User talk:Liz

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

Archives

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

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

24 June 2025
News and notes: Happy 7 millionth! In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks? Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past News from Diff: Call for candidates is now open: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Opinion: Russian Wiki-fork flails, failing readers and editors Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA2 debriefing Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3) Comix: Hamburgers
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Recommended reading for editors who are upset RIGHT NOW!:
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Staying cool when the editing gets hot!

If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply.
And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.

Hello Liz,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Theonewithreason,

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

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

AnonymousPurpose (talk · contribs · count)

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

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

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

Hello, CSMention269,

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

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

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

Hello, jlwoodwa,

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

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

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

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

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, HighKing,

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

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

Hello, Esperfulmo,

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

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

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

Hello, Bgsu98,

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

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

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

Hello, Janhrach,

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

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

Hello, Liz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Beni,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Liz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, The Knowledge Pirate,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Rich,

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

Thank you,

MSWDEV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

Hello, User:Fidjeri,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Cryptic,

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

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

Hello, Grizma,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Station1,

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

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

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

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

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

Hello, TenPoundHammer,

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

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

Hello, 205.220.129.230,

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

Hi Liz,

Hope you're well.

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Hello, Serviceeternity,

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

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

Hi, Liz

Thank You very much for the suggestion.

Many Thanks,

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

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

Hello, Sladen,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Kansas Bear,

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

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

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

Hello, User:Bgsu98,

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

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

The only source was this archive page.

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

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

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

Hello, Adakiko,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Riad Salih,

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

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

Hello, Riad Salih,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Raladic,

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

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

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

Hello, Cloudz679,

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

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

Hello, Das osmnezz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Borgenland,

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

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

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

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

Well Liz,

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

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

Hello, AP 499D25,

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

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

Hello, Thief-River-Faller,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Raladic,

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

Hi @Liz,

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

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

We would appreciate guidance on the following:

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

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

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

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

18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Idiotsav-screenshot-misinformation-campaign.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again Liz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Liz,

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

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

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

Hello, Andrew11374265,

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

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

Hello, JonHaroldMeyer96,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Das osmnezz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz,

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

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

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

Hello, User:JWR Projects,

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

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

Hello, ☼Phrasia☼,

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

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Dance Dance Revolution songs. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

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

Hello, ☼Phrasia☼,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Piotrus at Hanyang,

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

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

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

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

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