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)
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.
I just wanted you to know that I saw your messages. Please give me a day or two to respond to them. Thank you for this accommodation. LizRead!Talk!19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a clarification for this, I did not go looking for outing the person but the username itself was a very coded reference to such extreme views. I will try and continue this with ARBCOM. Gotitbro (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I probably broke every single rule in the book, but I "temporarily deprodded" over a dozen BLP articles that have sources in other languages. Also, in several cases, the appropriate WikiProject was not notified. I did this to hold off the flood of recent proposals for deletion, like the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the cracked dam. I'm happy to roll back my own edits in a week or two. Anyway, here's the list, curated in alphabetical order:
"I don't understand the reason for reversing my edit. The guideline is very clear. "...To be canceled, this process (when correctly initiated) requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the prod blp/dated until the biography has at least one such source...."
If you want to stop the flood of prod. deletions, take two minutes of your time, add a source, and remove the tag. What you are doing is against the guideline. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are expecting from me. I'm not the judge and jury. All I did was request an editor not tag 100+ articles in one day for deletion. I also suggested that I thought it was possible to untag a BLPPROD and then retag it later if it still needed a reliable source in order not to overwhelm our PROD reviewers and admins. This suggestion was only so that we could have a moderate flow of tagged articles, say 10-20/day rather than 100+/day. It was a temporary adaptation, not a permanent de-tagging. But again, it was a "suggestion", not an order. So many days have passed since there was this discussion that I think all of the original articles could be retagged at this point.
And I'm sorry for any delay in responding but I have been unwell and my life is kind of crashing down all around me these days. But if you want, for some reason, to escalate this attempt on my part to have a reasonable pace in deletion tagging for articles so our editors are not overwhelmed, I can't stop you. LizRead!Talk!20:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added at least one source to five of these, and re-prodded three, in addition to the one reverted already, for a total of nine. I must emphasize that none of the projects were appropriately notified, which is not required but is best practice. I'll finish the rest in the next few days. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor changed the article into a redirect. This happens every day on this project or at least I run into this often here. For some editors, turning articles into redirects is their primary editing activity. And then the redirect target article was later deleted. But since you pointed this out to me, I have reverted the deletion and reverted the edit that "BLAR'd" the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm glad we could undo it. LizRead!Talk!19:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done, that's what Special:Diff/1314896606 refers to. Given the council article had existed for nearly 10 years before being redirected 4 and a bit days ago I think G8 was inappropriate, just restoring the article would have been better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case, it was a sock "BLARring" articles but we also have legitimate editors whose primary actitivity seems to be changing articles to Redirects. LizRead!Talk!20:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started a Wikiversity page for our paper, “Securing and Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption.” It was deleted as a possible copyvio because an earlier version exists off-wiki. Since then I’ve done everything I know to do: I added an on-wiki authorship + CC BY-SA 4.0 statement, linked the Zenodo DOI and the preprint, and I’m ready to format it as a proper Wikiversity Paper. I’m also happy to replace any figures and follow whatever checklist you recommend. I’m not trying to bend rules—just learn and do it right.
Would you mind taking a quick look and telling me the next, correct step? If I should file an undeletion request, or go via Request custodian action, I’ll do that immediately. And if you think a fresh, teaching-oriented rewrite (single-column HTML, learning objectives, glossary, exercises) is the right path instead of a verbatim import, I’ll start that today.
I’m anxious about messing this up, and I’d be grateful if you could stand by me and make sure I’m following the community’s way of doing things. Your word will mean a lot, and I’ll follow it to the letter.
Hi Liz. Would you help restore the edit history of the talk page (which Mas0802 has moved further to Draft talk:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025), or would you recommend going to RFU/DRV instead? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, your deletions of Trial for the 2022–2023 coup plot in Brazil and AP 2668 needed restoring not deleting per WP:G8"Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move". I believe you should of checked incoming links before hitting the delete button, as this would have indicated something wasn't quite right. I know you work fast in the deletion world and I appreciate that, but please double check things future. I have now restored the links and re-synced talk pages. Regards, CNC (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Editors should also be more careful moving long-standing articles to different page titles just to make small changes in the page title and they should always, always leave a redirect behind. LizRead!Talk!03:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, there are no excuses for that imo. I did also notify ArionStar via diff when fixing that was fortunately acknowledged. For context the reason for not leaving them a talk page message as well is that they are not a mop-wielder who I believe should be held to a higher standard, as effectively the last line of defence in this case, even though they also should of known a lot better. If the move was done by a page mover for example, I wouldn't of left it at that either. That might sound harsh, but with great power comes great responsibility as they say. CNC (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you said was not a reason to bring the articles back to mainspace actually was shown by Habst to be a valid reason to return them. He asked for one single day to sort things out and said that then they could be draftified. What is wrong with respecting that request? Why is it appropriate for you, as the main editor in the content dispute, to be fully-protecting the pages yourself and threatening to block him, given that you're participating in 'move-warring' as well? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's over now, and a project involving the list is about to be presented at the NYC Wikipedia hackathon. There are participants in that RfC here IRL. The redirects are important; I responded to Vanamonde93's concern about it. I agree with the consensus established and will draftify the articles. Please, give us until the end of the day which I think is a reasonable request. --Habst (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK chaps. Will see what you’ve done tomorrow. I really wouldn’t repeat this TBH. Move-warring like that, with multiple admins (not just me) telling you to stop, was a very bad idea. FOARP (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I can just leave my regular signature? Everyone else's signatures were very plain so I removed all of the code from my signature. Thank you for letting me know. LizRead!Talk!23:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came across a new user who posted a promotional biography both on his user page and his user talk page. (Doctor posting "Why choose Dr..? office hours, contact info, etc.) Easy to {{db-G11}} the user page. However, on the user talk page, there were message from other editors after the initial "CV" posting, and updates to the "CV" after, followed by more messages. Is there a way to speedy delete nominate a section & then ≥delete only the promotional section? — ERcheck (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is unsuitable content, I think you can remove it. I've done that before with User pages rather than deleting them. We run into this a lot because many new editors think their User page is for a personal profile. I accept more personal content than many editors/admins do but I draw the line at links to social media accounts. LizRead!Talk!23:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2600:4041:7948:9A00:98F8:2B59:AB2F:929, the AFD for Tadashi Nakamura (martial artist) was closed as a Soft deletion so I was able to restore it. I'm having more problems with the other one, we don't have a deleted page for Seido Juku and Seido Karate is a different page that was a redirect that was deleted in 2010. Can you be more precise and give me a link to this other deleted article? I can't review the reasons for deletion if I can't find the page. LizRead!Talk!01:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the page "Seido juku" was just a redirect to Tadashi Nakamura, and when the page Tadashi Nakamura was deleted, it was deleted alongside it. Katzrockso (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the AfD and had a different understanding of the consensus. A keep AfD has a different standard of precedent than a 'no consensus AfD so I was just curious about the reasoning. There is no problem.
It also matters in this particular case, since I presume a No Consensus close would mean the article is still susceptible to speedy deletion due to the creator being a sockpuppet, whereas a Keep decision in an AfD supersedes that. And outside of one of the delete arguments bringing up the creator, the OP and the other delete vote specifically mentioned lack of sourcing, but then didn't address the large amount of sources found by 4meter4 and which was subsequently used as keep votes by 4 other editors. I don't understand how this is a No Consensus close either. SilverserenC03:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that really does matter in the long-run, because there are substantial edits by others: I believe the substantial body of the text was added by user CapitalPun (my count is 5147 bytes added), who is currently not banned or blocked. Additionally, user Hack added 1305 bytes of text to the article, also not a banned user. Consequently, I have a hard time understanding Pppery's rational for a speedy deletion. Katzrockso (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Liz, could you explain your close rationale on that one? Because I don't really see how a No Consensus close makes sense from that discussion itself and you didn't give an explanation in your close statement. SilverserenC23:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Liz, I know about your page notice at the top and your talk page is often a lot in general, so I don't want to harass you in any manner. But I also don't want to just avoid a conversation at the same time, you know? SilverserenC22:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katzrockso, I saw three strong opinions for Deletion including the nominator and one of the Keep arguments could be discounted as the editor was a sockpuppet. And a number of the "Keeps" were on the order ofa "per X" argument which is not as strong as an editor presenting their own conclusions about what the outcome of a AFD discussion should be. "Per X" arguments, whether pro or con Keep/Delete, carry less weight for me than an original argument. I don't close that many AFD discussions as "No consensus" as editors who are either pro-Keep or pro-Delete are dissatisfied with a NC closure but in this case, I thought it was the only closure that honored both editors who thought the article should be Deleted and those who thought it should be Kept.
As for me, whether or not an article is Kept through an AFD Keep closure or a NC closure doesn't affect any future AFD closures that I perform. I've seen opinion swing widely on AFDs even within the same year so I look at each one with fresh eyes. I hope this helps. LizRead!Talk!23:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would just comment out the redirect part so they aren't redirects any more. The utility would be having the page history (and possibly Wikidata item links). Thanks, -- Habst (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz, sorry for the ping, was wondering if you could restore these pages if you have a moment? You can comment out the redirects (or I can) if it would be an issue. Thank you so much for your help with this. --Habst (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, can you at least comment here that you give permission for a WP:REFUND administrator to restore the pages? I think that should be sufficient, because these pages were deleted as the result of a technical process and not by a deletion discussion. --Habst (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz, sorry for the ping on this again, confirming if you could restore the page history of these redirects or confirm that a REFUND administrator can do it? Thank you so much for your understanding and great work here. --Habst (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if these have page history, then they probably shouldn't have been moved out of the mainspace, but kept as deleted pages there. That keeps the logs there (who created, why was it deleted) and makes it easier to undelete the history if they ever get recreated. Fram (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FRAM here: these should stay deleted. Redirects are not a save-function for deleted articles, that is what undelete is for. FOARP (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with FRAM's rationale but it was based on a premise that turned out not to be true. These pages were only deleted as the result of a technical process; they weren't deleted by any discussion or consensus, so technically we don't even have to have the deleting admin's permission to REFUND. As an admin, can you undelete them then? --Habst (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need a gut check. I blocked the above editor for a week for personal attacks, in direct response to their sarcastic response to my post of yesterday. I'm not impressed with their behavior, and I think they've been given too many second chances, but I'll be honest; their tone, and their conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoAnna Cochenet, have gotten under my skin in a way that rarely happens. Am I out of line with the block? I'm not convinced I'm thinking straight any more. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.05:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are part of a year 1 undergraduate course in Digital Technology at LIUC (Milan, Italy), and will as a supervised student team be working on a digital publishing project that involves creating a new article draft.
We noticed Dromagh Castle listed among the requested articles. After researching several sources, we planned to create a draft page for it. However, while preparing to create the draft, we noticed that a previous version had been deleted.
Our group would like to recreate the page with improved, well-sourced content that fully meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Could you please share the specific reason why the previous version was deleted? Knowing the original concerns will help us ensure our recreated draft adheres to all community standards and avoids repeating past issues.
After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Hi Liz, I think you accidently deleted this article Víctor Rosso. It was BLPPROD, but I found multiple reliable sources that supported claims in the article and added them there, so it was no longer eligible for PROD deletion. I was also working on cutting down some of the material, which was exceptionally long for the subject.
You are correct. About an hour before the article was due to be deleted, you added some references to it. I handle PRODs by having a day's worth open in tabs on my computer and I should have refreshed that tab before deleting the article but I didn't and that was my mistake. Just because last minute changes rarely happend with PROD'd article doesn't mean that they never happen and this was my oversight. Thank you for bringing this to my attention so I could fix my error. LizRead!Talk!20:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Liz, I understand there is a lot going behind the scene!
Well that is very understanding of you. It's appreciated. Some editors who disagree with a deletion or admin decision come in, guns blazing, and I'm glad we could discuss the outcome here calmly. LizRead!Talk!20:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you kindly explain your judgment of consensus in this case in more detail? In my view, the majority of participants, or half if you don't include the nominator, supported either merge or delete. FaviFake (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw two editors arguing to Keep this article and one of the editors was arguing for a "Keep and Merge". I don't see this as a consensus to Merge in any way. I won't revert my closure as I think my closure was correct but I am willing to relist this discussion if this is an outcome you would prefer. In these situations, I allow another closer to handle any future closures of the discussion. Just as an aside, we are having these problems frequently in AFDs these days because we have so many fewer editors participating in discussions. The closure would be much more definitive if we had 6 or 7 participants weighing in with their arguments. LizRead!Talk!20:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If i recall correctly, the same (or another editor) editor voted to keep and merge somewhere else, but actually meant keep the content and merge it, thereby blanking and redicting the article (but I might be completely wrong!). Unfortunately they never replied to my comment. Thanks for your willingness to relist it.@Reywas92 In this comment of yours, did you mean you wanted to keep the article or to merge it? Or you don't mind if either choice is made? FaviFake (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 Thanks. While from your AfD comment it seemed, at least to me, that you were in favour of a merge, I'd like to understand if you meant to also vote for a keep as well, or if you only meant to vote for a merge. Did you meant to vote in favour of either one, or just merge or just keep? FaviFake (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. Hope you're doing well. As per my user talk page, I tried to revert my relist action but I am struggling to do it here. Please help me out there. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of a discussion on your user talk page, is this situation resolved now or did you still need some action from me? I tend to respond to messages on my user talk page at the end of the day. LizRead!Talk!02:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, My initial question was to revert my AfD relist as I had struggled to revert, which is asked in my user talk page. Now, there's one votes after relist. I request you to look at that AfD and tell me whether my relist is appropriate or not. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are writing about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boo (Mario franchise), no I don't think a relist was inappropriate and it might even be relisted again, depending on who reviews it next. There are a collection of different opinions and as a Non-admin closer, in my 5 years of AFD experience, you couldn't have handled it any other way. What Zxcvbnm was asking from you was for you to interpret the arguments and this was a close call so that would have been inappropriate for a Non-admin closer to do. Although I understand the comments left on your User talk page, it is not unusual for remarks like this to come from editors who are seeking a quick closure in favor of their point-of-view. They might be right in their conclusions but what they were asking you to do would not have been appropriate according to our guidelines for Non-admin closers and you have nothing to apologize for.
These kind of complaints are not at all uncommon once you start closing or relisting AFD discussions. So, if you wish to continue to be involved in AFD administration as an Non-admin closer, I'd just advise you to stay away from close calls or any discussions that seem controversial. It is easy less fun to be called to come over to Wikipedia:Deletion review but with some divided discussions, you just know that whatever the outcome, there will be objections to your closure. LizRead!Talk!21:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the delay in my response, I was not aware of the ANI discussion. But it looks like User:Pppery got to the category right-away. I was not taking sides in this dispute, I run a query throughout the day that searches for empty categories to tag and this one popped up. Looks like it is no longer empty so untagging it is appropriate. LizRead!Talk!02:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to tell you that Tout-Fait: The Marcel Duchamp Studies Online Journal was deleted as a Proposed deletion (PROD), not through an AFD discussion, so you could have come to me or WP:REFUND and asked for deleted article to be restored although it was probably wise to start over from scratch to avoid any association with User:Socrynpinfeb, the former article creator who is now blocked. I hope you are not Socrynpinfeb, returning to edit as doing that could get you blocked as a sockpuppet.
I usually don't review articles being examined at AFD discussion until it comes time to close a discussion but since you made a request, I'll check it out. Together with the blocked editor, this was a bit of a controversy so I'd look over all of the associated discussions with Socrynpinfeb and this article so you can see where the reviewers are coming from when they come to participate in the deletion discussion. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!20:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm contacting you since you are an active administrator and frequently on ANI. If you have time, would you mind reading this ANI report I filed and commenting on it? This looks like it's not gonna get any input before getting archived.
For the record, I'm not asking you to pick my side. I could be wrong. I want this to get noticed by uninvolved users because I find the case as a long-term disruption that must be dealt with. I already tried RfC/3O but nobody ever came down to resolve it. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, the RFC you tried to set up was not done correctly. There is no shame here, RFC need to follow very strict guidelines and it's a challenge for many people to do so properly. I think you should try running an RFC again, go to the Teahouse for help. Once the RFC is correctly posted, it will be advertised on a number of other WIkipedia pages and noticeboards and so more editors will know about it and hopefully participate because it will get more publicity.
As for the ANI, it seems like a problem you have had is that talk page discussions are limited to just you two editors and you need to have more editors to join the discussion. The complaint posted at ANI can help with that but it is rather long and many editors won't take the time to sort out the problem if the complaint posted to the noticeboard is lengthy. It can help to post messages like you did here, on editor's user talk pages or on a relevant Wikiproject talk page (say for Korea or Women's issues) as long as the nessages are absolutely neutral so that they are not seen as canvassing. That means not encouraging editors to support your point-of-view and just inviting them to participate.
I just glanced over your ANI complaint as it required more time than I have at the moment but I'll return to it. If you are looking for advice, I'll just say, don't bludgeon the discussion which will discourage other editors from participating in it which means, don't feel like you have to respond to every comment made by the other editor. If a discussion looks like it is dominated by a back-and-forth between two editors, other editors will not want to join the discussion because they think it has gotten personal, rather than about Wikipedia policy. Leave space for other editors to participate and don't make the discussion any longer even if that means going a few days with no comments on the discussion. I'll post right now that I haven't analyzed the discussion, I have no point-of-view on one "side" being more correct than another and I have not been canvassed, just asked to look over the discussion, not take sides. LizRead!Talk!20:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the situation. I think I did follow WP:RFCOPEN beat by beat, including publicizing the RfC on other Wikiprojects. But I look into it again.
I'm glad you said you were mistaken as the only edit I can see I made to Casey Fiesler was to remove an AFD tag in April 2024 which doesn't seem uncivil to me. I think you not only got the wrong editor, you got the wrong article because there hasn't been any activity on this article since June 2024. LizRead!Talk!20:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia 25: Are you planning to organize events to celebrate Wikipedia's 25th birthday? The Wikimedia Foundation offers grants to support active Wikimedia groups in organizing short-term, low-cost projects to celebrate this milestone. Applications are open until November 1.
WikiConference North America 2025: WikiConference North America will take place from October 16–19 in New York City, USA.
Dark Mode will soon be available on all Wikimedia sites.
Mobile Editing: Insights on mobile web editing on Wikipedia in 2025 are now available. This report highlights that ~95% of IP mobile users editing via wikitext open the editor but make no changes at all, a vast untapped potential. It also pinpoints where contributors most often drop off.
Dark Mode: Dark Mode user interface will be rolled out on all Wikimedia sites on October 29. All anonymous users of Wikimedia sites will have the option to activate a color scheme that features light-colored text on a dark background. This is designed to provide a more comfortable reading experience, especially in low-light situations.
Community wishlist extension:The new Community Wishlist extension has been released. This will allow users to add tags to their wishes to better categorise them, and (in a future iteration) to filter them by status, tags and focus areas. It will also be possible to support individual wishes again, as requested by the community in many instances.
Paste Check: 22 Wikis are now testing a new Edit Check feature, Paste Check, to help avoid and fight copyright violations. When editors paste text into an article, Paste Check prompts them to confirm the origin and licensing of the content.
Tone Check: The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a new check for newcomers: Tone check. Using a prediction model, this check will encourage editors to improve the tone of their edits.
Search Suggestions: Search Suggestions was deployed on English Wikipedia. Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users see suggestions of articles for further reading. The feature is available on both desktop and mobile.
Unsupported Tools Working Group: A new Unsupported Tools Working Group has been formed to help prioritize and review requests for support of unmaintained extensions, gadgets, bots, and tools. The group has chosen Video2Commons as the first tool for its pilot cycle. The group will explore ways to improve and sustain the tool over the coming months.
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 40 and 41 including about Sub-referencing – a new feature to re-use references with different details.
Wikimedia Research Showcase: Don't miss the next Wikimedia Research Showcase, "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata's Role in Learning and Culture" taking place on October 15 at 16:30 UTC.
Human Rights: Making sure AI serves people and knowledge stays human: Wikimedia Foundation publishes a Human Rights Impact Assessment on the interaction of AI and machine learning with Wikimedia projects.
Don't blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
Learning Clinic: Join the next Let's Connect Learning Clinic on the topic of "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool (Part 2)" taking place on October 20 at 17:00 UTC.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Hello! As a recently active admin, can I ask for your assistance? Would you mind setting impactmontreal.com/ to a dead domain on the IAbot? The team renamed themselves a few years ago and all pages from that domain redirect to a page deleted spot on their new website. EDIT: I forgot to mention that, since I'm not an admin, I can't set it myself. Elisfkc (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been a disruptive on this site initially (I made positive contributions as well before my first block), but I've grown from that now. I believe that I could have faced a better outcome if some things were different:
Can you check out the contributions for @Humanbeing9? Some of the redirects they have made are incredibly weird. I marked two for speedy deletion but I don't fully know if they are wrong. – LuniZunie ツ(talk)00:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin got to a lot of them and the redirect creator has been blocked. Thanks for the notice. If you find some that haven't been deleted that you think are inappropriate, please nominate them at WP:RFD. LizRead!Talk!02:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you for informing me. I'm not familiar with this subject. This editor created way too many redirects to this article so you might find others deleted, either through CSD or RFD. LizRead!Talk!02:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you relisted the bundled Battle of Kuvan-Darya nomination but I don't think you should have done that because they are not part of a series even though they were authored by the same person and the nominator did state his concerns. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It helps if you provide a link to the article you are talking about. So, your concern is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kuvan-Darya? Well, now that the discussion has been relisted, any closer can close the discussion at any time, it doesn't need to stay open another week. I relist discussions when it's not clear what the closure should be and that was the situation here. You are welcome to share your opinions in this discussion. I often avoid closing discussions that I have relisted to give another closer a chance to participate so I'm not sure when a closer will get to this AFD discussion. But I'm not going to revert this relisting. LizRead!Talk!04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was working on Draft:Mohamed Ishfan some time ago, but it was deleted after remaining unattended for over six months. Now that a new user has attempted to publish an article about the same actor, my content has been replaced with the new version, and I am unable to restore my draft since it is not available in the page history. Is there any way to recover the previous data that was stored in the draft space? ShappeAli (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this page on a list of Broken redirects. But since you object, I'll restore it to you and you can take responsibility for it. My apologies. LizRead!Talk!02:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
I don't understand, the article is tagged for an AFD discussion but then the AFD page is tagged for a CSD speedy deletion. Are they both correct? Did you mean to delete the AFD page? Can you just remove the AFD tag on the article and state in the edit summary that it was a mistake? LizRead!Talk!20:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A filter is denying that option saying i can't remove the AFD tag, that it has been dissallowed. So instead of running out of options, before the community start discussing on the page, i just marked the discussion page for CSD. See:
An automated filter has detected that you are attempting to remove an Articles for deletion or Miscellany for deletion notice from this page, so it has been disallowed. Please understand that removing it will not stop the discussion from taking place, and discussions should only be closed by experienced users. If you oppose the deletion, please comment at the respective page instead. If you did not remove any such notice, please report this error. BiomeScribe (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't so complicated. Be more careful in the future. Also, I noticed that you didn't post a notification to the article creator, CHrt1, in the future, when nominating an article, category, template, redirect, etc., be sure to notify the page creator of the deletion discussion. This is done most easily by using Twinkle and checking off the box that says "Always notify page creator." Thank you. LizRead!Talk!20:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We released the "Add a Link" Structured Task to 100% of accounts at English Wikipedia on Tuesday, September 2nd (before then it was available to 20% of accounts).
After examining if the Growth features and Mentorship could be adapted to Wikidata, we activated the Growth features on Beta Wikidata to allow for testing and discussion (T400937).
Although some features, like Suggested Edits, are Wikipedia-specific, the Growth team designed most features to be more wiki-agnostic.
The machine learning team has been working on a new model that can suggest links to more languages, including Urdu, Chinese, and Japanese Wikipedias. We are starting to release the “Add a Link” feature to Wikipedias that weren’t supported by the previous model.
The Growth team is involved in several research initiatives to help guide our future work:
Progression System – We have published initial findings from interviews with 10 English and French Wikipedia newcomers.
The research examined motivations, challenges, and feedback on a prototype system intended to help editors build confidence, develop skills, and contribute more constructively over time.
Mobile Web Editing Research – This project combines quantitative and qualitative data, community feedback, and user journey analysis to identify possible ways to enhance the mobile editing experience.
Newcomers Survey – This project surveys successful newcomers on English Wikipedia to understand their early editing experiences, tool use, and community interactions.
The Growth team participated in several community events to listen, share, and collaborate on improving newcomer experiences across Wikimedia projects.
This session invited organizers to share how they introduce newcomers to Growth features and the challenges they encounter. The discussion focused on common newcomer questions and opportunities to strengthen collaboration in supporting new editors.
This talk demonstrated how Structured Tasks help newcomers take their first successful steps on Wikipedia. It shared impact data, community configurations, and a demo of “Add a Link,” illustrating how these tasks make editing more accessible and sustainable, particularly for mobile contributors.
With active editor numbers declining, the Contributors Strategy aims to create a clearer, more engaging path for participation. This session, led by the WMF Contributors group with involvement from the Editing, Growth, Moderator Tools, and Connection (formerly Campaigns) teams, highlighted efforts to streamline contributor experiences, offer structured and mobile-friendly workflows, and foster meaningful engagement. Participants learned about ongoing initiatives and shared feedback to help shape a more inclusive and sustainable future for Wikimedia contributors.
Many communities face a decline in volunteer engagement. Newcomers often leave soon after joining, while experienced editors struggle to manage increasingly complex workflows and overwhelming backlogs. We presented the Contributors Strategy and the different features and workflows that can help communities to address these challenges. We listened to the specific needs of the CEE communities to help guide the Contributors teams' work.
@EALCCJJ @Piotrus @Ldm1954 @Russ Woodroofe Unfortunately, I don't know where the deleted page ended up, or where the discussion surrounding its deletion is. Could it be that my fellow editors don't respect the work of others? Gathering the details and considering the advisability of editing this article took some time, as it required consulting numerous sources and verifying their credibility.
It is deleted but why? From the discussion it is obvious for me that C1 and C5 are confirmed!!! By decree of 18 October 2004, the President of the Republic of Poland awarded Dr. Hab. Eng. Jan Zarzycki the title of professor of technical sciences.[1]
Perhaps distinguished professors face higher standards at some universities. However, a presidential appointment is not a political one, but a merit-based one. The president legitimizes a highly demanding procedure. Therefore, the very fact of being appointed a professor indicates that the individual has achieved exceptional competence and made a significant contribution to science.
I have read the following, but I am not qualified enough to launch an "appeal". I would be happy to add additional arguments, but I need time for that - editing articles for the wiki is an interesting, but still complementary activity in my calendar.
=>The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I was pinged, so will respond, although I am not Liz. The page was deleted because the consensus was that notability criteria were not met. You can appeal the close at WP:Deletion Review, but I think that there is little chance of success: the close is supposed to assess the arguments for delete and keep in light of Wikipedia policy. Liz is an experienced administrator with many AfD closes, and in particular I think that her close in this case correctly assessed the arguments. My best advice is to WP:DROPTHESTICK and give up on this article. You could file a deletion review, or make a draft and run it through WP:Articles for Creation, but I do not see either of these ending in success. Do not make a new article directly in main article space under any circumstances: that's likely to lead to salting of the article. You've pinged me 5 times in the last couple of days on this, and written large amounts of text: please carefully consider whether the essay WP:BLUDGEON has anything to say to you. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article can be WP:USERFYied per the request the editor made at my talk page and their comments indicating that they find the DELREV procedure complex. Then they can try to learn Wikipedia rules by working on other content and gaining experience in determining what is notable and how to find reliable sources. Or they can give up, leave, or get banned by not dropping the stick. Sigh. But we should WP:AGF first. Let's userfy this, pass the ball to their court, and see what happens. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the article was deleted is all in the AFD that you linked to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Zarzycki (2nd nomination). You may also look at the first AFD to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Zarzycki, because that discussion can influence a later AFD. The first AFD was closed as Delete and in spite of that, was recreated so sometimes editors who participate in AFD discussions can be a little harsher to get their point across that this subject is not ready for their own article when there is so little time between AFD discussions (2 in one year!). If the article is immediately recreated a third time, you can expect the same outcome and, perhaps, for the page title to be "salted" to prevery any future recreations which is a very bad outcome if you eventually want to try another article for this subject in the future.
It's clear that you have a different opinion than the participants in this deletion discussion. I don't know if the bar is higher for academics depending on what institution they are affiliated with but, this is my own opinion, I think the bar is higher for professors than for other professions like politicians, athletes or actors. What happens with academics though is that it can be too early in their career to have a standalone article. As their career progresses, they can often be considered more eligible as they produce more well-known work or, for example, if they are currently an assistant professor and then become a full professor in a more important position.
My resubmission of the article for consideration and publication was not due to a lack of understanding of the editors' arguments for its removal. I calmly supplemented the points that weren't considered clearly and emphasized what demonstrates Zarzycki's unique character. In Poland, the president awards approximately 20-40 professorships in technical sciences annually. This may be a lot compared to the 3-5 in mathematical sciences, but the scope of technical sciences is also much larger. Obtaining the title is linked to significant research results in the discipline and a role in educating faculty – promoted PhDs. However, there are only 3-5 universities in Poland with a faculty of electronics (depending on how you count them), so leading such a faculty as a dean is an unusual attribute for the nominee.
All these facts were incorrectly assessed by the editors, and the analysis was reduced to speculation about the number of published papers – which is unacceptable in my field. Quantity does not mean quality. Significant results are usually recognized years later. This year's Nobel Prize in Physics was for a result from 1988!
I would like to kindly ask whether the deleted article Jan Zarzycki (2nd nomination) could be restored to my user space for further improvement.
I fully respect the AfD outcome and understand the reasoning behind the deletion.
My goal is only to work on the text privately, learn Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing standards, and prepare a properly referenced version that can later go through Articles for Creation or Deletion Review.
I also plan to strengthen the article with independent and reliable sources — that is, publications or documents created by third parties not connected with the subject (for example, Monitor Polski, national bibliographic databases, or academic references citing his work).
It is also worth noting that in the field of technical sciences, the impact of a researcher’s work is sometimes difficult to document publicly, as many projects may be covered by confidentiality clauses, national security restrictions, or patent protection. This can limit the number of openly available secondary sources, even for distinguished scientists.
If possible, please restore it to:
→ User:KSz at OWPTM/soundbox/Jan_Zarzycki
The subject holds the title of Professor of Technical Sciences, awarded by the President of the Republic of Poland in 2004 (Monitor Polski No. 115-8-04), which satisfies at least C1 of WP:PROF.
Remember that purge of Vega rocket launches back in 2023? Flight 17 seemed only the most notable as it was the second Vega rocket to end in failure, so I think it should have been kept. I restored it, but didn't notice your "restore page" in time. My apologies. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies because I don't know what you are referring to. It really helps if you provide a link to the exact page where the article was or is. LizRead!Talk!22:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are finding alternative methods to take a WikiBreak. There are some admins, like Bishonen, who are known for offering blocking services but as Jlwoodwa alluded to, only a steward could do a "global block", regular admins can only block editors from the projects where they are an admin. And I've never heard of a block only certain hours of the day or night. LizRead!Talk!22:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, if the Script to lock out the account during certain times of the day.[3] (see bottom link) doesn't work, I'll self enforce it. If self-enforcement doesn't work, I will ask for a admin-administered wikibreak for this week. Sorry for any time wasted. (If the lock out script doesn't let me log back in, I will ask an admin via email). DareshMohan (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article states, the stadium is used for soccer and rugby matches, and athletics events. I assume all of these activities involve "athletics". LizRead!Talk!20:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't look into this situation until you give me a link to the page of the article you are concerned with. Otherwise, it's impossible for me to know what you are talking about. You mention List of Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates but it doesn't looke like there are any problems with this article. If you provide more data and supply the questions you are interested in, I can look into the circumstances of the page deletion and be able to give you a fuller answer. But I look at hundreds of pages every day and you can't rely on my memory to know who you are and what you are referring to. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Fox actually provided some new acquired programming rather than being lazy to provide newer shows in recent years, then I'm sure that MyNetworkTV would get an audience it deserves, and that many stations with a full-time affiliation would have their own schedules of their to maintain rather than letting the service act as late night or overnight filler that sometimes shares secondary affiliations with multicast television networks carried on digital subchannels. 2600:6C50:57F:BA33:845C:908E:8313:5499 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence to my closure but I'm sure it will not be satisfactory to you. I believe that the consensus among discussion participants was that this redirect should be deleted. It wasn't anything deeper than that. I'm not willing to change my outcome but if you would like this discussion to be reslisted, I'm willing to do that. I'm really not sure what you are looking for here as a "Keep" would have been a very unlikely outcome decision. LizRead!Talk!06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the addition to the close statement does not help really. What I'm interested to know is how you concluded there is consensus to delete, and what did you think of the keep votes or opposition to delete. I want to rule out that my thinking could be biased. Maybe you are seeing something I am not. Jay 💬06:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the discussion has been relisted. All I can say is that while I don't go by a headcount, the fact that more editors were arguing for Deletion does make that option carry more weight in my mind. I would never judge whether or not you or any other editor is "biased" but I look at the strength of the arguments and part of that stength is in numbers. That's not the only factor but that is one factor is a part of how I determine consensus. LizRead!Talk!07:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is how closes should work. I was interested in your analysis of this particular RfD, but I guess I won't get that now that it is relisted. Jay 💬08:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said "almost unanimous" because there was the nominator of the AFD discussion which kept the consensus from being unanimous. But, honestly, how else could I have closed this discussion? If there were a few editors arguing for Deletion, I could have closed the discussion as No consensus but there were none. Generally, I'm pretty flexible about relisting a discussion I've closed but I really don't see a realistic alternative to Keep. What are you seeing that, in your eyes, I'm missing? LizRead!Talk!21:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also argued against two of the keep arguments. So while I didn't comment a formal "Delete", unanimous makes me feel overlooked. From my view, the rebuttals including mine under the keep are sufficient to not just count by the bold prints. I had hoped for perhaps a final relist to address the recent comments. I agree that an alternative outcome is unlikely, but the closing comment is still relevant. IgelRM (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you brought an editor's hopes down for a good faith mistake they committed. Did you really have to scare them off with a block? Did you see the reply they gave you? Using your admin power to give block threats to editors can't be permitted unless in this situation was not needed! And in a lost world rising in population, with idle kids loitering around on the internet, we need high long hourly active anti vandal users like User:Criticize is. I appreciate other users handling the vandalism when they can, but still. You have been here for 12 years and should know better how to confront editors politely for making mistakes, especially when they do them for the first time. But the main reason im here is because you told Criticize their "editing makes no sense at all". Have you seen the contributions the user has done before the page moving mistake? What was it with you anyway!?
And while you're reading this, Can you please snap Criticize out of it and try to motivate him/her back to contribute again since I find their late response surprising.
Tbh, I find this user's anti vandal work much better compared to others.
And lastly, just to be sure. Please don't question my account. I created this 2 years back so I can read articles better and use stuff like 'add to watchlist' etc. So this message should not look like im being suspicious. Thank you Xpad (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:TonySt, Nothing at all! I just noticed the user isn't contributing and i wonder why. It's great to see anti vandal users who are active all the time. I read alot of articles as one of my hobbies and have no interest to edit. Tbh, it's very annoying when I select an article to read and see slur language or find text that don't make any sense, mostly nonsense or texts without any single reference. It has been more of a problem for me lately. Xpad (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page gnome) @Xpad, I see I'm not the only who is wondering why almost all of your 19 edits are to Criticize's talk page, or to other editors' talk pages, trying to advocate for Criticize when she have not asked you to do so, and almost goading her to return to editing. If you really don't know Criticize, then this looks almost like harassment. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz, I would like to ‹The template+1 is being considered for deletion.›+1 this.I had noticed Criticize has left editing for a little while, and after doing some digging I found out that, while it was for a few reasons, one of the main reasons for his extended leave was this message you sent. Criticize had been acting in good faith and has been a good-faith editor for a long time now, and I think the comment left was unprecedented. While I do not think your comment was at all fully to blame, I do find it concerning that such a good-faith editor took a break right after the message, and sourced it as one of the reasons why the break occurred.Anyways, as always, happy editing =)(I do agree that this user, Xpad, is incredibly suspicious)– LuniZunie ツ(talk)03:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am always behind with reviewing messages on my user talk page and I didn't notice this one at all. I'll review this and see if I need to take any further action. Sorry for the delay. LizRead!Talk!04:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Global trends: We are seeing 8% declines in human page views on Wikipedia as some users don't directly visit Wikipedia to get information. Learn about this new user trend, how the Wikimedia Foundation anticipate these changes, and how you can help.
The naming contest for the new Wikimedia project, known until now as Abstract Wikipedia, is ongoing.
Making it easier to say thanks: Users on most wikis will now have the ability to thank a comment directly from the talk page it appears on. Before this change, thanking could only be done by visiting the revision history of the talk page.
Account security: Improvements to account security and two-factor authentication (2FA) features were enabled across all wikis. Another part of the project is making 2FA generally available to all users. Along with editors with advanced privileges, such as administrators and bureaucrats, 40% of editors now have access to 2FA. You can check if you have access at Special:AccountSecurity.
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 42 and 43 including the community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.
Wikimedia apps: The Wikipedia iOS App launched an A/B/C test of improvements to the Tabbed browsing feature into Beta for select regions & languages. Called “More dynamic tabs”, the experiment adds user-requested improvements and introduces article recommendations within the tabs overview, showing “Did you know” or “Because you read” content depending on how many tabs are open.
CampaignEvents extension:Campaignevents extension will be deployed to all remaining wikis during the week of 17 November 2025. The extension currently includes three features: Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List. For this rollout, Invitation List will not be enabled on Wikifunctions and MediaWiki unless requested by those communities.
Event registration tool: Autoconfirmed users on small and medium wikis with the extension can now use Event Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.
Digital safety: Explore how you can help make Wikimedia safer by taking our new self-paced course, Safety for Young Wikimedians.
Wikimedia Core Curriculum: The Wikimedia Foundation has developed seven online video learning modules covering the core English Wikipedia policies. You are invited to use, adapt, and translate the course.
Advocacy: The Wikimedia Foundation has signed onto a statement that calls on governments and UN bodies to keep discussions about the future of internet governance accessible to non-government actors like industry and civil society. This statement is part of ongoing joint advocacy with affiliates to influence UN discussions about the future of internet governance such as the Global Digital Compact campaign and WSIS+20 deliberations.
GLAM: The Wikimedia Foundation and several affiliates have signed onto the Open Heritage Statement, which supports galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM institutions) to have the legal rights they need to collect, preserve, and provide access to cultural heritage.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
I am Jennifer Highsmith, Vice President of Executive Communications at Synchrony Financial. I am writing to seek your guidance before attempting to create a Wikipedia article about our CEO, Brian Doubles.
Disclosure: I work for Synchrony and am transparently disclosing this conflict of interest upfront.
The Situation:
I understand you deleted a draft article about Mr. Doubles on November 29, 2020, after it was moved to draft space by editor MER-C in December 2019 for “covert advertising.” I want to do this correctly and avoid repeating those mistakes.
What Has Changed:
Since 2020, there has been significant independent media coverage of Mr. Doubles:
Note: Brian Doubles is already listed on the Synchrony Financial Wikipedia page as CEO in the “Key People” section.
My Questions:
1. Does the coverage I listed above meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for a standalone biographical article?
2. What were the specific concerns with the 2019 draft that I should avoid?
3. Should I submit through Articles for Creation (AfC), or would adding more detail to the existing Synchrony Financial page be more appropriate?
4. Given my COI, should I work with an independent Wikipedia editor instead?
I will not create or submit any content until I receive your guidance. If a standalone article isn’t appropriate, I completely understand and respect that decision. Thank you for your time and for maintaining Wikipedia’s standards.
Hi Liz, thanks for the note and the Teahouse invite. Understood about Wikipedia’s scope.
My focus is editing Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio and ensuring it meets sourcing policies. I’ve added independent Bulgarian sources (journal, textbook with page numbers and appendix, proceedings) and a regulated issuer’s report. If you or another reviewer have a moment, I’d appreciate guidance on whether the current sourcing is sufficient for a short entry. Many thanks! Петър П. Петров (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as this AfD was closed as delete, the creator of the page reposted it as a draft, with the following edit summary: I won't ever get why all the sources mentioned were considered unreliable and the article got deleted. I feel that people are too strict, which isn't good per WP:BUREAUCRACY for example, even though there were explanations as to why the sources were unreliable throughout the discussion. How should this be approached? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 11:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were already an experienced veteran when I registered this account in 2013 so you are hardly a "rookie!" No problem with the article, I was just worried that I restored an article than you had merged elsewhere so we had two versions of the same content. I gather that's not true. LizRead!Talk!23:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK "rookie admin" error. I think it was an issue with default keyboard actions on the special merge page, I just need to be mindful of that and just use the mouse (and double check end result). I've checked everything looks correct now, and all good. I was merging in old history from Bertha Bredt from 2007 into that article. Thanks again — KylieTastic (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz hope you are having a good day. I wanted to ask why a one word explanation mentioning notability is the issue not allowed? I ask because when two of my articles were prodded someone only gave WP:N as a reason and those who removed the prods didn't object to that so I thought this kind of reason was ok so I would appreciate some clarity on why it isn't allowed if that is ok. Thanks in advance if you respond. GothicGolem29(GothicGolem29 Talk)23:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, different admins behave differently. Some do not ask many questions, others require all of the "t's" to be crossed and all of the "i's" to be dotted. I probably remove more PROD tags because of inadequate deletion rationales than other admins. I am very dissatisfied with our current PRODding standards. This is a situation where admins review PROD'd articles and files to ensure that the criteria for proposed deletion are met. PRODs are supposed to be "uncontroversial deletions" so sometimes PROD tags are removed if an admin think that the situation isn't uncontroversial. It's a judgment call.
I can't respond to the other PRODs you submitted that weren't questioned but please look over the list of this week's PROD'd articles at User:DreamRimmer bot II/ProdSummary. You'll see a wide variety of deletion rationales but I think that the editor doing the tagging should provide an actual policy-based reason, written in sentences that is more than one word. You just wrote "Notability" and I think you need to write more than that to explain what about our policies on notability in the tagged article calls for this article to be deleted. One word is insufficient. I think that is also true for "WP:N" but at least that rationale refers to a policy that the word "notability" doesn't. But ideally, I think a PROD's deletion rationale should be as comprehensive as that for an AFD nomination.
Thank you for the response. I will not file a appeal at Deletion review as I understand your response in terms of different admins doing things differently(I do do
disagree on your Notability point slightly as me referencing Notability is referring to the policy on that just like them putting WP:N is but that is not enough for me to appeal given the rest.) And thanks for the advice on AFD I will consider if that is something I will pursue. GothicGolem29(GothicGolem29 Talk)16:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help you out here but there needs to be a deletion rationale. What is the basis for this deletion request? Is there a CSD criteria that applies to them? Perhaps you could take this to WP:RFD and get a consensus there. It's not that I think these pages should be preserved but I hope you understand that I can't delete these pages "because Renerpho asked me to". I wouldn't be an admin for very long after that! Think of it this way, it will be much easier to get approval before deletion than deal with the outrage that would occur if I just went ahead with this request. LizRead!Talk!02:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had to temporarily remove the list you posted because the code that closed the collapse wasn't correct and everything I just wrote was inside the collapsed portion. LizRead!Talk!02:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with removing the list.
As for your question for a rationale, I'm a bit confused because -- at least as I see it -- deleting the redirects was part of the consensus reached in the AfD discussion, as part of the compromise to keep the article itself (first suggested by User:David Eppstein, whose proposal got a lot of support, and explicitly supported by other editors who commented on that, with no objections raised). Renerpho (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll look more carefully at the AFD but that sounds like an unusual arrangement to me. I've never seen that kind of situation. But you could be right. LizRead!Talk!06:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you restore this and I'll AfD it, as it seems to warrant discussion? I thought I had removed the PROD but apparently not in time. Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done No, you are correct, you did de-PROD this article but, in the future, please don't wait until the last minute to de-PROD a tagged article. This has now happened to me twice recently when editors untagged an article 10 minutes or less before it was due to be deleted. It's more likely for mistakes like this to happen. Plus, I can tell by your activity de-PRODding many articles that you review them on a daily (or almost daily) basis so just look at the day's PROD'd articles the day before they are due to be deleted. Sound good? Thank you for reviewing PROD'd articles, they don't get the attention of articles at AFDs do. LizRead!Talk!06:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for your neutral handling and professionalism during the previous redirect situation concerning Kratošija (it was on October 12 — I hope you remember). Although we haven’t been in direct contact before, I truly appreciated the balanced way you addressed the issue and your reminder about the importance of open discussion and consensus.
For a long time, it wasn’t entirely clear how to proceed, since the discussion at WP:ANI was closed and the matter was moved to Talk:Zinfandel.
I’m now preparing to post a structured proposal on Talk:Zinfandel, focused on improving verifiability and balance within the article — particularly regarding Kratošija (the Montenegrin grape variety genetically identical to Zinfandel / Primitivo / Tribidrag).
My aim is purely content-related and supported by reliable, peer-reviewed sources, fully in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V principles.
If you happen to have time, I’d really appreciate if you could keep an eye on the discussion there — your perspective would be very valuable and appreciated.
Hi Liz. Sorry, was there an "Archaeological Survey of Israel" page deleted? Could you please point me to the discussion, or anywhere where I could understand what happened? Thank you! Arminden (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was deleting a lot of broken redirects that came from some article deletions. One deletion that created a lot of broken redirects was Roman roads in Judaea. If you look at the deletion log for Roman roads in Judaea, you can see that its deletion had to do with copyright issues and you can find out more information at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 October 23 for details. I don't deal with articles with copyright complaints but if you want more information on what are standards for deletion or of the process for handling copyright concerns, I'd go to MER-C who is a pro at deailing with these complaints. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!22:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
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. 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.
Liz, I know reporting WP:SOCK behavior requires a certain kind of evidence. I'm not sure if that exists in this case, and thought I would get an admin's opinion before pursuing a formal report. One of the hooks I reviewed (still technically waiting for a reply), Template:Did you know nominations/City of Oaks Marathon, was recently rejected in this edit by user Sodanight. This user is a newly created account. See Special:Contributions/Sodanight. They also approved Template:Did you know nominations/Hopton, Derbyshire. I overturned their rejection at City of Oaks Marathon because I am still the reviewer and the nominator still has time to address/fix the issues under policy. In checking the /Hopton, Derbyshire review I discovered that it was not compliant with WP:DYKCRIT's guidelines for time. I strongly suspect that the Sodanight account was created by User:U1ajl5xge2 (see Special:Contributions/U1ajl5xge2) who nominated Hopton, Derbyshire at DYK in order that they might approve their own hook and avoid being caught as a late nomination. Am I crazy for thinking this, or this something I can legitimately report? Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I wanted to take some time to write you this note. I sincerely apologize for having lost my temper and yelling and swearing at you back in December 2024. It was very rude of me and I lost my cool, I really apologize. I better understand the rules and functioning of Wikipedia now and will not repeat this behavior. I was incorrectly associated with ConsumersDistributingonline even though there was no proof linking me to them, you can see the Global unlock request here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2025-w43#h-Global_unlock_for_TitCrisse-Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding-20251026100000
I wanted to know if you could please help me in undeleting my draft on Pedro Cuperman? Might you also be able to please give me back access to my other 2 accounts, Pramod8375 & Mamani1990? They were also locked for the same reason as TitCrisse, lock evasion, but this was incorrect as I was never part of ConsumersDistributingonline. Thank you, regards, TitCrisse (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz, would you mind re-opening this discussion? I'd like to add several additional sources to the discussion such as [5][6][7] and an eight year anniversary memorial of his passing [8]. Thank you! SportingFlyerT·C13:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Notifying you as the closer of the recent Schmear AfD. There was some disagreement among participants about how to handle the redirect following your close. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Why can't you just describe the situation here on my user talk page? Is there a reason why this information has to be kept confidential? LizRead!Talk!01:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I used the e-mail because we were previously talking there. Anyway, as you requested, I'll post future replies to new topics here (as the e-mail has already been sent). Deathnotekll2 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Johnatan has attacked me repeatedly for proposing an RfC regarding a source from the same organization as "Vimalaramsi's". His behavior can be seen in the RfC proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC%3A_Request_for_comment_on_self-published_source_used_to_support_unverifiable_claims
RfCs and AfDs should not be a place for personal attacks, and yet this user is relentless in doing so. I have not provoked him or invited him to the discussion.
(This is a follow-up to the previous e-mail, in which the situation hadn't escalated that quickly). I have sent you this talk page message because the e-mail system failed. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the "personal attack"? See WP:ASPERSIONS, and your comment at User talk:Deathnotekll2#Aboutsome non-notable figures that have been put to the test of Wikipedia's Notoriety are fighting back to retaliate through their many likely proxies. That's expected of any ardent follower and honestly, predictable. You could, and should, have noticed that Vimalarmasi is dead, and that I'm a Zen-Buddhist, who's interest is in the history and interpretation of meditation. Accusing me of a WP:COI is far-fletched. And who exactly are the "many likely proxies"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!08:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's my talk page. I have not nominally cited you anywhere on that quotation, highlighted in green.
You have also posted your own personal opinions in these talk pages, had people affiliated with you send me multiple unsolicited warnings in what I viewed as veiled collective intimidation and, in the end, also accused me of being an WP:SPA with no evidence.
In no other space in Wikipedia have I attempted to include personal opinions of any nature: not in Article talk pages, not AfDs or RfCs.
I work as a professional editor here, and policy will be applied to a religious leader and his pages weather his supporters - whoever they are - like it or not. They are not above investigation or discussion.
That's it. I am not favorable or unfavorable to your religion or anyone else's.
It's quite surprising this article, with these sources, affiliated with this specific organization would mobilize such a great effort against its takedown, discussion or scrutiny in Wikipedia. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, and ask yourself: are there really "people affiliated with you [who] send me multiple unsolicited warnings," or is it that your behaviour invites those warnings? Also, you've been warned now sevearly times against WP:ASPERSIONS, yet you state [you] had people affiliated with you send me multiple unsolicited warnings in what I viewed as veiled collective intimidation. Please provide evidence that those editors are "affiliated" with me, and that this is a collective endeavor to intimidate you. If not, consider the possibility that you don't have (yet) what it takes to contribute in a meaningfull way to Wikipedia. Maybe, just maybe, if so many people tell you that your behaviour needs some improvement, then maybe those people have a point, and show you something you're not aware of (yet). Maybe. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!21:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I'll let you have the last say as you wish.
No further comments will be added by me, as this discussion is getting disrespectful to the editor/admin who is within the rights of her own user space. Enough escalation.
Thanks for your help with merging articles. That's a task that doesn't get a lot of attention. As for the draft, there is no CSD criteria that applies to draft versions of main space articles so the options I see are let it expire as a CSD G13 in a few months or turn the draft into a redirect to the main space article. Either of those options sound appropriate here? LizRead!Talk!01:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Hello Liz I hope you don't mind me contacting you here as well as my response on my userpage but I am quite concerned about the warning about me getting my AFD clerking privileges revoked and I don't know if you would check my userpage for a response. I wanted to ask why did you say that I need to stop closing early after that close? The XFD closure tool listed the timings for Modus Cup as green and I have now checked the timings with a calendar more times than I can count now and it was 7 days since the afd was opened on 30th October at 15:20 and when I closed the AFD on the 6th November at 22:00 and that is within the rules nad your comment that they should be Open at least 7 days. I would also like to ask if I could do snow closures once I get more expereince early as the rules allow for that sort of thing if I recall(which will be quite a while as A I don't want to do them at the moment just in the future and B alot of the AFDS don't meet that or are closed by Admins or non admin closers before I get the chance so getting experience will take a while even after I am eventually wanting to do it again.) GothicGolem29(Talk)17:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I usually find your AFD closures to be excellent, but in this case I'm very surprised at the outcome of "redirect". There's two editors saying "keep" along with three "redirect", but none of the those arguing redirect had any sort of rebuttal to the keep argument at all, even though they were all pinged. In fact, it seems only one of them even saw the sources, which were pretty obviously SIGCOV. Could we get a relist here? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one was a close call. There was a point some months ago where I got the message from our AFD participants that I was doing too much relisting of discussions so I've been trying to do more closures, even when opinion is divided. Let me think about this tonight. LizRead!Talk!00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, I recently found a speedy deletion message on my talk page although i did not create the article I just moved it back into draft space as it was unfit for wikipedia like how it was done many times before. Could you please put the message on the correct users talk page. Thank you for understanding. Theknoledgeableperson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CfD of Category:American politicians of Middle Eastern descent
Hey Liz, regarding your reversion of my closure, Marcocapelle has posted a comment saying why the discussion need not be kept open. I also agree with that reasoning and would appreciate if you could chime in there. If you have no objection, I would like to close it and list it for action as before. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just heading to bed so I probably won't see the discussion until tomorrow. I trust you two to use your judgment and do the right thing. But thanks for letting me know. LizRead!Talk!07:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are international level competitors, they are absolutely eligible to have a page. They're gonna rise in prominence too, they were juniors previously and this is now their first season in seniors.
I am writing to raise an issue regarding a persistent conflict with User:@User4926 on the article of Zagreb. Despite engaging in a discussion on the article's Talk page Talk:Zagreb, User4926 continues to revert my edits without clear justification or new discussion.
- User4926 is a pretty frequent editor on Zagreb page. They mostly edit policital administration paragraph which started this whole dilemma. You see, the paragraph was untouched since 2022, and it seemed that they were upset over the imagery on that paragraph which represented Zagreb’s rich historical monuments. He deleted them. I reverted the edit, he deleted and left a message on talk page. I reverted the imagery, they wrote a Bible on how the imagery has nothing to do with the paragraph, I moved them to another paragraph so they aren’t on the same paragraph, I kept quiet until User decided to remove them again from the new paragraph with the reasoning “ Deleted images as per discussion”. No discussion was discussed about that. [this dif] [9]
- The information I added is supported by years of untouching changes for those 3 imagery. Those are cultural and historical monuments of high value to Zagreb’s page. I believe it contributes to a more balanced and up-to-date article.
- User continues to revert my changes without addressing the sources I provided or engaging in meaningful discussion. This seems to be happening in violation of the [mention specific Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) or WP:AGF (Good Faith), which neither of them suits the reasoning for this editor. It seems like they keep pushing some source of Political Agenda, since they are full-time editors of We Can! (Croatia). Not to mention, the user was already warned about their edit by another user which left a message on User4926 Talk Page.
- I have tried to explain my edits on the Talk page User talk:User4926 but the user has not been receptive to further dialogue.
Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia for everyone to use and edit. No reason to delete someone’s work because you simply don’t like it.
I request the assistance of an administrator to review this issue and help mediate a resolution. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I am not a member of any political party, and if I ever were, I would make it clear on my user page and this conversation. I edit articles of people of all political backgrounds.
I want the Zagreb Wikipedia article to be stable, neutral, factually correct and of good quality. It is not in my interest to have any edit warring on the article, and all my edits are made in good faith.
There is a discussion about this very topic, in which I laid all my arguments. As of now, the last message was left by me on October 26.
I am very sorry all of this this had to be brought up.
Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:
1 What does the editor think and feel:
2 What does the editor say and do:
3 What does the editor hear and see:
4 What are is pains:
5 What are is gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):
I think this is resolved now. A new editor renamed and moved the talk page (twice) and then it was deleted as an orphaned talk page. This is not uncommon, for some reason, inexperienced editors like to test their ability to move pages and sometimes they do so a dozen times. I think everything is back where it should be. LizRead!Talk!20:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into these. There does have to be a policy-based reason to delete a page and I'll see if there is one. Admins who delete pages "just because" find they aren't admins for much longer. Thanks for the alert though. LizRead!Talk!20:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The reason you get these notices is that when you draftify an article from main space to another namespace, you should tag the original page with a speedy deltion tag, CSD R2. If you take care of this step like you should, I should have no reason to also tag these pages and you won't receive any more notifications. The reason you get these reminders is to alert you that you should be tagging these pages R2 but they weren't tagged. If you start, I won't need to and problem solved. Sound good? LizRead!Talk!20:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that a lot of the time you simply unlink deleted articles rather than removing them from navboxes and lists. Please fully remove them to save others the time of having to go back and do so. There is no reason to retain, for example, names of people without articles on lists of notable people. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I spend most of my daylight and night time hours working on this project. I delete hundreds of pages each day. I don't have time to check every single link to all of these pages. I think I will instead stop unlinking deleted pages if that would be a better solution. I was told when I was a new admin to remove all of the red links but if that is causing problems, I'll just stop unlinking them. LizRead!Talk!20:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This response makes no sense. I assume you're using XFDcloser like everyone else? When I close an AfD using this tool, it automatically unlinks the article from all pages except those preceded with bullet links (ie, entries in lists and on navbox templates). Those links are then presented to me manually and I can click "keep item", "keep and request citation", or "remove". All I'm asking is that you click "remove" rather than unlink for lists and navboxes. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am once again asking you to simply click the "remove" button rather than unlinking non-notable people on lists and navboxes. I cannot understand your refusal to extend this courtesy to others considering all it takes is to click a different button on the same tool you are already using. ♠PMC♠ (talk)04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't want to deal with your complaints, PMC, I don't do much work with AFD any more. It's easier for me to adjust and work on different areas of the project than try to accommodate your frequent demands. And I doubt you'll find any other admin who will also carry out your requests but for some reason you have focused on me even though I imagine all admins behave likewise to me. Good night. LizRead!Talk!04:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's really disappointing to see you respond this way. One request, asked a second time, is "frequent demands"? I don't have to ask other admins to do this, because they take the time to do the removals, as a courtesy to others. If you want to stop doing AfDs because someone politely asked you to click one button rather than the other, that strikes me as an unnecessary overreaction, but do as you like. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I share PMC's disappointment, this isn't just one editor making special requests. Many editors have asked you politely to stop leaving delinked or redlinked items in lists, navigation templates, etc that are only supposed to include bluelinks. Please take the time to use your tools properly and remove these items appropriately. It's time to stop relying on what you were apparently taught many years ago, on the few occasions that I've seen other admins making this mistake I've simply pointed it out to them and they've changed their ways. You're receiving multiple complaints about this because you're the only one who refuses to change. –dlthewave☎16:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And my mind is boggled that you can't understand how much extra work this request involves. I delete hundreds of pages each day, some have 3, 10, 40, 100+ links to other articles, and you are asking me to check every single link here. I work on this project about 80 hours/week and I can't add another 20 hours for checking links on every article I delete. I think I will instead pass on my tasks to you two since this is so important to you. I'll send you an email outlining my responsibilities. LizRead!Talk!21:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another disappointing response. If you are closing so many AfDs that you cannot take the time to look at what you are de-linking and perform the task correctly, the solution is to take the time to do things correctly, even if it means you personally close fewer AfDs. The encyclopedia will survive, and others will thank you for not forcing them to waste their time tidying up after you - as I'm sure you're aware, you are not the only editor whose time is valuable. I am a volunteer just like you, so I will continue to allocate my time as I see fit. Nevertheless I look forward to your email. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on this platform for 12 years and had my share of disagreements but this dispute is unnecessarily unpleasant and I'm not sure why you are being so condescending. You don't like the way that I edit so I thought I would pass those duties along to you so that you have everything done exactly as you like. I thought this would be a solution to your complaint but you don't like this resolution either. I don't know what to do at this point except retire which I'm not ready to do yet. And, yes, I'm disappointed in you as well. Doesn't that feel horrible to read?LizRead!Talk!22:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you all must be talking at cross-purposes with each other. Liz, I don't think anyone's asking you to go through and look at every single link every time you close an AfD: this is just about the rare case when the "keep/remove" dialog box pops up on XFDcloser, like in the picture on the right. It sounds like PMC and dlthewave just want you to click the "remove" button a little more often, which I think is a reasonable ask. I'm thinking part of the confusion may be that Liz does a lot of unlinking with the Twinkle tool, which (if I remember correctly) doesn't give the list-item removal option like XFDcloser does. PMC/dlthewave, would you mind listing some of the diffs that prompted this conversation? That way we can at least be on the same page in trying to find a way forward, because I'm sure no one wants anyone to retire or stop closing AfDs or anything like that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EW, here are a few just from the last couple days: [10], [11], [12], [13].
As dl and I have both said now, we are asking for Liz to hit the "remove" button when de-linking from lists and navboxes, both of which are almost always supposed to contain only blue links/notable items. If something has been deleted, there's no reason to leave it on those pages. Removing these items does not require looking at every single link a page has, just moving the mouse an inch to the side to click a different button.
Liz, I'm being condescending because you're being condescending. Your response to a clear, polite request for a smoother process has been to go on about your valuable time and workflow, exaggerate what's being asked of you, threaten to stop doing a task you self-assigned, then finally suggest you'll assign me something to do. None of that is a real proposal for a solution and you know it, so forgive me if I understand your tone as patronizing. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I suspected, those are all with Twinkle, which I've just confirmed doesn't offer any option to remove the whole list entry. That's presumably why Liz is so confused here, because she's not seeing any "keep"/"remove" button at all and is assuming that you want her to just check every link manually. There are a couple of other scripts that don't have this problem: I use User:Evad37/Xunlink, and I think Explicit just uses the "XFDC Unlink" button, both of which are built on XFDcloser rather than Twinkle. But yeah, I don't think Liz is just deliberately choosing to push the "keep" button when it isn't warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but then the obvious desired response to a polite request that you maybe don't understand the context for is to ask for clarification. If I'm talking about a "remove" button and you've never seen one on your screen, ask what that is. I did say that I assumed she was using XFDcloser (which I linked to), and she didn't say otherwise, so I was operating under the assumption she was looking at the same set of buttons as me and therefore understood what I meant. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but hopefully now we can find a solution. Liz, I think this is an issue with PRODs more than anything else. The next time you delete a PROD, instead of using the "Unlink" button, would you try using the "XFDC Unlink" button instead? (For me it's under "More"; it won't appear until after you delete the page.) This is the button that Explicit uses for PRODs, and while it has some problems of its own, it should at least take care of this issue. If you try that and don't like it, let me know and I can suggest something else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on October 24. Please help translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continuesWikimania Santiago will happen in 2027.
Wikimania 2027: Santiago, Chile is announced as the location for Wikimania 2027. The annual conference returns to Latin America after more than 10 years, following previous editions in Buenos Aires (2009) and Mexico City (2015).
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 44 and 45 including the community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.
Activity Tab: The Wikipedia Android app expands the new Activity tab to all users. It offers a complete view of your Wikipedia activity: reading time, saved articles, edits, and donation history (for known donors). This change aims to make Wikipedia a more engaging experience for readers and contributors alike, while keeping all personal data private and stored locally on your device.
Tabbed browsing: Tabbed browsing is now available on the Wikipedia App for iOS. Tabs will let you keep more than one article open at a time, making it easier to explore complex topics, follow links without losing your place, and pick up where you left off.
CampaignEvents extension: Autoconfirmed users on small and medium wikis with the CampaignEvents extension can now use Event Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.
Image browsing: The Wikimedia Foundation launched image browsing, an experiment that puts images on top of your Wikipedia article reading journey, on Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias.
Temporary accounts: Temporary Accounts are now enabled on 1,000+ projects including English Wikipedia.
Digital Safety: The Wikimedia Foundation is launching Digital Safety Office Hours to explore how to stay safe digitally, what does digital safety mean, what extra precautions can Wikimedians take. The first session will take place on November 28 at 9 AM and 7 PM UTC. Check out also our Digital Safety Resources Center to learn practical tips and tools you can use immediately.
Volunteer roles for movement governance: The Movement governance committees are seeking new volunteers to support essential and high-impact work across the Wikimedia ecosystem. The current appointment cycle is open for the AffCom, Ombuds Commission, and Case Review Committee. Applications for these committees will remain open until December 11. The team will host a community conversation on November 26, at 3 AM UTC.
Don't Blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Hi, you deleted this page per a deletion discussion. I had requested it through WP:REFUND a couple of months ago to work on as there is enough information to expand it as a draft, and it will be relevant for mainspace within a couple months' time (and I want it to be ready before then). I never intended for it to be published to mainspace prior to January, and I tried to mention this in the discussion. Could you please return it to a draft? Electricmemory (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually quite disappointed it was deleted as it contained a huge amount of finished content, and myself and other's don't want that work to be lost and another person to recreate a blank draft before we can get this one back. Electricmemory (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz, you just handled Draft:Anthony Graham. Would you mind taking a quick look at it and letting me know if it differed significantly from Draft:Anthony Graham (academic). I doubt it because if it had, it would have likely had edits to reset the clock, but I want to know if I continue to work on the disambiguated version, I won't be missing any additional information written about or using sources provided by another editor.
It looks like they are the same person. The lead sentence is an American educator, scholar, and academic administrator, currently serving as the Chancellor-Elect of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (UAPB). which looks pretty much identical to the second draft. I'll go back and see who the main contributors to the page were. LizRead!Talk!21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is weird. You created this page as a redirect when you moved the draft article to the other page title and later, for some reason KylieTastic used (clean up (DraftCleaner)) and it removed redirect and filled out the article. I've never seen an AFC reviewer do this so you might ask KylieTastic why she did that edit and since she is now an admin, she has access to the deleted content on the page. But, at this point, I think they are probably identical versions of the same article since there were no edits to this draft after KylieTastic's edits. LizRead!Talk!21:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I noticed that about four years ago you deleted 2020 Democratic Party for the People leadership election following a PROD regarding notability. I've been updating Japanese political party leadership elections, including for the DPFP. English language sources for this one are scarce, but Japanese ones, which I have primarily been working from for other pages, are plentiful - ja:2020年国民民主党代表選挙 has 65 citations. Would I be able to recreate this page or would there still be notability issues in your judgment? Erinthecute (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to judge a deleted page but since it was a proposed deletion (PROD), I can restore upon request. If you would prefer, I could then move it to Draft space where it is unlikely to be deleted again. Let me know what you want. LizRead!Talk!22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
I’m reaching out because you were the only person who previously noticed and acknowledged the unilateral redirect of the Kratošija article to Zinfandel. I really appreciated that, and it stayed with me because it was the first time someone recognised that there was no prior consensus.
Since then, I’ve sincerely tried to follow every instruction that was given at ANI. I moved everything to Talk:Zinfandel, announced all proposed edits in advance, provided full sourcing, and avoided re-adding anything that had been reverted. I tried to handle everything as calmly and procedurally as possible.
However, editor User:Dalida has continued to remove all of my edits with summaries such as “NPOV and misinformations”, but without explaining on the talk page what exactly is considered incorrect. Aside from that, the explanation I provided on the talk page was also ignored specifically by Dalida, not by you or any other editor. I have opened several detailed sections on the talk page and pinged Dalida, but there has been no engagement. The reverting simply continues without clarification.
This pattern of reverting without discussion seems to run against several core policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TALK, WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN and WP:OWN, because there was no attempt to specify what exactly was incorrect, no engagement with the sources, and no effort to work toward shared wording.
I have been trying very hard not to take this personally and not to escalate anything, but at this point I genuinely don’t know how to proceed when one editor continually reverts but refuses to discuss the content. I would really appreciate your advice — not to take sides, just guidance on the correct next step.
Should I open a DRN case, start an RfC, or is there a better approach?
Here are the relevant links:
• Latest revert by Dalida:
This time you say: “We aren't interested in communicating...” As I initialy wrote to Liz, on her talk page, I expected that conversation will continue there... Anyway, since We've already spoken , I'll say the following: I think, It would be good if we could be focused on source verification and the substance of the text, in the interest of our shared goal, of making the text as neutral and accurate as possible, and covering all aspects of the given topic. As for the AI, not a single source, reference, or anything of substance is, or can be, AI-generated in this text. Everything is verifiable. I kindly ask you to check every quote, read all the cited references, which are available online, and then we can continue the discussion. AI is a tool for language assistance and proofreading, especially for people who are not native English speakers. We are all aware of hallucinations and various other anomalies that AI brings with it. It would be strange to assume, that someone relies on AI for the essence of the work, the verifiability of references, citations, etc. In times when AI didn't exist, people used Google Translate and various online translators, as well as programs for tables and diagrams like Excel, Word, and later Grammarly, ProWritingAid, etc. Since AI detection tools are not considered reliable evidence on Wikipedia, and cannot determine whether a comment is AI generated, I belive it is important that instead subject "AI", we stay focused on disscution about sources and content , since those are central to the article. Very important sources and facts pertain to the very essence of the topic. I would like you to join the talk page for Zinfndel, so we can have constructive discussion about the essence of the topic of the Zinfandel article, that our goal be substance, not form. Most important is content accuracy and verifiability. Wording can allways be refined collaboratively, in good faith. AI can't provide the kind of historical and scientific details, I presented on the talk page of Zinfandel. As one of the significant , long-time editors of the article, your engagement with the cited sources would be valuable. I am looking forward to see you on the talk page for Zinfandel.
By the way :
Although I studied LLM isue myself, I am grateful to some honest, experienced editors who guided me to WP:LLMCOMM.
Now, LLM matter seems resolved, I hope we can finally move to the main topic .The issue at hand. The Zinfandel article, slowly, detail by detail, and all with the best of intentions, I hope. I look forward to your participation on Talk:Zinfandel. VitisArchivum (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz
You deleted the statsmodels page on 24 May 2024
The google scholar page currently has `Cited by 7564`. This year, so far, it has close to 1600 citations mainly in scientific journals across many fields.
Statsmodels the main statistics and econometrics package in Python, and usually shows up in top 10 or top 15 Python packages for data science and related areas.
If this does not count as "notability", then what does?
Also there are books, online courses, college and university courses that uses it. Statsmodels is part of the current dominance of Python as a programming language with a wide range of applications.
What can I do to reinstate or undelete the statsmodels page?
Please give me a link to the deleted page and then I can have an answer for you. I don't delete pages for no reason so I need to review the page to find out what that reason was. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!22:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Mature and widely cited in tutorials and educational material; commonly recommended when statistical inference matters"
It's widely used, but it is not a main part in the current machine learning and data science hype because it does "boring" traditional statistics and econometrics.
The last sentence is "Students from the humanities and social sciences are particularly encouraged to enroll in this course." which is typical for the fields that need traditional statistic.
Most of the citations for statsmodels are in natural sciences like biology, humanities, medical and similar areas.
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! Could you pls restore this page? I would like to add Wikiprojects templates. Why don't I just create a new page? I would like to keep the early history of the page and continue it. Thanks :D -- 04:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Nurtenge (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TonySt I believe Liz is fine with auto-archiving since they previously liked my edit. The page is long, and it looks like Liz has been archiving it manually, so adding the bot should help. @Liz, let me know if you’d like me to set it up. Cinaroot (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do anything like that, once an editor imposed a bot archiving content and it completely messed up my archives and I've never had the time to straighten it out. I'll manually archive messages, you just can't expect me to do act on demand. I'll get to it when I get to it. I have a lot of duties here. LizRead!Talk!04:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry — not trying to impose. I just wanted to help. A bot with a simple {{Archives}} setup would take care of it automatically, just FYI. Your call. Thanks. Cinaroot (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot that was used here a few years ago, randomly put messages in archive folders that had space, rather than placing them in folders chronologically. At some point (never), I need to go through the 40+ folders and rearrange them according to date, not available space. I just don't want to go through that again. But thanks you for trying to help that was kind of you. LizRead!Talk!05:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I have not been doing this is because, at least when I started Indiana, none of the people who created these articles had contributed in several years, and pro forma notifications of the retired are a blight. There is only one of these who ever payed any attention to the notices anyway. I see that User:Evking22 has returned, and I will resume notifying them. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, back in July I !voted to merge FPT Software with the article on its parent FPT Corporation. A subsequent discussion on the Talk:FPT Software turned up some sourcing which meets the criteria for establishing notability. Had this sourcing been highlighted at the AfD, I would have !voted to Keep. An attempt to restore the article was overturned by Pppery (pinging now) citing WP:CONLEVEL which, in my opinion, ignores WP:CCC. Given the original AfD had minimal participation, I personally don't see why the article shouldn't just be restored and the new sourcing added, or even the article is restored and sent back to AfD. I was about to do this myself but thoughts it might be best to ping the closing adming instead (that's you!). Can either you or Pppery let me know what should be the next step? HighKing++ 18:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Mentioned you here and wanted to drop a note. Not sanctions you're involved with, but you had two G2 notes on @FloridaArmy's Talk, and I think it was script error. They don't create test pages and all I see in the history looks like the usual dummy edits to reset G13 clock. Anything in particular you remember from this to weigh in? Thanks either way StarMississippi13:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you deleted the Wilderun article way back in 2016. Since their album releases Veil of Imagination (2019) and Epigone (2022), they've become fairly notable for independent articles and sources. I even just finished the base draft on my sandbox page. Would it be alright to submit it as a standalone article, and then build on it? SenselessRumble (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on the article and finished it about 45 minutes later and had to recreate the redirect. I put that fact in the edit summary. All this delete did was cause uneeded extra work when STOPPING and thinking (see top of this talk page) would have prevented all this. Several wiki "rules" make no sense. MisawaSakura (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had left the justification in the edit summary so didn't properly put it in the box: "The article is about a record label with almost no independent coverage, self-promotion, possibly paid to inflate the label’s presence because of all the other similar articles of artists under the label"
Hi. I seem to remember the article had a photo of Cliff Divine themself. Can you get me that file name? I can't find it via Commons search. (Please ping me if you respond.) Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Tech News: Some of the latest updates from Tech News week 46 and 47: Wikimedia Foundation is experimentating with reading lists on mobile web, allowing logged-in readers with no edits to save private lists of articles for later; One new wiki has been created: a Wikisource in Minangkabau.
Wikifunctions: The second round of voting for naming the wiki with abstract content is kicking off with six name proposals to vote for.
Reference check: The A/B test for reference check has begun on English Wikipedia and will run until December 17. This is a feature which prompts new editors to add citations before they publish an edit adding content to an article.
Image browsing: Wikimedia Foundation is launching an experiment called "Image browsing" to test how to make it easier for readers to browse and discover images on Wikipedia articles. This experiment, a mobile-only A/B test, is taking place on on Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese wikis, affecting a small number of users.
CampaignEvents extension: Campaign events extension is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. The extension offers tools for running and coordinating events and other on-wiki collaborations. These features include Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List, plus a new feature, Collaborative contribution, which helps organizers and participants see the impact of their collaborative activities. Join the upcoming learning session to see the new feature in action and share your feedback.
Dark Mode: Dark mode is now available on all Wikimedia projects for all anonymous users! This enhancement aims to deliver a more enjoyable reading experience, especially in dimly lit environments. Learn how to activate this feature.
Wikimedia Apps: The Activity tab in the Wikipedia Android app is now available for all users. The new tab offers personalized insights into reading, editing, and donation activity, while simplifying navigation and making app use more engaging.
Wikipedia 25 Press toolkit: Wikimedia Foundation is providing press toolkit as guidance and resources to Wikimedia volunteers and affiliates to spread the word about Wikipedia’s 25th birthday to local and regional media.
Understanding movement organizers: Wikimedia Foundation concluded a literature review on organizers in the Wikimedia movement focused on capturing their personas, motivations, and impact in order to highlight best practices and opportunities for further support.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Hi Liz, you've just closed a few of the Bus Routes AfD as no consensus, and perhaps that is right, but in this one, for instance, there is prima facie 5:3 majority for delete. Of course, WP:DISCARD ought to apply to the nom., but the same could be said of a vague wave to sources, and the procedural keep has no policy reasons to keep either, so I don't see how that skews things back. Only one keep !vote discusses any sources at all, and the next three !votes disagreed, and in mine IAjf773 specifically reviewed and attempted to refute the argument from those sources. There's a viable ATD. Would you be able to expand on why you think there's no consensus there? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
ETA: I have just noticed that Ajf773 !voted on that one twice. That puts it more in line with the others, but still, it is not totally clear why that is no consensus and not a consensus to do something. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Sirfurboy,
Most of these AFDs had been relisted twice and I didn't see an obvious consensus for most of them (I did close one as Delete). I have a full day here as it's the day before a big holiday and I don't want to spend it arguing so I accept that in the one you pointed out that you are correct and I read the discussion incorrectly so I have reverted my closure.
By the way, have you ever considered becoming a NAC closer for AFDs? I think you'd do a very thorough job and we are short on AFD closers right now. I realize that you participate in a lot of AFD discussions but there are still plenty of other discussions we could use your help with. Please consider this suggestion. Most of the NAC closers that come our way are pretty new editors and you have a great deal of knowledge and experience. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!19:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. Well I hadn't thought of closing AfDs so much as I think you once encouraged me just to get involved in participating in them. But if you are short of closers, I'll certainly look at doing some. Have a happy Thanksgiving, and all the best to you and yours. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I'd like to ask once again if you could please ensure that you're unlinking deleted items appropriately. The other day you left a number of unlinked entries for List of medical organizations in Pakistan in See Also sections and even a template ([14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]). To be fair as a non-admin I don't have experience with the nuts and bolts of the process, but surely the fact that this was a list should've raised a flag that it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere after deletion. This isn't the only example from the past week. Have you tried Extraordinary Writ's suggestions for tools that can handle items in lists and navboxes more accurately? –dlthewave☎21:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm going to ask once again one question, which is what is a way to check individual links in "What links here" if an admin deletes hundreds of pages a day that will not add hours to the time they spend on the project? If a an admin who works in this area has advice let me know because one of my main responses to your queries is that I can't be the only administrator who runs into this and yet I seem to be singled out. Granted I spend more time deleting CSD drafts and articles than most admins but this must be an issuw for every administrator. And how do you know that these links will not be needed in the future? Have a good week. LizRead!Talk!22:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any examples of administrators who don't delete the links and unlink like you, I'd be happy to see them. Granted I haven't looked myself but perhaps you may want to do less deletion. Logoshimpo (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I've been seeing a few people ask you about this, and the answer is to just click the extra buttons on XfD closer and twinkle. If you are unable to find and do this for your deletions and say it would take too much time for your volume, then the solution is just to delete less pages, not to leave likely hundreds of bits of useless text around. This is not to say that your work isn't appreciated, but it is evidently frustrating for others to go back and clean up what is an avoidable problem. Sophisticatedevening(talk)00:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some editors are complaining about PRODs so I'll stop reviewing those. I am clicking on the box for XFDCloser each time so I'm not sure what the issue is. As for using up my patience, that goes both ways. I asked PMC to take over all of my deletion duties so this would no longer be an issue but she didn't seem interested. I think it would be easier to retire or to cut down my work to about 10% of what I normally do. I'll let other admins pick up the other 60 hours/week that I take care of that no one seems to acknowledge. LizRead!Talk!18:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the diffs that I posted above are tagged as Twinkle (which seems to be the root of the problem) instead of XFDCloser as suggested. –dlthewave☎20:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Logoshimpo, over my 10 years as an admin, I have deleted 758,459 pages and made 871,811 edits. At this point, I'll try to work this out with dlthewave who seems to know what they are talking about than worry about what disappoints and concerns you. I'm sure there are many of other activities you can busy yourself with. LizRead!Talk!21:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, in XFD closer, when you click the button to remove links, it will automatically remove most of the links, but then will surface some individually for you to evaluate. It tells you where they are, so you can go look at them in context if you need to, and gives you the option to remove the link, remove the entry entirely, or leave the entry and tag with citation needed. What people are asking you to do is to pay attention to this part and not simply hit "remove link" on each of these individually queried examples.
As for the 60 hours a week, please, please cut down. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't acknowledge all the time you spend on this project! But don't wear yourself out over this. Other admins will take up the load if you give them the chance to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
asilvering, I have a lot of respect for you and would like to ask you a question. Every day, I delete dozens of broken redirects that are leftover from admins deleting pages. You can find a few at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects which updates every six hours. And I even run a Quarry query (see here) to find more broken redirects so I can catch them and take care of them. Clearly, admins do not check "What links here" before deleting pages or they would see these redirects and redirect talk pages and take care of them when they delete the main page. And when a checkuser does a "Nuke", there are often dozens and dozens of Talk pages that don't get deleted by this tool that have to be taken care of. We all work on clean up here.
Why do these instances of my editing have some editors irate (not annoyed but very angry) while all of the broken redirects that get leftover from other admins' deletions aren't even noticed or commented upon? I do my best to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines but this has caught me off-guard. Thank you for any help you can provide. LizRead!Talk!01:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, with a CU nuke in particular, that's definitely a mistake - the nuke tool makes deleting the accompanying talk pages really easy, or at least has since it was recently redesigned (I never used it before then and couldn't say about earlier). So if you catch someone forgetting to delete talk pages (and redirects? maybe? not sure) after a nuke, I think you're justified in reminding them that if they set nuke to also search for related talk pages, it'll get those, and then you won't have to clean up after them. It's an easy button to forget to push, but it also takes the nuking admin effectively zero additional time to do. CUs and clerks shouldn't be messing this one up, at least not regularly.
As for other deletions, I have no idea why this would happen. Twinkle catches them automatically, and I presume we're all lazy and use Twinkle. It might be worth poking those admins and asking them what's going on. Maybe there's some workflow fix someone can script up so that you're not left having to do this by hand.
And as for why it's noticed, I think that's pretty simple - the things you're talking about aren't visible to people who aren't monitoring a db query or bot output. Which is to say, it's an admin goof that's only being seen by other admins. For all I know you're the only person monitoring that at all. So if you've never told anyone they're constantly ending up in your reports, they'd never know they're causing you hassle. Meanwhile, when you're deleting pages and not removing the item from lists and templates, anyone with that article/template can notice, just by looking at their watchlist. And it's also visible to readers as well. So it's easier for others to catch, and because you work at such a high volume, it's easy for the people noticing it to get very annoyed indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I do want to find a solution to what you see as a big problem. But I have been physically sick now for a week, I'm not getting any sleep and I find that it is hard for me to maintain civility and AGF when I'm feeling targeted out of all admins who do any work with page deletion. I'm going to take a "partial retirement" by which I mean I will not be doing any editing that involves these issues and just doing tasks like responding to all of the overdue messages on my User talk page. Let's call a truce and when I'm back at 100% strength we can come to a workable solution. And perhaps now that you will not be spending your time scrutinizing my logs, you can look at other superactive admins and see if they act differently or exactly the same as I do. Peace and see you in another week or so when I get over COVID or the flu or whatever has got me down. Peace. LizRead!Talk!23:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I saw that you deleted Draft:Daniel Bryant under G13 back in 2022. When you have the opportunity, would you mind taking a look at the draft and seeing if it is about the sinologist Daniel Bryant at the University of Victoria, and if it is, could I request an undeletion? If it is about a different Daniel Bryant, no need to bother. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
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. I created an article titled Listo-Film then moved it to Draft: Listo-Film and it was deleted. I'm not quite understanding why as it didn't look any different than the example found at Draft:Example, except that it looks like I should have added {{Draft article}} at the top and removed categories? Reading through Wikipedia:Drafts it says "Editors may instead choose to create draft pages in their userspace or new articles directly in mainspace" so that's what I did. Can you provide a clearer explanation of why it was speedily removed and what I should have done differently?
I guess it's the opposite of "Redirects from drafts moved to mainspace: Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to another namespace should be retained"?
My apologies for breaking any rules, I'm not used to working with drafts, just had limited time to work on it so wanted to save it and come back to it later.
I didn't delete your article. You can find it at Draft:Listo-Film. I deleted the redirect from main space to Draft space because we delete most cross-namespace redirects. This was just a notification of that redirect deletion. If you draftify another article, please tag the redirect for speedy deletion, CSD R2. Does that explain the situation? LizRead!Talk!00:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I, personally, found it interesting that you asked[25] that question of AirshipJungleman29 several minutes after you'd closed the thread,[26] then altered the timestamp in your signature to make it seem like you'd done it before.[27]GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸12:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Who among us, given the powers of a God, would remain fair, scrupulous and grounded in frail humanity against the face of all temptation - no matter how small, petty and seemingly superficial?"
well ... but since it's really none of my beeswax, I think I'll keep my mouth shut on that score. Know who said that? Well almost that: Stephen King (and check out his Hansel and Gretel in posthumous collaboration with Maurice Sendak). ---Sluzzelintalk18:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're deleting the page for Kang Khai Xing before, I want to do redo this article again with the sources being added. and he is the world junior champion and also won syed modi recently and on a good form with good coverage from my country. So, now he is better than previous year for BLP articles. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request regarding the deleted page "Amaruk Kayshapanta"
Could you restore the deleted page so that I can review it and fix the redirect issue?
Also, I would appreciate your advice on what exactly needs to be done in this situation. Is it acceptable to recreate or edit the page with proper encyclopedic content?
I also saw on your user page that you have been dealing with health issues. I hope you are feeling better, and I truly appreciate you taking the time to assist despite that.
I understand now that only the redirect in mainspace was deleted and that the draft exists at Draft:Amaruk Kayshapanta. However, I need to clarify one more thing: I no have access to the account that originally created that draft, so I cannot see its contribution history or continue working from that account.
Is it possible to restore or publish the page as it previously existed, or to allow me to continue editing the draft from my current account? I would like to improve the content and rewrite it in a more encyclopedic and policy-compliant way, if that is acceptable.
I would also like to explain that I did not create the original page. I work with open sources in my professional field, and I previously used information from Wikipedia about this person. I had the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaruk_Kayshapanta in my materials, but at some point it stopped working, so I tried to find out what happened.
Since this is a fairly well-known person, I am able to update and expand the information to make it more encyclopedic. However, I do not have access to the old draft because I don’t know its draft URL — I only saw the deletion log entry for the redirect.
If there is a way for me to access or locate the draft, I would be happy to continue working on it and then submit it to AfC.
I would like to ask one more question to ensure I follow the correct process.
Since I do not have access to the original draft and did not create it, would it be acceptable if I create a new draft article about this person from my own account, based on reliable independent sources and written in an encyclopedic, policy-compliant manner?
I want to make sure this approach is appropriate before I proceed.
I’m not able to find the draft at that link at the moment — am I allowed to create a new article on this topic? I also noticed that Gatita Estrella requested to have the draft moved to her user space for further editing. May I request access to that draft in my own user space as well so that I can work on it?
Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. 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 experienced in drives or blitzes and in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor (with their permission, of course) to be a Guild coordinator 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 2026.
September Drive: 43 of the 63 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive edited 693,541 words in 265 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
October Blitz: 14 of the 15 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz edited 75,108 words in 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
November Drive: 38 of the 65 editors who signed up for the November Backlog Elimination Drive edited 590,816 words in 240 articles. Barnstars awarded are posted here.
December Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 14 December (UTC) and will end on 20 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 293 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,730 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, GoldRomean, Miniapolis and Mox Eden.
To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 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!
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on November 21. This will be the final bulletin for 2025 and we'll be back in late January 2026 with the next issue. Please help translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
CEO appointment: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has appointed Bernadette Meehan as the new CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation. She will be meeting communities around the puzzle globe when she officially joins on January 20, 2026.
Wikipedia's 25th birthday party: Join the virtual celebration for games, prizes, musical performances, volunteer spotlights, data visualization, surprise guests and more. January 15 at 16:00 UTC. Register on Meta.
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees: Join the next Conversation with the Trustees on December 11 at 17:30 UTC.
Activity Tab on Mobile App: The Wikipedia iOS app is running an experiment that replaces the History tab with a redesigned Activity tab. This new tab surfaces personalized insights about reading, editing, and donations — all stored locally on your device for privacy. The goal is to see whether the new experience increases engagement and retention among logged-in readers.
Wikipedia Year in Review in Apps: The Wikipedia Year in Review 2025 is now available for the iOS and Android apps. This year introduces new personalized insights, updated reading highlights, and refreshed designs.
Add a Link: A feature that suggests links to be added to articles based on a prediction model, Add a link, has been deployed at Japanese, Urdu and Chinese Wikipedias. While this feature has already been available on most Wikipedias, the prediction model could not support certain languages. A new model has now been developed to handle these languages, and it will be gradually rolled out to other Wikipedias over time.
Abstract Wikipedia: The second round of voting on the name of Abstract Wikipedia concluded with Abstract Wikipedia as the top-voted name with 100 votes, followed by Wikigenerator with 91 votes. The name for the wiki project will now remain Abstract Wikipedia.
Anti-vandalism tool:Automoderator, now has the option to choose between two machine learning models to power the software on wikis using the tool.
Tools to support newcomers: Newcomers failing to add a citation to support added content has been one of the most common mistakes on Wikipedia. Reference Check, a tool that prompts them to add a citation before publishing an edit, has gone live for an A/B test on English Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Research Showcase: The next research showcase will feature a special panel on "Experimentation on Wikipedia" and will take place on December 10 at 17:30 UTC.
Annual Plan Progress: A look back at progress made against the plan during the second half of our fiscal year. Up to date regular updates are included in the Foundation Bulletin.
Sister Projects Task Force: Results of the consultation about Wikispore and Wikinews: No immediate changes should be made to Wikispore's current technical setup and archive all editions of Wikinews, preserving their content.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Hello there. 'Tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! Your contributions to Wikipedia in 2025 are greatly appreciated! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas, and here's to a happy and productive 2026! ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. I just saw that you haven't been able to get 2FA turned on. Is there something I could do to help? Would you want to hop onto a Google Meet and do a screenshare so I could try walking you through that way? Knowing that in the not too distant future the announcement about arbs retaining/giving up permissions will go out, it seems like a real deadline to get that sorted so you could retain if you're able to use them and give them up if you're not able to get it sorted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be awesome! It has driven me crazy all year. I think it's because the email address that is being used isn't being recognized. I might have to create a new one or use my arbitration email address. Are you going to be around any time tomorrow? Then I could try a few times, figure out exactly where I'm running into problems and then get your advice. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!22:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be around here and there but it shouldn't be too hard for me to hop onto a call at some point with you. You have my email, so feel free to reach out. The multifactor shouldn't have to do with email so hopefully we can get it cleared up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alex Terrible, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
This category, together with the two subcategories, was listed yesterday at CFD/Speedy, but during (my) night the nomination was opposed, so that chances are we do not need to do anything. I moved the subcategories back for consistency. Thanks for restoring it, I was not sure what you wanted to do and was afraid to interfere. Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 21:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts
Merry Christmas, Liz! Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.
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 2026. Happy editing, Ravenswing 19:00, 25 December 2025 (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 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and happy holidays, I've recently created an article for Morgz at User:Dwarfroe/Morgz, but was unable to move it to mainspace due to you having previously protected it after it was deleted in this AFD. I believe that he is notable now and I ask that you please reduce page protection. Thanks in advance! - dwarfroe (talk / contr) 20:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an article subject has been deleted through an WP:AFD discussion, you should submit the draft of a new article to WP:AFC for review. Recreated articles on deleted subjects are not just moved to main space. Let an AFC reviewer offer their opinion and then a move to main space can be considered if all of the pre-existing problems have been resolved. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!20:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
I am writing to request the undeletion/restoration of the article Angela Busheska, which was deleted in May 2023. Since that time, the subject has achieved significant new recognition that addresses the previous concerns regarding notability and primary sources.
Most notably, in August 2025, she was appointed to the UN Secretary-General's Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change [1], a high-level advisory role. Furthermore, she was named a 2024 College Woman of the Year by Glamour magazine, which published an in-depth feature interview [2]. She has also served as a featured speaker at COP28 alongside climate experts [3].
These are substantial, independent secondary sources that did not exist during the 2023 discussion. I believe she now clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.
Before I realized there had been a previous deletion discussion, I had already compiled a substantial set of independent reliable sources establishing coverage over several years, including publications, major media features, academic citations, and event documentation. Feel free to take a look here:
Hello @Liz. Happy New Year!
Wishing you a year filled with knowledge, collaboration, and meaningful contributions.
Thank you for your dedication to building free, reliable, and accessible knowledge for everyone around the world.
May the new year bring you inspiration, successful edits, respectful discussions, and strong community spirit.
Here’s to another year of improving Wikipedia together!
Warm regards,
— A fellow Wikipedian
I am writing to request the undeletion/restoration of the article Beta-Lactamase Database (BLDB), which was deleted in May 2023 after discussion. I am the developer of this database, which is one of the most important resource in the field. I am doing all this work in my free time, so there is no commercial interest. This Wiki page was created by Alex Bateman during the "JRC Workshop on Antimicrobial resistance databases" organized at Varano Borghi in Italy on 22nd May 2019 by the European Commission with the developers of databases related to antimicrobial resistance. At that time he created several other Wiki pages for the related databases, in the section dedicated to antimicrobial resistance.
Our database BLDB is described in detail in a dedicated publication and is used daily by many clinical hospitals worldwide for the surveillance of the spread of antibiotic resistance (more than 2,000 unique visits every month). Since 2017 it received 772 citations.
I hope that all these arguments will justify the undeletion/restoration of the article Beta-Lactamase Database (BLDB). Afterwards I will complete the Wiki page with additional details, which was one of the criticism expressed in the discussion. Thank you in advance and don't hesitate if you have additional questions.
Happy New Year, Liz! In 2025, other editors thanked you 1035 times using the thanks tool on the English Wikipedia. By that measure, this made you the #10 most thanked Wikipedian in 2025. As I said last year too: congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2026! Mz7 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the many, many reliable and constructive edits you made again this past year, especially in the area of category maintenance. Happy New Year! Place Clichy (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping the gun - deleting pages immediately after notification?
Hi, Liz. Wishing you improved health. Suggestion. You deleted page Draft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 5 minutes after DreamRimmer bot II notified me : "If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code." The timing is ... less than ideal. Makes sense to give editors a chance to see the messages DreamRimmer bot II leaves before deleting. Especially as I had improved the article in the 6 months since the previous warning. Just a suggestion for the future. Make sense? RememberOrwell (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed this DRV and restored the article to draftspace for 79 or other interested editors to improve it. (The close was fine, factors have changed in the intervening two+ years) StarMississippi03:54, 5 January 2026 (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.
You deleted Mbaba Mwana Waresa based on a PROD. How do I look up the discussion? I'm trying to answer a question on whether the name is dubious or not.
(talk page stalker) Isn’t the main feature of a PROD that there’s no discussion? Indeed AIUI the raising of any objection would have killed the process. It can also be undone at WP:RFU without need for discussion (unless the article is speedy-deletably in violation of policy, I suppose).—Odysseus147920:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There were never any citations in the deleted article other than the five shown in the talk page discussion Renerpho linked to. The only citation for the first three years of the page's existence was the Encyclopedia Mythica one, and the article's factual accuracy had been disputed since November 2005; in particular, the first objection, by an IP, stated in part that "the Zulu language does not have an 'R'", which fwiw Zulu language#Consonants confirms. —Cryptic20:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both that section and the following 'orthography' sections do show an /r/, though only in foreign loans and 'expressive' words. We don't know that this isn't an 'expressive' word, though I'm not finding it in Doke's dictionary. There's also the question of the supposed alt name Nomkhubulwane, which is easier to confirm as a goddess, including in modern cultural revival; see the several quotes going back to the 19th century in Bryceson et al. (2007: 172 ff) Identity and Networks: Fashioning Gender and Ethnicity Across Cultures. Perhaps the page could be moved there with a citation-needed tag on the Mbaba alias. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Details:Isaac J Morris is a mentee of mine who registered yesterday (18:31, 4 January 2026). He had time to create a draft article on his user page, and it was on my list to discuss with Isaac about moving it either to Draft space or to a user subpage. Before I could get to it, Escape Orbit moved Isaac's user page to User:Isaac J Morris\Draft BaBa 2Switt (diff), thus creating a new user page (note the backslash), instead of a subpage of Isaac's userpage. At that point, you noticed the userpage of a nonexistent user, and deleted it per U2 (log).
To remedy this unfortunate sequence of actions, could you please:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_brightened.jpg)
