moved it back and left them a note on their User talk page. Thanks for alerting me. LizRead!Talk!06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, Happy Holidays. I'm very disheartened that you deleted the article and I created for the subject @Bruse Wane. The article adhered to wikipedia's neutral and non sensationalism writing structure guidelines. The article provided numerous independent 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party references/citations that were not connected at all to the subject, from various media sources. The citations validated the subjects notability in their particular field. Why was the article deleted when it was more than thoroughly sourced ? I know you have a lot on your plate, but if possible please read the article and consider my case for the deletion to be reversed. In my opinion the article was nominated for deletion for no real major legitimate grounds, and if there were grounds I addressed all of them with countless edits to bring the article up to and above par. I worked tireless to make sure this article met all of wikipedia's criteria for notability. Every editor that chimed in on the deletion discussion made comments that clearly showed they did not even read the article, or check the independent references and citations. It made me feel like a clique/ lynch mob mentality exist on wikipedia, with editors ready to pounce on anything they did not create, or fellow clique members did not create. I would like the deletion on the article talk Bruse Wane reversed. Or the ability to create it again in a draft for legitimate review. Edward Myer (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked why I reported myself to WP:AN. It's simple: at VPT, DuncanHill was persistent in their insistence that my status as an admin meant that anything that I wrote was somehow to be interpreted differently from a similar post made by a non-admin. Plus, they were getting insulting, as may be seen from their comments and edit summaries. See also their user page edits from yesterday.
I just wanted somebody to step in and explain that not everything that an admin does is necessarily an admin action. Not all admins are evil.
As for the post to my own talk page: that is a required action for WP:AN reports. I didn't want to be pulled up for not having followed procedure. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to leave you with the clear up of the categories in the many Jujubinus articles I draftified. I hadn't looked properly to see if there were any there. I will try and do better in the future! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it wasn't time-consuming. We have one admin who regularly removes content categories from draft articles. There is a script that makes the process really fast. LizRead!Talk!01:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got super sick all last week, so I wasn't following that discussion or really anything else for a while there.
I've realized we're probably not meaning the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you and some of the other regulars keep a very close eye on the exact timestamps and close based on that. I'm going by midnight UTC, when literally everything from the day is considered old. I simply don't pay that close of attention to the exact timestamps, so I think we were not exactly talking about the same thing. Which means nobody was really wrong, so ...go team? El Beeblerinoif you're not into the whole brevity thing03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by the UTC time clock. I think you are in the U.S. so Midnight UTC on the East Coast is at 7 pm and on the Pacific Coast it's 4 pm. But my Preferences are to show local time so I never have to do any time mathematics. I have a clock in the upper right-hand corner that shows UTC time but I use that for CSD G13s which are organized by UTC time on the list by SDZeroBot. But as for AFDs, just set your Preferences to show your local time and then you can easily see when the AFD discussion was originally posted and just close the discussion 7 days later. We do try to honor the 7 day discussion period for several reasons, one, AFDs that are closed early can be challenged at DRV based on the closure happening too soon. But also, we probably have 5 or 6 regular AFD closers and honoring the 7 day period ensures that we are not stepping on each others' toes. I will say that it's within the parameters to close with one or two hours so the discussions can be closed a little early without much complaint. But about a year ago, we had one regular admin closer who would close discussions about 10 hours too early and it just caused confusion among discussion participants and nominators.
P.S. I'm so sorry to hear that you were ill. You seemed to be absent for a few days and I guess this is the explanation. A lousy time of the year to be feeling unwell. I hope you are feeling better now. LizRead!Talk!01:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I'm here I'll poke my nose in—as a former regular AfD closer, it's always better to err on the side of delay if there's any doubt. There's nothing to be gained by closing after exactly 168 hours—if the page is so problematic that deletion is actually time-sensitive, it won't be at AfD in the first place. It's not unheard of for someone to come in right at the wire with an argument that changes the direction of the closure; a fair few editors only edit one day a week so have a 1⁄7 chance of only seeing the notification just as the discussion is about to close. ‑ Iridescent04:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to see you on my User talk page. Don't be a stranger! Your absence has been deeply felt. Your talk page provided a salon of sorts, where editors could come and ruminate on different subjects of concerns. But if this is a temporary visit, well, have a better than expected 2025! LizRead!Talk!04:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—I'l try to be at least vaguely more active next year, but no promises as it depends on reality. (Unless Arbcom has changed since my day, you are about to have a worse than expected 2025, but if someone has to do it you're definitely one of the better choices for the job.}) ‑ Iridescent04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Alaska, so midnight UTC is three in the afternoon here, but it seems like about two hours before that almost all AFDs, except the really awful ones, are already closed. As some commented at the AN discussion, this may be one of those good problems, at least it isn't backlogged like many other processes.
That flu was a bad one, i'd never experienced full-body chills and muscle spasms without even a fever before. Luckily I figured out after the first day that simple ibuprofen would stop that, and I was basically asleep most of the time for five days. I was better by Chrstmas, but I still postponed our usual seafood dinner with my Dad, as I was probably contagious and he's in his late seventies. We'll get tot hat in the next few days, got some nice crab legs in just now. El Beeblerinoif you're not into the whole brevity thing19:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done The editor who tagged these two articles for proposed deletion just tagged dozens of articles as PRODs over the past two weeks. You might browse their list at User:Imcdc/PROD log if you think you can bring some of these articles up to current standards for the project. Many of them were for small financial institutions/incubators so they may not be of interest to you. LizRead!Talk!05:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am really skeptical of that editor's understanding of notability. Based on the amount, I truly doubt they are spending any real time looking into source material before proposing them for deletion. I have removed a number of tags and will continue to look into more. Best, Thriley (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a little overwhelming yesterday. We had 128 PROD'd articles and even though they were not responsible for all of them, they did tag at least half. A typical day has around 30 PROD'd articles/day to review so this was a sizeable jump in quantity. I asked them to pace themselves. LizRead!Talk!06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I have seen so far, I think they should just be taking these articles to afd. I think there's going to be more cleanup than needed because they have chosen not to do their due diligence in looking up source material. Thriley (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Morning Liz, Happy New year to you! I’m not sure if I’m messaging you at the right place but I’ll give it a go here. My name is Carlton Ubaezuonu and I’m a professional football player. I used to have a page written up on me on Wikipedia but for some reason it’s not there anymore? I noticed you may have worked on it so I was hoping it can be brought back? I’m not sure how it works. Thank you very much! Carltonuba38 (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, Best wishes that the new year brings peace, good health and happiness. Thank you for what you do for the encyclopedia and this community. Your work at AfD is especially appreciated. Congratulations on your newest role as an arb. Hope the year ahead is a good one.
Image: New Year's Eve Foxfires at the Changing Tree, Oji, Utagawa Hiroshige, woodcut, 1857
Happy New Year, Liz! In 2024, other editors thanked you 1481 times using the thanks tool on the English Wikipedia. This made you the #5 most thanked Wikipedian in 2024. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2025! Mz7 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far I remember, there were almost 500 redirects to gameplay of Pokémon, many of which had other targets in the past, were blared (they have history), or could be retargeted to other pages. What could we do about it? Skemous (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not end the year without expressing my thanks for your perfectly chosen closing words nearly three months ago. Having been the subject of that ANI, those much appreciated words greatly contributed to the positive closing of the matter. I am grateful for your kindness and extend best wishes for 2025. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)02:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
or
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Liz -- Thanks for your message on my talk, and for suggesting looking at recently deleted prods, I hadn't realised there was a report. I see what you mean about there being a lot! Do you mind if I just undelete those I would definitely have deprodded if I'd seen them, without consulting you as the deleting admin? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no problems with PROD restorations. You don't have to make a request but do include an edit summary. Unlike articles nominated for AFD discussions, PROD'd articles get little attention. Here are a few lists that can be helpful that you may or may not know about:
I will just add that some editors can be a little touchy about an article they have PROD'd being de-PROD'd or restored. You might see some of those articles later sent to AFD for full discussions. LizRead!Talk!20:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I've been using the first two lists, but the SDZeroBot/PROD Watch set are new to me; I'll make a note of them.
I undeleted a handful of yours, but managed to click undelete on one before I'd provided a summary, sorry -- blame it on the New Year's mulled wine! (Not to mention the cat walking all over the table.) Have a great New Year's Day yourself -- Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Liz,
How are you doing?
Sorry I was busy yesterday.
The latest vote on the deletion page got me thinking: was I supposed to post relevant links on this page? I thought I was just supposed to modify the article, which I did for several days. Also, I'm not sure that I understood your decision.
Here are what seem to probably be the most relevant sources to give some info about him. Although many articles, mostly academic, and two large international child genital cutting experts statements, mention his work. I hope that voters have taken the time to read them and/or find them before voting (almost all these links were already in the article)?
Please maybe more time and efforts should have been given, particularly because Svoboda writes on a very sensitive topic and I'm not used to biographical articles? Maybe I should have gotten AI help for the article and deletion page, also to avoid the copyright concern? It seems to know well the author, which likely makes sense because he's a recognized expert in his field, and apparently in children's rights in general. Should I ask for a deletion review? Thank you Chrono1084 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are contesting the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Steven Svoboda? This discussion was relisted once and I didn't see sufficient support for Keeping this article on the project and most of the arguments from longtime editors were for Deletion. Yes, it would have been worthwhile to post your newly found sources to the discussion so that other editors could evaluate them and see if they would have persuaded them to change their argument but I'm not going to revert my closure and reopen this discussion. At this point, if you want to have an article on this subject in the main space, I see two options for you:
1) If you believe that I misinterpreted the consensus of the participating editors in this AFD discussion, you can file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DRV is not AFD2.0, it's not a place to re-argue the AFD. It's solely focused on my action as a discussion closer and if you believe I didn't interpret consensus correctly.
2) You can try to overcome the problems in the deleted article by writing a new draft. For this, I can restore the deleted article to Draft space or, what is probably a better idea, start a new article from scratch using these new sources. Please know that you can not simply move an article deleted through an AFD discussion back to main space as it will be tagged for speedy deletion CSD G4. You'll need to submit your draft article to AFC so that an experienced editor can review it and make sure than the new article has overcome the problems the caused the original article to be deleted.
So, the next step is up to you and how much work you want to put into having an article on this subject on the project. I do not recommend using AI to write articles on Wikipedia, that is likely to lead to more problems among editors that assess new articles. LizRead!Talk!01:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
(talk page stalker) It was a redirect to a now deleted user subpage; the only content on that page was a smiley. Since it seems like it was in use on multiple talk pages, I've recreated {{laugh}}, not as a redirect, but as a smiley. I'm not emotionally invested in this solution if there's a better one. Hopefully not stepping on your toes, Liz. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this page deletion caused problems. The template was a broken redirect to User:VS6507/Laugh and the editor did a courtesy vanishing and in those cases, typically all User pages are deleted. I'm not sure why the template was redirected to a User page, I just saw it listed as a broken redirect that needed to be deleted.
Thank you to Floquenbeam for fixing the problem post-deletion by recreating the template. I should know in the future to keep a wide distance from template issues as there can be unforeseen problems from transclusions that might not be apparent. I'll stick with article, draft, talk, user and category broken redirects and leave the file and template ones to admins who understand those namespaces better than I. LizRead!Talk!01:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that my ANI report has been archived without any response, which really doesn't surprise me. I'm not convinced by the "I don't have time right now", as they have been editing quite a bit since they urged me to "go for it" – including even leaving 'normal' comments at my talk page as though the episode never happened. I suspect that they have realised that the evidence is just too damning: in the same circumstances I would just push my king over as there really is no credible defence. I suspect that they expected an adjudication on the content dispute, even though I told them that ANI does accept such pleas. It's a real pity that they declined to climb down the ladder when I offered. I can appreciate how they managed to paint themselves into a corner as I came very close to doing the same thing myself many years ago.
So now what? I have no demand for my pound of flesh. I don't want an apology. I just want to know that they have made a clear statement they now understand, accept and commit henceforth to comply with WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN. I don't really see any alternative to a block on further editing in the meantime, that responding to the ANI should be their first and only priority now.
I'm sorry to dump this on you. If it is of any consolation, I think that this is my first or maybe second referral to ANI in best part of 20 years. (And I've also been the accused just once, due to an astounding coincidence.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I often see happening on ANI is there can be little or no response to the first complaint about an editor. Any subsequent complaints that happen months or years later will refer to the first complaint and some editors will consider that a lost opportunity to act. Or it could be that there aren't any future incidents about this editor, it's hard to predict. But it's not uncommon for complaints posted at ANI to result in no action, especially if the complaint is very complicated. I know this can be discouraging if you spent a lot of time crafting a cogent complaint but for action to be taken, it often has to be the right time and this might not have been it. LizRead!Talk!03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. No, I have no desire to pursue this to the bitter end, so I won't resubmit. My only concern really is that they may consider that there was no case to answer and that they can just do as they please without consequences. Is there any such thing as an "Administrator caution" (like a police caution albeit without requiring the admission of guilt)? Something along the lines of "Due to other priorities, no further action is being taken at this time but this incident is likely to be taken into account if there is any repetition. Please ensure that you understand WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMF (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Just a sig, not a nag. No need to reply or even acknowledge. If the process doesn't already exist, an isolated incident such as this [is] doesn't generate a pressing case to create one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, 𝕁𝕄𝔽, did you repost this discussion from the noticeboard archives? Because it looks like it just needed more visibility to find an acceptable closure. I think editors go way too caught up in whether or not Uwappa was making a legal threat because it seemed like they were making a joke to me but other editors took their words very seriously. Are you satisfied with how the problem was resolved? LizRead!Talk!06:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was he who did it. His choice. The whole episode is rather odd. First, he urged me to escalate to ANI – and then declares himself too busy to respond when I did so. Next, he declares himself ready to rumble again: now a sensible person would only repost if they had their response prepared and would include it the same posting. And they certainly wouldn't (and had no need to) include "my legal team" nonsense with it – so we have to assume that it was deliberate. If it was a joke, why did he decline The Bushranger's invitation to confirm or deny? And then why did he respond to Malcolmxl5 by doubling down? All that said, I would be astounded it "our legal team" is anyone but himself.
It wasn't quite the closure I wanted (because it got side tracked by the legal threat and only marginally referred to the behaviour issue that underlay the report) but I'm content to leave it at that. My only concern is that he may appeal the block on the grounds that he never intended that the "threat" be taken seriously. I would hope that whoever evaluates the appeal will take into account the overall behaviour that led to it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say better things to do, I just have a lot of things to do! It's all admin-related responsibilities. I can get discouraged when editors put together well-written reports for ANI and they just get archived with no action taken. I felt I might have dropped the ball here myself but I wasn't confident of what action was called for and I wanted to hear from other admins. And since I suggested you repost the complaint, it caught my eye when it turned up again. Why the editor chose to repost it themself when no action had been taken is a mystery. It's almost like they wanted to get blocked if you just look at their recent actions. As for if they appeal the block, they were acting rather sockish/trollish so I think it is more likely that they create a new account. Let me know if you spot a new account acting similarly. LizRead!Talk!17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects that have been targetting Skibidi Toilet was retargetted to the vandalised title by a double redirect correcting bot. The pagemove vandalism has been reverted, while the vandalised title was deleted, leading the redirects to target a deleted page, which you deleted(or at least some of them; I am not sure).
I am not sure how much or which redirects used to exist, but those two are the ones I was able to identify.
Can you restore the deleted redirects? (assuming you deleted the rest of the redirects as well)
You can see the broken redirects at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. Sure, I can restore them and then I guess I'll undo the edits that caused them to become broken. It wouldn't have happened if the page mover who corrected the bad page move had left behind a redirect. Are they all worth restoring? LizRead!Talk!05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry--I was away from my devices. I'd say they are all plausible search terms. However, I wouldnt reintroduce the Biser King and Paryss Bryanne due to WP:RETURNTORED concerns. The article has little information about those two figures. Catalk to me!07:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a concern about the deletion as i feel the nominater is biased towards pages like that as he has nominated severeal pages for afd based on his opinion which goes against years of precdence as survivor winners have almost always had pages for years all to be destroyed by one editor Wwew345t (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it was important to reach out to you because you closed most of thoae afds which also seem to be genreally not attended sometimes it was only the nominator who attended Wwew345t (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He had severel soruces stating his notability per notability guidelines doesnt it mention that people with significant roles in shows get pages? Not only did he win he played 4 times Wwew345t (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to restore Draft:Alfred Edgar Smith as it is essentially a blank page with just the page title on it. But you are a regular content creator so assuming that this article will become more than a blank page, I'm restoring it upon your request. I know that you have many editors and allies who support all of the work that you do but I'd put in a little time on this draft in the near future as it could be tagged again as a test page. LizRead!Talk!00:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make test edits, and I am unable to see what was in an entry once deleted. I went to work on it and found a kind editor had already written up the subject. Thank you for restoring. I think the subject is worthwhile and worth including. I hope polite requests can be honored and that it's not too much trouble to restore deleted material. I am very limited on what I can publish to mainspace or more of these subjects would be added. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you said something about expanding on AFD requests. I am sorry for not expanding on what each article said on AFD, due to the lack of WP:GNG. I'll try not to do it again.
Okay, after doing some research, I think you are referring to a relisting comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cydoor where I critizes your deletion rationale which was simply "Fails WP:GNG". This was an inadequate explanation for why an article should be deleted which should be an adequate explanation made up on complete sentence, not just an abbreviation, that references that a WP:BEFORE has been done which should be done before nominating any article for an AFD discussion. These two word deletion nominations just give the appearance that you spent about a minute on this AFD and are putting all of the responsibility for doing background research on the participants of the AFD discussion. Unfortunately, deletion rationale like yours are not uncommon but that doesn't make them any more acceptable.
If you want to see a well put-together AFD nomination, you can see one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Beasnael (2nd nomination) or even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Rutter which is brief but discusses the article in a way that an editor knows it's been assessed. I hope this makes my comment more clear. And just know that no editor is perfect, we all have room for improvement. Thank you. 01:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Thank you, Tantomile and Fayenatic london for your good wishes. I have yet to plunge into my arbitration committee duties, another lapse on my part over this first week of January. It's so easy to get caught up with ones regular responsibilities on the project. LizRead!Talk!00:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ Maliner (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've done several of these for BA. While the original articles were created by a sockpuppet, BA's taken the articles in hand and developed them appropriately. Acroterion(talk)20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the delay in responding, I've gotten behind in replying to messages on my user talk page. Thanks to Acroterion and Star Mississippi for stepping up while I was busy doing other tasks. It looks like your request has been addressed. LizRead!Talk!00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved your draft to the correct name space, I don't review draft articles. But, on your behalf, I submitted it for review by an AFC reviewer who will give you feedback on your work. LizRead!Talk!00:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Liz, I wanted to bring your attention to a fraudulent company at the deletion discussion. I nominated it, because this is a fraudulent company I read about. None of the articles there are reliable. They added a bunch or irrelevant paid "research", not covered by any media. I erected a threat on my talk page, from the author of the page. The the criminal history of all the "founders" was removed by the same editor, who has been blocked 7 times.They left the same threat on the page of a wikipedia who added that section in April 2024 or so.
Chargers include drugs, attempted murder. I had no idea my nomination is going to trigger this form of threats. This needs to be addressed. Please, take a look at the sources, when you will be closing the discussion.
It's best to present your argument including reliable sources, not just accusations, at the AFD discussion where it can be considered by other editors. Because this message could be seen as a form of canvassing (see Wikipedia:Canvassing), I won't be closing this AFD discussion. I've posted a message on your User talk page to the anonymous IP editor who was asking you to withdraw the deletion nomination. LizRead!Talk!00:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this RFC yet but I'd be surprised if any airline destination articles are still present on the project. Most were deleted through AFD discussions from 2023-2024. LizRead!Talk!01:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Just a note that this was a BLPPROD, not a regular PROD, so it needs to have a citation soon or it will likely be tagged for deletion again. LizRead!Talk!01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, the article had nothing useful, and I wasn’t able to find any sourcing beyond the fact that he’s now a skating official. I’ve tagged it for BLPPROD. Bgsu98(Talk)13:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this notice, I don't watch pings but after seeing this notice, I'm responded on your User talk page. Please do not stop with your ACC work, I obviously stumbled upon an unusual case. LizRead!Talk!01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Liz, it has been a week. I went to the 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The North American Discworld Convention' page, and then to the WP:refund page. The opening paragraph is,
I went to the Are you in the right place?
If your article was deleted through the articles for deletion process, then a request here is not the way to seek restoration. If you believe that the deletion was handled improperly or that circumstances have changed, please contact the administrator who deleted it. If such concerns are not addressed by the deleting administrator, you may seek redress at deletion review.
Can you assist here please? I think the info at The North American Discworld Convention should be folded into the International Discworld Convention.Halbared (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just mentioned you here and suggested that MC might contact you for the draft so wanted to give you the heads up. (The deletion is fine, no issue with that at all). Have a great day StarMississippi14:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a notification of deletion of a page I wrote by yourself citing some sort of reason I don't understand. The article is in reference to a defined standard and as such is self sustaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDX_(IPC-257X)&action=edit&redlink=1
I may not be the best at writing original articles and I really don't recall or can see what I wrote, but given my passion for detail and accuracy together with extensive domain knowledge I expect it was as accurate as possible. JayMoog (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, following on from our recent exchange at ANI I just wanted to acknowledge the accuracy of what you said and my appreciation to you for having said it. You were correct in relation to the type of user that I had become over the course of recent months.
Nonetheless, with regard to it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be I just wanted to reiterate that everything I said in that thread was entirely genuine.
I have acknowledged and apologised for my errors in great detail and have offered to moderate my future conduct in ways that far exceed even the requests of my greatest critics. For further evidence of self reflection please see my recent comment to Timtrent, here [5].
My only wish now is to be allowed to move on and to put these events behind me. Earlier today I overhauled my userpage [6] from the recent version displaying my COI-related barnstars to a rather older version setting out my previous rather modest activities in content improvement. Hopefully this gives further indication of my intentions going forward.
Lately I've seen your comments around in several discussions, and I realized that they always seem to contribute insight and understanding, and to relieve some tension in the discussion. I think I have some pages to take from you in learning how to conduct myself in heated exchanges. Best wishes. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the barnstar. I have some links to some articles/essays at the top of my user talk page that have guided some of the work I do. I just try to remember that every account is a person who might be having a really bad day. I think we can be quick to just want to block editors that might cause occasional disruption when they really need is some education. But they have to be open to it and for some editors, realizing you don't know it all can be the hardest step.
But I think you'd be surprised if you looked into the early editing histories of editors who have been here for a long time and see that they didn't "get" all of our policies immediately when they first started editing. Heck, I was part of an SPI case in my first months here because a longtime editor thought I "knew too much" so I must be a sockpuppet. So, we need to realize that a) everyone makes mistakes, b) a actual human comment usually works better than a template and c) don't assume bad motivations when the truth actually lies in ignorance of specific policies. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk!21:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I'm sorry to bother you as I know you are busy. When you have a minute, could you close this AFD as Speedy Keep, per a discussion that took place there. Thank you so much. Bgsu98(Talk)00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As you’ve noticed, in the ANI titled Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ;:User:DarwIn. It has become a colossal mess and it’s all over the place with the community heavily divided as to the full ramifications. I would like to request if you in your capacity as an arbitrator could bring this up to the Committee because I think the community is so divided on this issue that it’s not gonna end well. I think the community deserves to have a final answer to this because of the crazy nature of this post and I believe if the committee was to get involved. It would resolve things. I was considering filing a request but since I’m not party to the case and I am merely an outsider I believe I have no grounds for this.
What are your thoughts on this? You mentioned I am inexperienced and I admit I am as I am wet behind the ears so to speak so I’d like advice from you as an arbitrator and experienced editor. Reader of Information (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, always provide a link to the article or discussion you are referring to. Otherwise, the other editor has to go searching for it which is likely to decrease the possibility that they will respond.
Secondly, I have become an arbitrator a week ago and have not done any official arbitration committee work yet. So, I don't think I have any more standing than you would. If you would like ARBCOM to consider a case, it would be more effective for you to open a case request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case or email the committee <arbcom-en@wikimedia.org>. I don't mean to dismiss your request but this dispute seems much more important to you than it is to me. But once you provide me with a link, I'll give it a look. But just know that many complaints posted to ANI or AN never receive official closure, especially when opinion is divided. LizRead!Talk!01:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, afternoon or evening (whichever is correct for you). As you are the closing admin for the Traveen Mathew articles for deleting page I would like to raise your awareness of the fact that, despite what an as I write unsigned user has suggested, I am neither the original editor of this man's page nor am I paid to edit on this website or any other for that matter. I don't really see why I have to point this out but as I have been accused I thought I'd reply. The user who accused me (Cameremote) has had numerous warnings about conflict of interest and other such matters. Cheers. Lookslikely (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the article or to an AFD if that is what occurring? Then I can look into your concerns once I can easily check the page you are referring to. LizRead!Talk!01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I've made additional comments on this AFD about this editor casting aspersions. I should also point out that they are a new editor which doesn't absolve the editor from acting poorly but they are likely unfamiliar with discussion norms on this platform. LizRead!Talk!01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could help me understand how this page failed to pass muster at an AfD and yet somehow still lives. I'm asking you as the closer, since you might have a better idea if what's going on here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which page you are referring to but I try to help where I can. We have tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) pf old user space drafts I wish we had a way to clean up but so far they have been off-limits for decades. Some are rather promotional but so far I haven't tagged any as CSD G11s yet. LizRead!Talk!20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz Thank you for your messages on my talk page. I have replied there but thought I would post my reply here also so as to be sure you saw it. I hope that is ok?
I read each article and each attached reference, if they open as some do not. I do a Google search for each subject matter and look at each result that comes up. I then write my response. I accept my responses are brief but I did not know they had to be any certain length. I can assure you I do not just vote without trying my best to be fully informed. I know Moscow Connection says otherwise but that is untrue and I am saddened that you have decided to take their word as fact. I have had several articles deleted and know how upsetting that is and therefore would never vote to delete something which I did not truly believe should be removed and had looked into. As you will see I often vote to keep articles or redirect. I also usually do my research on several articles then post my responses in one go which will explain why my replies often come in batches. Since my efforts are obviously not wanted and I am now receiving this thinly veiled threat from an admin, I will cease participating in AFDs other than ones involving any articles which I have started or been heavily involved in. As for blanking my talk page, I did not know there were any rules against doing so and you can check the logs to see what has previously been written. Once again thank you for your messages Shrug02 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz In fact on further reflection, after more than 12,000 edits (93% in the main space) and 55 articles created (excluding about 10 which were deleted), I will (with great sadness as I have enjoyed editing and as a disabled person have limited other activities I can do), quit Wikipedia and leave it to you, Moscow Connection and JTtheOG. I don't want to be under constant monitoring and threats. Shrug02 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz You know what, on further, further reflection, I am not going to let you force me to give up one of the few things that I enjoy doing in life. I have done nothing wrong. I have always acted in good faith and I believe I have added a great deal to Wikipedia. If you want to force me to quit then go through the proper channels where at least I can defend myself publicly. I would be interested to know if you have sent similar messages to the many other people who write brief responses to AFDs? I could provide a list but I do not want to be seen as casting aspirations against anyone else in the way you have me. Shrug02 (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the article about "Khaleedthefirst" has been nominated for speedy deletion, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you.
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I know I still have much to learn, but I am very passionate about contributing and improving my editing skills. Writing articles has always been a dream of mine, and I’m committed to making sure the information I contribute is accurate, reliable, and properly sourced.
Regarding the article on "Khaleedthefirst," I am actively working to gather better sources and factual information about the subject. I realize that more verifiable references are needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards, and I’m focused on finding high-quality, independent sources to support the content. I want to ensure the article is both neutral and comprehensive, and I plan to revise it accordingly.
I’m aware that the subject may not yet meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, but I ask for your understanding and support as I continue working on improving the article. It’s important to me that I contribute to Wikipedia in a meaningful way, and I’m eager to learn from experienced editors like yourself to ensure the content is up to standard.
I sincerely hope that you will allow me the opportunity to improve the article, and I am more than willing to collaborate with others to make sure it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
I didn't think Khaleedthefirst demonstrated what we look for, which is notability so I tagged it for WP:CSD which is called "speedy deletion" here, but since you are new to Wikipedia I'll let you know that every page that is tagged for deletion is reviewed a) either by another administrator or b) discussed in an AFD deletion discussion. In this case, an administrator disagreed with my evaluation and untagged the article. I think you would benefit from looking at their edit in the page history to see why they thought the article might demostrate notability.
I've always gotten the impression you have either pings disabled or too many pings to keep track of, so here's small no-pressure to do anything notice to say I responded [7]. Also, omg your edit notice has a kitten in it - I love it so much and I love the anti-vandal kitten. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your impression is correct. I guess there is a Wikipedia grapevine. In the past, the issue was that the majority of my edits are to User talk pages and the majority of those edits are to User talk pages for very new editors. So, I was getting a lot of pings with questions about general editing on this project, more questions than I could respond to.
But after a few years of not paying attention to pings, I should probably try again to see if I can respond to the ones that I get. Not being responsive to pings does irritate some longtime editors who don't know to come to my own User talk page.
I very rarely participate in FFD discussions so I'm not familiar with the norms of that deletion forum. I just happen to come across this image in an ANI discussion on the same day as you nomiated it so I thought I'd post a comment, not a vote. I will readily admit that after editing on this project for 11 1/2 years, my weakest areas of knowledge are files and templates so I usually don't butt regarding these pages. But I'll check in and see how you responded to my comment and, you know, I'll probably learn something new! LizRead!Talk!02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Liz, I am a member of the German Wikipedia. A friend of mine, an investigative journalist from Germany, asked me to contact you. He has some questions regarding YoungHoon Kim's attempt to add an article to the American Wikipedia.
How can he get in touch with you? I'm not able to send you an email here. In any case, I can't find the function for this. The interface of the German Wikipedia is structured differently. Maybe you would respond to my request here? Thank you very much and kind regards... NellsPort (in GER-Wiki) NellsPort (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Liz! I recently raised an ANI filing that you commented on, and I just wanted a piece of third party advice about its closure, and what (if anything) I should do about it. I'm coming to you rather than the closing admin as, based on their last comment, I'm worried that if I attempt to discuss the closure with them directly they will interpret it as a personal attack on another user, which isn't my intentions.
I personally think the last comment and closing statement is incorrect, that Sro23 did not say what they are being claimed to have said at SPI (comment in question - they say Note: StrexcorpEmployee behaves differently from previous sockpuppets, which I'm sure is just Sro23 saying the SPI pages got incorrectly merged the day prior; not a response to the IP user's comment giving evidence linking the two accounts). The closing admin closed the AN/I topic and gave me a formal warning based on this. I feel a bit powerless here and I feel like this warning was unfairly applied and based on a misreading, especially when no other admin weighed in on Sro23's comment, and I don't feel able to go to the closing admin directly. I'm mainly asking for admin input - is this a clear cut case of me just being in the wrong? If so I'll just take it on the chin and move on. But really I think this formal warning is overly harsh, and (if appropriate) would like it struck, but I don't know how to pursue that without causing a scene. Any advice (including simply saying "Bugghost, you're in the wrong, just drop it"), would be appreciated. Thanks! BugGhost🦗👻05:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The trick that was complicating it for you is that the categories weren't straight declarations, but were using complex switch coding to factor for the variables in each category name (like the year, the federal, provincial or territorial distinction, etc.) — and what made it a pain for me was that because it was done the way it was done, there was no way to fix the federal categories without breaking the provincial and territorial categories at the same time.
But since the provincial and territorial categories were eventually going to get moved anyway on the same grounds, it would have made no sense to either revert all the category moves or try to get a half-measure added to the template that only fixed the federal categories only to have to undo it again a few days or weeks later — so I just went for the whole enchilada, and then buckled down and dealt with moving the provincial and territorial categories right away.
I'm not always an expert in template coding either, especially when I come across redlinks created because the category generation is sequestered off in a module I can't edit at all, but luckily this one fell inside what I knew how to fix. But thanks for the props! Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create an article for Allicia Juarrero, noted theorist and philosopher
However, a previous draft was deleted due to inactivity:
A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
Got it! The message was a little unclear because I will create a page that is similar (contact the user) although it will have new content (please continue).
Hello, and a question. I've been taken to task for commenting too much in the AfD, although I feel I'm just correcting basic mistakes in editor's comments. Now another 'merge' comment also misses the point of a museum source being counted towards GNG. Can I comment again, or does being accused of bludgeoning by those who want to delete an article carry some kind of actual weight of "don't comment again or else". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Seems I don't have to comment again as someone has come along with several additional good sources. Just not understanding why correcting misinformation in such a discussion can be considered bludgeoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned in your close that it would be a possibility, I’ve recreated the title as a redirect. Would you be opposed to undeleting its history for posterity & access by non-administrators?
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The afd was, briefly, closed as keep between here and here, there was a DRV.
PrimeHunter's move occured here which is within that c. 35h timespan. Basically because I asked him.
Per this, I see nothing troutable about PrimeHunter's draft move. Also, all comments after the first relist (which also was the DRV-reopening) is referring to the current (mostly) article-version, which is more substantial than the keep version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This timeline is too confusing to follow. An article shouldn't be moved in the midst of an AFD discussion. If it was moved during some weird time zone when the AFD was temporarily chosed, that should have been mentioned prominently in the AFD and the AFD should have been closed at that time. There was no "right" closure with this AFD since the article changed midway through the discussion. LizRead!Talk!07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't moved in the midst of an AFD discussion (it's not that confusing, is it? DRV:s happen). The afd was closed keep, and there was no reason at the time to think that was temporarily. It was noted in the afd that there had been a DRV, though arguably not prominently (the re-opener did state "Reverting non-admin close and relisting as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity."). Ping @OwenX and @Pppery if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sequence of events:
The AfD was closed as keep.[8] There was no indication it would be temporary.
On a request I moved a better version of the article whose inferior version had already been kept.[9]
I could not predict 3 and 4. The closed AfD page [12] said as usual
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not sure I agree with the logic that rewriting an article during the AFD invalidates the AFD. Notability is usually independent of the state or quality of the article.
That was a weird afd because it was an nactor and gng fail, but experienced editors really wanted to keep it.
I wouldn't have minded a keep outcome for that afd. The article is useful and encyclopedic. It doesn't hurt anything by having it. Just my two cents. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the draft had been around quite awhile, submitted several times [14] and was waiting for review (again) when someone put the version that was taken to afd in mainspace, so the afd was going on at the same time as the old draft was waiting for assessment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, can you please look into this user's CONTINUING reverts of my actions? This is a completely unreasonable level of preoccupation with my edits. 04:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I reverted all my edits on the Fender article, however this edit is not how to improve the article, article talk pages are not a forum and that is my rational for the removal. Do what you want to the article, if your edits are an issue going forward, then other page watcher's will handle them. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)06:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: The edit you refer to is not the one in question (I was not involved in that edit). The edit in question is this where it is my assessment a rule was made up just to be able to revert the edit in bad faith. As someone who believes that Wikipedia should be open to all, and someone who has consistently adhered to editing standards, I will pursue this until I can be sure that you have ceased your WP:BITEy behaviour, because I see it in your other edits as well, and so has Liz. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:F9AC:44A9:54D4:299B (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD discussion was closed, and included in that AFD discussion was talk about how the draft version should be used instead, with general concurrence there and elsewhere.
(An in any case, it shouldn't matter, since the discussion was over the notability of the topic, and both versions of the article were on the same topic.)
I suggest that you at the very least undo the trouting, and consider undoing the closure altogether. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page, Liz. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Liz I hope your are well, a group of editors overreacted and reverted my edits aggressively. While i was trying to improve the SIF article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, Because i was reading similar article, Minjung theology before and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
Theology and criticism are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense. I even tried to discuss it with them but they are threatening on my talk page, may be they think they have some sort of ownership of the article. One of them has been blocked before for such behavior.
Re: User:102.220.210.123, to clarify I wasn't requesting an indef block, only providing commentary for context. Predominantly to dissuade an admin from a worthless 48-72 hour block, given the IP appears appears to have remained static for past 9 days already, thus gone beyond the usual DHCP average lease times. I was hoping an admin would read between the lines as occured. CNC (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, my condolences. It is not time-sensitive at all. I just figured I'd mention it here because you do a lot of cleanup work. It looks like user TheTechie added that template in this edit. Polygnotus (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, its Nelson. I would want to thank you for the matter. I am glad that you and the others helped out in this case; the matter had been affecting me personally. Still, I have a concern that he might retaliate again despite the block and might go further on.
I had not responded to him directly because I do not wish to make enemies or increase the conflict, and even gave him chances. I am shocked and saddened that he would be going after me for the photo issue when it could be easily resolved in another, perhaps an even better way and somehow, I was singled out. It was my interest in crime that made me come here years ago and he said a lot of things, whether indirect or direct, and yeah it affected me for the week throughout. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever noticed the difference between the banner on an article that has been nominated for deletion and the banner on a draft that has been nominated for deletion? An article says not to remove the notice until the AFD is closed. A draft or essay or whatever says not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice until the AFD is closed. I have said, for several years, that the AFD banner should contain the same notice. What happened with Raegan Revord is that an editor moved the page by replacing it with another page, gumming up the AFD. A notice not to move the page would have been useful.
This was a misguided good-faith move that was not a good idea. What I have seen more times is a bad-faith move. An author, maybe a conflict of interest editor, or maybe just an ultra, creates an article. A reviewer draftifies it. The author moves it back to article space. A reviewer then writes an AFD and nominates the article. The author then moves the article back to draft space, to stop the AFD, preventing the community from reaching consensus.
The afd notice used to say exactly that - see for example this old version. It seems to have gone missing during the cut and paste to what's now at Template:Afd in 2006, and the deletion of the old history conveniently covers it up. —Cryptic23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon This subject has been in a kind of "development hell" for quite awhile. The draft was pending for review (again), and someone decided during that pending to make a new version and put it in main-space, and that version was taken to afd. Then the afd closed keep, the "swapping" happened, there was a DRV, and the afd was reopened, then closed by Liz. And now there is a new DRV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that the whole notion of "rogue admins" has been around for 18 years, back when admins would occasionally actually go rogue? Look at old ARBCOM cases and noticeboard discussions and it wasn't that uncommon for rogue admins back then to just act without any attempt to justify their actions by referring to policies. It was a wilder time but there are some longtimers who miss those days. LizRead!Talk!01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was long ago. But the misspelling of rogue is still with us. One admin deleted AfD (or was it VfD then?) and then there was the Userbox wheel war. And more. Amazing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am messaging you because I have seen you close multiple AfD's I have started, and no doubt countless more. I started a new AfD a couple days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Hildebrandt, and there is a brand new account that has never edited before voting in it. I wanted to know who they were after they voted to keep it without citing any specific notability guidelines the article passed or guidelines more generally that would support keeping the article, and I came to find out they were a brand new user whose account was registered six hours ago, as of writing this. I am not contacting you as an administrator to get this user in trouble, I just don't quite know how to take this, since in the interest of not casting aspersions, I don't want to accuse them of sockpuppetry. But at the same time, I don't know why a brand new account would be voting in an AfD. I do want to assume good faith, but I find it kind of strange myself.
But that's just me. Do you have any thoughts on how this situation can be handled in the context of determining consensus for this discussion? JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. As we head into week four of the year, I have noticed that you had been inactive all year so far with ArbCom. Coming here I see you've made a couple of comments [15][16] suggesting that you might be having trouble getting started. I'm sure that your colleagues are ready to be of help but sometimes it's easier to get help from someone a little removed. If I can be that person to you please don't hesitate to reach out - here or via email. Given your overwhelming trust by the community - 1100 votes! (real votes too not !votes) and 80% support! - I can't be the only one eager to see your work on the committee. But I could also see how that election result could put a lot of pressure on someone. So if it's that or anything else that I could be of assistance with, please do let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reaching out in such a polite, gentle way. I'll just say that the biggest concern I saw in the questions I faced during the pre-election process was the high level of activity I spend on this project already. It was a valid concern and it's been a challenge for me to cut back my busy admin activities to make space for arbitration work. I also have a separate email account for arbitration work that I need to start checking more regularly. And all of the arbitration wiki pages that I don't seem to be able to find links for.
So, I think my biggest problem is not scheduling in ARBCOM work into my daily routine of tasks. I do feel a great deal of pressure though and dismay that I haven't made that job a priority in my on-wiki time. I'll try to make a fresh start tomorrow morning and if I have questions, I'll reach out to you. Thanks again. LizRead!Talk!05:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you'll reach out. I hope you'll forgive a couple of follow-up comments. As for And all of the arbitration wiki pages that I don't seem to be able to find links for. the best place to start might be {{ArbComOpenTasks}} which lists all the open onwiki buisness of ArbCom and can be found on each of the three work pages (Requests, Motions, Amendments). Diving into PIA at this point might be hard. But there is an open request for amending the scope of the American Poliltics contentious topic open at WP:ARCA that might be up your ally? As for the email checking, having just started my own separate email for the U4C, I've been forwarding to my main wiki account. That way I know when there's something in there to check. This might be helpful as you establish habits and then you can easily turn it off? But so much of the important work happens in email and yes figuring out how ArbCom fits into the flow of your life and wiki work is a challenge for every new arb. Given your experience (and perhaps a little trial and error) I'm sure you'll figure it out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I hope neither you nor Barkeep minds me sticking my nose in. I would suggest making emails part of your daily routine; the way I do it is I check all my notifications (work, social, Wikimedia) first thing in the morning and then every few hours as I get chance, usually on my phone just to keep abreast of anything urgent but find a workflow that works for you. Anything older than a day or two can probably safely be archived unless it's of special interest or you want to plough through. Then you can just watchlist the relevant pages on-wiki as long as you check your watchlist regularly. You don't need to worry about arbwiki on a day-to-day basis. If it helps, I give freely of my phone number to anyone who isn't a loony. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" It also shouldn't have been tagged for deletion FOUR minutes after it was created." It was created a week earlier ([17]), it's not as if the creator had had no time to work on it (and they had extensively worked on it previously in the Spanish version as well). That they put it in the mainspace via a cut-and-paste move is allowed in a case like this, but that doesn't mean that it is a "new" creation where the creator needs to be given time and space to work on it. Fram (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the article draft in User space, I was just looking at the main space version although the fact that it was cut and pasted should have been obvious to me. I was still surprised that it was tagged for an AFD discussion just a few minutes after it was created, I don't know how you even spotted it so soon after the article was published.
I apologize if my tone was sharp, I just think that content creators should be given more time to improve a new article before deletion is considered. LizRead!Talk!01:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you recently speedy deletedNom Krouk. I had been editing that article to be in a better state than it was before, and I would to have it please be undeleted. At the time of deletion, the article would not have fallen under G12. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this article as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nom Krouk and it was the consensus opinion of he tparticipants that it was a copyright violation. I can't revert my closure because you disagree with the consensus of the other participants who all argued for Deletion. Ordinarily, upon request I would restore an article deleted through AFD to Draft space but I can't do that with content that might be a copyright violation. Admins can't restore content that has been tagged as a possible copyright violation.
I would recommend starting a new article from scratch but if you really want this old content restored, you'll have to file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and argue that the closure of the discussion was incorrect. If participants in the review agree with you, they can decide to overturn my closure and restore the article to main space or draft space. Good luck! LizRead!Talk!01:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, your diplomatic and good faith approach is inspiring and makes me want to be even better. Thank you for being a fantastic example to others. TiggerJay(talk)05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a very kind thing to say! Thank you. I just know that when I was a new editor, I was very frustrated, mouthed off at the Teahouse about how illogical this project was and could be a general poin in the ass. But some editors steered me out of trouble, I took a WikiBreak for a few months and came back with a better attitude.
Unless someone is just vandalizing or spamming, I think it's best to try to talk to editors. We aren't supposed to give "cool down" blocks but sometimes I think some angry editors just need to step away for a day and return when they aren't so frustrated or tired. And this goes for some experienced editors, too. Thanks again for the nice note. LizRead!Talk!05:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just look a look at my first talk page message, it was posted by someone doing AIV patrolling and I had made a sizable copy edit that had a larger net size reduction that caught their eye and I hadn’t used an edit summary. They started from AGF and too a look and saw that it it was probably constructive, and left a welcome template with a personal note about using edit summaries. I think there was more good faith contributors back 18 years ago, it’s something we need to bring back. And of course, it starts with us. Thanks again and keep up the great work! TiggerJay(talk)05:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just noticed that "January 2025" in your CSD log (I was on AN when my kitten pawed my phone and it must have triggered a click to your contribs and then the log, I'm not sure how hahaha but my kitten does get very curious about what I'm doing sometimes) was a level 3 heading, while the other months are level 2, so it was appearing as a subheading under "December 2024". I just fixed this, if this was intentional feel free to undo it! Thank you! :) MolecularPilot🧪️✈️09:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that you have undone my edits to migrate articles that were in Category:Law schools in the Republic of China to Category:Law schools in Taiwan. Given Taiwan is the main article of the topic and List of law schools in Taiwan the main list for the category, is there a rationale for the reversion? Or, have I gone about the move in the wrong way? Butterdiplomat (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you gie me a copy of the references and content of this page. I have otherwise no way of knowing if the Prod was valid. All the best: RichFarmbrough16:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Request for Review: Deletion of Dr. Moeed Pirzada's Page.
Dear Liz,
I am writing to formally request a review of the deletion of the Wikipedia page for Dr. Moeed Pirzada. As a long-standing article that had existed on Wikipedia for more than 10–15 years, its removal appears to have been based on entries and claims made in a very short period, specifically during April 2024. This raises significant concerns regarding the legitimacy and intent behind those entries, as well as the fairness of the decision-making process.
Upon reviewing the deletion discussion, it is evident that the contributions leading to this decision were coordinated to create a narrative that resulted in the page's removal. Allegations of promotional content, puffery, and reliance on unreliable sources were made in rapid succession. However, these claims failed to take into account the historical stability of the article and the well-established notability of Dr. Moeed Pirzada, who is a highly respected journalist and political commentator with a substantial body of work.
Dr. Moeed Pirzada has made significant contributions to the promotion of democracy, free speech, and informed discourse, particularly in Pakistan. He is currently under severe threat from Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and the Pakistan Army due to his vocal opposition to military dictatorship. He has been a staunch advocate for civilian supremacy and democracy and is standing firmly in support of the imprisoned former Prime Minister, Imran Khan. These threats and his efforts to speak truth to power underscore his relevance and importance as a public figure.
His notability can be further verified through numerous credible sources. Additionally, he maintains an active online presence, which demonstrates his influence and reach:
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@DrMoeedPirzadaOfficial (692K+ subscribers)
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/MoeedNj (3.3MM+ followers)
Given the coordinated nature of the entries and the lack of consideration for the article's longstanding presence and stability, I believe the deletion decision may have been improperly influenced. I respectfully request a thorough review of this case, with particular attention to:
The sudden surge of entries in April 2024 questioning the article's integrity.
The long-standing presence of the page prior to these claims.
Dr. Moeed Pirzada’s significant career, influence, and notability, which are verifiable through credible, independent sources.
I urge Wikipedia to uphold its commitment to fairness and ensure that its platform is not misused for targeted actions or to suppress public figures. Reinstating the page, with appropriate edits to address any valid concerns, would be a fair and just resolution to this matter.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Mike Mike D11102 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the fourth row you can see the option corresponding to this distinction (i.e. exclude/include page-redirects)
I did not make this up. It's already there by design. I have already learned how to deal with this though. See for example this page, Initially this was a redirect. But I created the page somewhere else, and then asked it to be moved there. So it's all fine and dandy now. Xpander (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty sure I dePRODed this one. I thought I added a few details about this Olympian also being an actor. Could you check to see if I'm remembering right? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am here to ask you about a situation and get advice as you are an admin. I created an article, and it was nominated for deletion by a user. The deletion discussion was later closed by another user, resulting in the article’s deletion. After the deletion, I noticed two editors exhibiting very similar actions, which led me to suspect they might be sockpuppets. Acting in good faith, I opened an investigation to clarify the situation. However, an admin deleted the investigation without conducting any review and aggressively warned me for opening it.
I suspect this might be due to potential bias, as one of the accounts I flagged appears to also be an admin. I would like to ask: is it acceptable under Wikipedia rules to close such an investigation without actually investigating it?
I read over the deleted SPI report and you didn't provide any evidence to support your suspicions. And it is hard to imagine an admin who has been an editor for 12 years would jeopardize that position by creating a sockpuppet for no apparent reason. Making a claim like this and presenting no evidence is considered "casting aspersions" and I think that is why the report was deleted. I think it was investigated and judged to be baseless.
What exactly were these "very similar actions" that you spotted on one page of probably hundreds or thousands of pages that they have edited? Was it just because they both voted to delete this article that you created? I know it's hard when you have created an article to have it considered for deletion but I think you have to review the comments made in an AFD in good faith and not see conspiracies where none exist.
I don't think the SPI report was deleted because one of the accused is an admin but because this editor has been active for over a decade and it would be very unusual and hard to believe that they would create a sockpuppet and you didn't present any evidence that persuaded the admin who reviewed the report that you were accurate in your judgment. The lesson here is not that admins don't make mistakes--we do--but if you are going to accuse a long-standing editor of misconduct, you better have solid evidence to present in your case. LizRead!Talk!04:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for your respond. If you have any time could you see it. It seems have some grammer problems and I want to improve it.
Edit: In January 2025, Malinin complete the 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. He scored 114.08, take a lead in the short program. In the free skate, he attempted and landed all six types of seven quads, success finish in quad flip, quad axel, two quad lutzes and quad salchow, but fell on quad loop and earned 219.23 points, bringing his total score to 333.31 and securing his third consecutive national titles.
Hi, please can you advise on how to proceed with The Guns of Muschu. The page was created in mainspace but fails WP:FILM as principal photography hasn’t started. There was already a draft on going at Draft:The Guns Of Muschu prior to the mainspace article creation. I put a deletion tag on it but that was removed with a message to draftify it, which I did, but that’s now been reverted too. Many thanks, G Hildreth gazzard (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if this was fairly deleted? It is a UK broadcast TV program which aired some years ago, but the TV channel no longer exists. This is a valid TV show with some quite famous people, and I believe it's history needs to be recorded somewhere.
Could you please restore this article for historical purposes? It can also be linked to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ruddock
Hi Liz. When you're deleting broken redirects, would you please look at each page (and its history) before you delete it?
Gizani, Ghizáni, GhizÁNi, and so forth had been fixed nearly an hour before you deleted them. As I've previously pointed out, broken redirects need to be checked for whether the redirect was broken as a result of a page move, since that makes them ineligible for WP:G8 unless WP:R2 would apply. I've also alluded that these shouldn't be deleted when they have substantive page history as a non-redirect. As WP:CSD policy states, "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible."
Done Happy to help. But, wow, you've made a lot of edits to your User page over your time here! Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
(and thanks for the note about NACs happening a day wearly; I will try to spend some time watching for that as that is far more troubling). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
.JPG)
cookie monster 755 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding AfD closure timing. The thread is "Early" closes at AfD. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Restored there. Jay 💬 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Miscellaneous
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scripts
.jpg)
Miscellaneous
_by_Ron.jpg)
Hi there, thanks for your respond. If you have any time could you see it. It seems have some grammer problems and I want to improve it.