User talk:Deb/Archive 28

Happy New Year, Deb!

Happy New Year!

Deb,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And to you and yours! Deb (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you and sorry for the "general" misunderstandings. It's a New Year, and I hope we can start over.

Singer2cantor (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeed Studio

Is it possible for me to see the version of this article you deleted on 11 June 2020. I'd like to see an article on this topic on WP and this could be a potential starting point. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look and I can't put the text anywhere on Wikipedia as it's such a blatant advert - although it wasn't deleted as a copyright violation, it's clearly copied from the company's promotional literature. There are a few references, which I can probably put in your user space if you want. Deb (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, can you give me the data for Akshata Prabhu that you recently deleted Because it was reviewed by Page reviewer and you deleted for promotions

Article I created was not promotional I never promoted the topic, but under speedy admins usually delete it without seeing contested notes, if you have seen it let me know? Omchoudhary20 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen it. You said it had been reviewed but I can't see any record of a draft being submitted for review. Deb (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it wasn’t draft, I published it some new page reviewer reviewed it, I can provide you screenshot, as I got an email. Omchoudhary20 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If it was meant always to be submitted through draft, why there’s option directly publish without submission via draft, and if reviewers are approving it, I think generally should be going through discussion as there’s option. See I’m not aware about exact rules of wikipedia but I know how generally any other submissions works, there are 100s of ways to get articles published on wikipedia, you can request, or submit via draft, or you can directly publish if you rights, wikipedia helped me through it itself, just Because some random personal requested speedy you deleted it, I know I can also request speedy deletion and admins like you would delete it unless there’s contested notes, and you wouldn’t care since you might even dont know about the topics, as 1000s of people those are celebs since decades but they’re not concerned about the digital establishment, I’m trying to give them space, as I’m fan of 90s-20s I’ve been following them I seen their works in industry. I’m a fan of bollywood (part of Indian film industry) i guess you should revert it in respect to topic (Akshata is Literally the supermodel of 2000s I can give 1000s references, non press releases I got know about her through recent PR (paid articles) but I remember her through her videos and modelling career back in TV when digital media wasnt covering much . Omchoudhary20 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If you still think it should be deleted why not have discussion on deletion, I completely understand you know more about policies and guidelines but reviewer considered it, so on that point I want to be sure where I went wrong and I want know what did i do wrong. Omchoudhary20 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Most reviewers who patrol new pages are not administrators and they only check the basics. You say "I’m not aware about exact rules of wikipedia". There are many pages of guidelines that will help you understand what you did wrong, or you can try Wikipedia:Teahouse to get answers to specific questions. When you started the page from scratch, you will have seen a message saying "The page "Akshata Prabhu" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Akshata Prabhu" directly, but ..." The draft option is always preferable for inexperienced contributors who aren't familiar with the guidelines. I'll be honest, I think this deletion was borderline and I'm prepared to restore the article text to draft space, but you must take care to improve the English and tone down the promotional wording before submitting it for an independent review - otherwise it could be deleted again. Deb (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

Stephen

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 & 2023

Please give your input in regard to the 2022 deaths which have importance tags on them.

Far too many sports events have been added to 2023; which ones should be removed? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Anne Green

Why did you delete my page? Jo-Anne Green (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Manta(platform)

Hi Deb, I was wondering about the reasons behind the deletion of Draft: Manta(platform). I have clarified my affiliation, cited reliable sources for each fact, and wasn't quiet understanding why the draft page has been removed.

It would be great if you could clarify and help a little. Wiki119988 (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield (d. 1677)

Hello Deb, since you started the article, I was wondering, coming across this portrait of COUNTESS OF CHESTERFIELD by Peter Lely if this might be Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield (d. 1677). I added the file to the Category:Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield (d. 1677) and left the check categories. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for M Lhuillier

An editor has asked for a deletion review of M Lhuillier. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Orasims (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Women in Red in February 2023

Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women | Justice | Folklore Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name, married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes

Gimmetrow

• Bjelleklang
• Bob the Wikipedian
• Leithp
• WhisperToMe
• 100 inactive admins

CheckUser changes

• BDD
• Bradv
• Donald Albury
• Maxim
• MusikAnimal

Oversighter changes

• BDD
• Bradv
• Donald Albury
• Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Draft: Mike Afolarin. Thank you.User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding WikiProject Years

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am notifying you because you were mentioned in a post regarding a dispute relating to WikiProject Years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

article created for

Hi, I noticed you have locked creation (salted) of Priyanka Chahar Choudhary page, but an article exists at Priyanka Chahar. It was created today (by someone else and not me!!) and I do think GNG passes now. I'll let you deal with what to do about that article. A draft also exists Draft:Priyanka Chahar Choudhary.

Paging @Iridescent:, @Liz:, @JBW: as you all had contributed to the block. Thanks. Kiran_891 ^(TALK) 23:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The new page is very different from the draft (which I'll delete). I don't think I can justify speedy deletion for the new article. Deb (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The version of the article deleted at AfD is currently visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Priyanka_Choudhary&oldid=1019035946 which I thought was sufficiently similar to the new article to justify speedy deletion, so I deleted the new article. However, I then read your comment above, Deb. Having looked at it again, I see that there is somewhat more evidence of notability in the new version, so I have restored the article. JBW (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

ReNew Power Page

Hi,

I wanted to change the name of this page as the brand has gone through a rebranding process. Will it be possible to help us in that.

This is the article on the rebranding https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/renew-unveils-new-brand-identity-as-it-reinforces-leadership-in-providing Candidawork (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We need to change the name is it possible? Can you help us with it. Candidawork (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You'll still need to declare a COI and ensure that the account isn't used by more than one person. Deb (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Account Deletion.

Hello Deb, I am a new user to wikipedia "YT The Transit Diaries" I have been given a deletion notice and would like my username and user page to be changed to abide by Wikipedia's spam TOS. I do not know how to change my username, if you could change my username to "The Transit Diaries" and remove all promotional content from my user page, that would be amazing, as I do not know how to perform these actions. I do not want to be deleted from Wikipedia and I want to stay on this platform.

Sincerely, YT The Transit Diaries. YT The Transit Diaries (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023#Yukon high-altitude object

The IP may well be a part of block evading troll who have been involved in Wikipedia for more than three years. I have put a SPI on them and I believe they deserve a longer block. Apparently they created an account "Wikianon2023" and I believe the SPI & archives should be moved in there moving forward. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the named account is already blocked. I'll increase the block on that IP. Deb (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Page Undelete Request

Hello Admin, I requested you to delete the BoAt (company) but now my views are changed after looking at the new sources. | Harvard Case Study, Kenresearch are good enough for passing the notability. This draft can be improved more. SmokeyJoe I can see that you often discuss about deletion review pages, so I am tagging you if you have something to add.

I can see there is one more draft from the name Draft:BoAt Lifestyle, I guess this can also work.Fishandnotchips (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. If you want to add anything to the draft article (I would suggest that more references are needed if it's going to pass review), please do so. Deb (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. If you want to add anything to the draft article (I would suggest that more references are needed if it's going to pass review), please do so. Deb (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Deb. I have added more international research firm related sources. Although, I believed that 2 sources are enough for notability but now the sources look more promising. Can we shift this page into mainspace now?Fishandnotchips (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

By all means submit it for review. I'm unlikely to be the one doing it. Deb (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023

Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261 Online events: New: Geofocus Mediterranean | Art + Activism | Alphabet run Q & R Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | Folklore See also: #Visible Wiki Women Wikimedia challenge to add more images of women to Commons Tip of the month: Mobile phone readers may only see the article "lead" – take some time to make it shine! Include something to keep people reading. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

• Fuhghettaboutit
• Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Drbhushanchittawadagi12

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Deb, Can you please provide me with the reason for the recent deletion of the Kofluence page?

Can you please guide me on how to address the reasons you mentioned for the deletion of the Kofluence page, so that I can make a valuable contribution and create a new page on Wikipedia in the correct format?. Raamprabhu 05:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Deborah Kerr

Deborah Kerr has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Jessica Pierce

Hi, asking you to reconsider the deletion of Jessica Pierce. As per Special:Undelete/Jessica Pierce, the CSD tag was already declined by Ragesoss and contested by Phil Bridger; the article clearly indicates significance as she has worked as a professor and has published multiple books. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Where are the references to support the claim of notability? I've published multiple books but I'm not notable. Does she actually hold a Professor's chair or is she just a teacher? Deb (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You know (or it least should know) that references are not required to avoid deletion via WP:A7, but anyway the references were right there in the article before they were removed by the deletion tagger. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Deb, I'm sorry, but you've been an admin for way too long to not know that A7 doesn't require references to support the claim of significance. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe becoming a professor is itself significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. Can you elaborate as to why you think otherwise? Sagsbasel (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You've been around way too long to not know that unreferenced content can be immediately deleted. Deb (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop defending the indefensible. Much of the content of this article was sourced, but the now rightly blocked deletion nominator removed the sources. Do you follow WP:ADMINACCT? If not you should resign your adminship, and if so you should properly explain why you deleted this article. If you made a mistake then you should have corrected it when it was pointed out to you, rather than doubling down on it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't order me around. I've been out of the country for several days and wasn't here to check the facts until a few hours ago, by which time it appears it was resolved. If you want to stir it up again, I won't be taking any notice of you. Deb (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The article said that Pierce felt independent from affiliations. There was no source for this information, which tells me the article was written by a friend of hers. The two editors who objected to the deletion refused to explain their reasoning, with one only saying that Pierce's notability was self-evident. I'm not sure what that even meant. I believe these objections were in bad faith, and suspect these editors may also know Pierce. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you, an admin, rewarding edit-warring and the removal of references? If I had had more time this morning I would have reported the editor who tagged this for edit-warring and any other admin would have blocked them rather than rewarding them. And you have the cheek to say here that you were right. Revert this decision now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You refused to discuss your objection to the deletion and were belligerent with me. I don't get why you wouldn't begin with civility? Do you know Ms Pierce? Sagsbasel (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sagbasel knows for a fact that there were a large number of sources in the article, because he or she removed them before nominating it for deletion. Sagbasel then demonstrated his or her complete lack of understanding (or contempt) for the deletion procedure by repeatedly adding a proposed deletion tag to the article after one was removed. I have restored the article, reverted to the last version before Sagsbasel removed most of the content, and I am now updating with information about more recent books. There are dozens of reviews of Pierce's work in reputable scholarly and journalistic publications, meaning that she meets WP:AUTHOR. At the very least, there is no case for A7 (and the article is not eligible for a prod). Sagbasel, if you remain convinced that the article should be deleted, I encourage you to nominate it at AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion before editing the article. I am not sure why you would lie?

The article also did not have a "large number of sources". There were three book reviews for the same book that she was listed as a co-author to that wasn't used for any purpose in the article other than to establish the book's publishing company.

This does not meet WP:AUTHOR. There was no evidence she is cited by her peers here. There is no significant new concept here. There is no significant or well known collective body of work here. And there is no significant monument or exhibition to point to here.

I did nominate it at AfD. Other editors took offense to it but refused to ellaborate, saying only that her notabiluty was self-evident. Whatever that means. Sagsbasel (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You nominated the article for deletion multiple times after this edit, which removed around 12 journalistic/scholarly articles focussed on Pierce's work. And no, you have never nominated this article at AfD. I am not going to argue with you about this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You said I "removed them before nominating it for deletion". I clearly nominated it for deletion before editing the article. It's right there in the history. Why lie? Sagsbasel (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You left this comment on my talk page, "The article is not eligible for WP:PROD. It has previously been nominated for deletion." So you clearly know it was nominated for deletion. You then threatened me to not nominate it again. But here you're saying "And no, you have never nominated this article at AfD." So it was never nominated for AfD? So why can't I nominate it then? Sagsbasel (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You nominated the article for deletion before and after removing sources. Before you removed the sources, you were unsuccessful. After removing the sources, you were successful. Perhaps that's a coincidence. And no, the article was never nominated at AfD. You nominated the article for speedy deletion and proposed deletion. You did not nominate it at articles for deletion. These are different processes, as I think you know. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, the three book reviews in the article reviewed the same book and were not integral to the article. They were used to estalish the publishing company.

Oh, now you say I nominated the article for deletion before I edited the article. So you did lie. Funny how that works.

I never specified how I nominated when I first said I nominated the article for deletion. Plus you said my AfD nomination wasn't a real nomination. So that only leaves the speedy delete nomination. But now you say I nominated the article several times, so the AfD does count? I can see why you need it to now so you don't look like a complete liar.

Sagsbasel (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We establish the notability of individuals through third-party sources. For someone notable primarily for publishing books (like many academics), this is going to include book reviews in magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals -- precisely the kinds of sources you removed in the edit I mentioned above. And yes, you did specify how you nominated the article for deletion. You said about an hour ago that you 'did nominate it at AfD'. But this is not the case. Starting a conversation about an article on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is not the same as nominating an article at AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So how many book reviews does a person need to be considered notable? Does it matter if a person is just a coauthor on the book? I'd be glad to start an article for every person that meets your criteria.

You still won't say why you lied and said I only nominated the article for deletion after I edited the page when you know that's not true? Or at least admit to being wrong and issue a retraction. And no wonder no one tries to improve this site anymore, you're all quite rude to new people. You have three ways to delete an article but I better make sure I figure out the one way I need to do it but I better not talk about it on a talk page because that's not where you talk about things but if I get it wrong you'll be sure to harass me for it to no end because you have so many stupid acronyms you can throw out at me to get your way. Sagsbasel (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The general notability guideline is that "[a] topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The subject-specific guideline for "creative professionals" (e.g., authors) says that people are assumed notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", or if "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". This all speaks to the importance of published reviews of work. It is not the case, off the top of my head, that we have hard-and-fast guidelines on numbers of reviews (beyond the general notability guideline, which requires "multiple" sources -- i.e., 2+), or how co-authorship impacts these requirements (beyond the specific guideline's reference to "a major role" in co-creation). So there are judgement calls here. Right now, the article cites around 11 reviews of Pierce's coauthored books (including articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Telegraph, and New Scientist, alongside scholarly journals of various kinds) and a smaller number of reviews of Pierce's sole-authored books (including one in Times Higher Education). It also cites a number of other valuable sources, such as published interviews. There will surely be more sources out there I haven't cited; I'll add a few more once I've posted this comment. I think these comfortably demonstrate that Pierce meets the notability guidelines I've mentioned. Perhaps you disagree.

I did not lie, and I politely ask you to please drop that point. I'll say nothing more about it after this post, but since you asked me directly, I will answer. I did not say that you "only nominated the article for deletion after [you] edited the page". I said you "removed [sources] before nominating it for deletion", which is true. Here is where you removed sources, and here is one of the occasions on which you subsequently nominated the article for deletion. I'm sorry if what I said wasn't clear or if you feel it was misleading, but I didn't lie, as what I said was correct. (Even if it wasn't correct, would it not be charitable to assume I was saying something I thought to be true, rather than lying?) And I'm sorry if you haven't felt particularly welcomed. But I hope you can appreciate that from where I'm sitting, your conduct doesn't look stellar. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You said I edited the article before I nominated the article for deletion. That isn't true. That makes it a lie. But you're saying now you didn't use the word edit, instead you said I removed sources. That removal of sources was an edit, right? So it doesn't make a difference what specific word you used, either way what you said was patently false. So what's the charitable option here you want me to take? That you didn't check the edit history and were just made it all up on a whim to win an argument? That would still make it a lie--making up things--wouldn't it? And it's funny how you tell me to be charitable while at the same time accusing me of various things this whole time. You're a liar and also a hypocrite. Sagsbasel (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sagsbasel "You nominated the article for deletion before and after removing sources." Do you disagree with this comment? Because you clearly reinstated the deletion tag multiple times after removing the sources. If you keep casting aspersions and attacking Josh you're going to get blocked for personal attacks. It's understandable that you don't know the differences between WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD, but if you don't, don't attack those who do - don't accuse people of not following procedure or policy, if you don't know the procedure or haven't read the policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at personal attacks. Your buddy Josh said (and I assume you are friends since you're calling him by just his first name, eh?), "Sagbasel knows for a fact that there were a large number of sources in the article". There were three book reviews for the same book in the article. I wouldn't count that as a "Large number of sources". Maybe your buddy Josh thinks three is a big number. I don't. Also, the reviews weren't being used to source any information in the paragraph I deleted. If they can be used tfor the article then by all means add to the article and use the sources. The paragraph was just a rehash of Pierce's publishing history which already has its own section in the article.

I think I have been perfectly clear which statement I take issue with. It's not the random one you chose to suite your own ends, it's when your buddy Josh said "because he or she removed them before nominating it for deletion." The editing history clearly shows that I nominated the article for deletion before editing it. Also, Joshy boy says I didn't nominate the article for AfD, so there is no other nomination according to him. So either Josh knowing used false information or he fabricated this information to defame me. Either way is a lie, right?

Your buddy also said, "Sagbasel then demonstrated his or her complete lack of understanding (or contempt) for the deletion procedure by repeatedly adding a proposed deletion tag to the article after one was removed." I'm new and Josh didn't give me a charitable view when he said I had contempt for the process, but asks me to be charitable with his falsehoods? A classic case of do as I say, not as I do. That's hypocrisy.

If you're inclined to block people for personal attacks I suggest you start with Josh. You'd block your friend, right? Sagsbasel (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, your edit removed around 12 secondary sources focussed on Pierce/her work; it was not just a case of removing three book reviews. Here is the article before you started editing it; here it is afterwards. Footnotes 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 23 were clear examples of secondary sources you removed. (Incidentally, I don't think Galobtter and I have worked together closely before, though I may be wrong. Everyone is welcome to call me Josh.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence says "These observations are used to make a case that animals may have a sense of morality". This is is a speculative claim and those sources don't support this claim. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you believe that Pierce and Bekoff do not make a case that animals may have a sense of morality? I'm not claiming that animals do have a sense of morality. I'm making a claim about what Pierce and Bekoff argue. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I believe or you believe. This is an encyclopedia. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I know. You claimed that something mentioned in the article is 'speculative' and unsupported by sources. I am pushing back against that, because I suspect you have misunderstood what the article actually said. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just realised that I've made a procedural mistake. Deb, I reverted your deletion because I thought you were deleting the article as an expired PROD (for which the article was not eligible). But I now see that you actually deleted the article on the basis of CSDA7, meaning that I was probably acting out of procedure by restoring the article. Sorry about that. I hope you don't believe that the article in its current form warrants an A7 deletion (the current version more closely resembles the version not deleted by Ragesoss, rather than the version you deleted). If you do, then please redelete the article, and we can take it from there. If you don't believe the current article warrants deletion, perhaps we can leave it to Sagsbasel to nominate at AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You're a philosopher and focus on the same fields as Pierce? Do you know Pierce? I dunno, it just seems like a strange coincidence that you added so much unsourced information to her article. You knew she had books coming out. How? you knew how she felt about her affiliations. Again, how would you know these things? You have to know her. Right? And you also put her up for a flimsy dyk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jessica_Pierce). Oh, Pierce thinks animals have morals? It's not proven? It's just, like, her opinion, man? And no mention of her more famous coauthor in that dyk. Weird. Sagsbasel (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I know Pierce's work (I've been fairly critical of her in print) but I don't think we've ever met or spoken. I have not added any unsourced material to the article. The 'unsourced' claim you've repeated come back to about her loose affiliation/feeling unattached is (and, apart from when you removed the source from the article, always has been) sourced to a lengthy piece in Times Higher Education. As for her claim about animals having a sense of morality; it's what she argues at length in a scholarly monograph published by the Univeristy of Chicago Press. You don't have to agree with her, but I encourage you to read her work before accusing her of lacking evidence. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And on forthcoming books -- again, the information was sourced to her website. Not the best source, admittedly, but an an acceptable use of a primary source, in my view. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Pierce's feelings are not sourced in the lede. The forthcoming books are sourced to her personal website's main page, it says "Welcome!", but there's nothing about forthcoming books at the main page. It's not 'my claim' that the information was unsourced, it's a fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Pierce&oldid=737557288. Here's a helpful guide on how to use sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't sourced in the lead, but, as per WP:LEADCITE, there's no requirement to source information in the lead that is cited further down. Here is an archived version of Pierce's welcome page around the time when I accessed it (and the archived version has now been added to the article). As you can see, it clearly lists her then forthcoming (now published) books. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Section break

Sagsbasel has now restructured the article somewhat; per BRD, I reverted, but Sagsbasel reverted back. I encourage people involved in the conversation above to join the coversation on the article talk page at Talk:Jessica Pierce#Having separate career and philosophy sections so that we can reach a consensus on how to best structure the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Note on the selection of notable deaths in the 2022 article

Hi Deb, I noticed that you trimmed the list of leaders in this edit about a week ago. Would you mind if I ask what is the basis of choosing these celebrities but not others? For example, why choose Pope Benedict XVI but not Chinese president Jiang Zemin? Windywendi (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:2022 on the inclusion of Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin in the lead of 2022 which you may be interested in joining. Carter00000 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Restoring Simenona Martinez

i had an email exchange via email with wikipedia and they referred me to here. 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? And who are you? Deb (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

To retore the wikipedia page from Simenona Martinez 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

for* Simenona Martinez 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think I should do that? What is your interest in this, as someone who has never edited before, even the Simenona Martinez? Are you aware that there is already a draft article of this title? Deb (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It was deleted and vandalized. I would like it restored. 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am asking the previous draft be restored. I'm aware of the one in draft. 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want me to consider this request, please sign in first. Deb (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok i have done that RobbinCavery (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And give a reason, please. Deb (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

because it needs to be restored after vandalization. It's a source of information that may be helpful or insightful to others. RobbinCavery (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It was highly promotional, thus not helpful. That's why it was deleted. If you want to create the article, please start again, taking note of the reasons why both article and draft were deleted. Also remember to declare any conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you restore the version that was not promotional? The actresses had her own show on the Disney channel and was in blockbuster movies. RobbinCavery (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no such version. Deb (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The page had been up for years without protest until it was vandalized. RobbinCavery (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

i would have to create the article from scratch? RobbinCavery (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

can you verify the changes RobbinCavery (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've checked it. There was no vandalism, just a bad article. I won't be restoring it. If you still want to contest it, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Deb (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There was vandalism. Its in the records of the updates. I jush updated the article but that still doesn't meet the requirements? Can you explain further? RobbinCavery (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

there's movie franchise that links to this actress. I'm not understanding RobbinCavery (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is over. Deb (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of rulers named Henry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of rulers named Henry, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers named Henry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

ITN

Hi there. A gentle reminder that the ITN page is fully protected, so subject to WP:WHEEL re: reverting another admin's revert. In these cases, consider discussing with the admin directly (talk page), or posting at WP:ERRORS. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but the admin should not have reverted another admin's change without discussing directly. Deb (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sophia Mendonça

Hello. How are you? As I saw that you deleted this page, I would like to ask you to consider deletion requests for these related pages: Selma Sueli Silva, Sophia Mendonça, Amores (a)Típicos, Template:Sophia Mendonça, Outro Olhar, Danielle, Asperger, Neurodivergentes, Autismo no Feminino, Metamorfoses, TransParente and Vozes da Maturidade. Thanks. Chronus (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've been looking at them, but I'd like a second opinion on some. Don't worry, other admins will be taking a look. Deb (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deb This is an obvious case of WP:SPAM. Please, see this deletion discussion on Portuguese Wikipedia. Chronus (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 Online events: New: Gender studies | Health | Dance | Alphabet run S & T | Books by women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Women in Red is supporting Every Book Its Reader through our Books by women event. Tip of the month: When writing about a book, check WP:NBOOK for notability, then see MOS:NOVEL, WP:NONFICTION or WP:POETRYSTANDARDS for guidance. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes

Aoidh

KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes

Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Gertraut Munk

Hello. I appologize for writing to you, but I must confess my suprise to see that you have deleted articles without giving any prior warning or oportunity for people to voice their opinion, as is normally done when an article is considered for deletion except when it is obviously non-notable.

Normally, people are given first a warning, and then an oportunity to voice their opinion in a discussion about the article, before it is deleted.

For example: you deleted the article Gertraut Munk without any discussion whatsoever. May I be allowed to point out, that Gertraut Munk was a so called "court jew" and the personal banker of an emperor. Such a position was a position of great importance both politically and financially and uncommon (though not unknown) for a woman in this time period. She is therefore notable, and if you were not aware of this, you would have been given the oportunity to be informed, if you had started a deleting discussion about the page instead of simply deleting in imediately on the assumption that she lacked notability.

Further more, in such a specialized subject as this, you may not necessarily find so much information by a quick google search. When it comes to modern people, I know that method is often used to determin notability, but that is a flawed method when it comes to historical people in subjects that has become subjects of interest to historians just the past few decades.

Now: I suffer from anxiety, and are consequently not a person suited to involved myself in arguments on Wikipedia. I prefer to stay out of all communication on wikipedia, so as to avoid getting my anxeity triggered by aggressive arguments to the detriment of my health, since communication here is not suitable for fragile people. Nevertheless, had you started a deletion discussion, I would have contributed with my knowledge on the subject and other people would have been given the oportunity to voice their opinion, some of whom may have knowledge of this subject and recongized its notability.

This was not an article of which the assumption of non-notability could be made; it was an article about an obscure historical subject.

May I humbly suggest, that in the future, you will give warning and and start a deletion discussion about the article you want to delete, and give oportunity to people to voice ther opinion, before deleting an article who is not obviously non-notable. At least when it comes to historical people within subjects you may yourself not have knowledge about.

Wise by experience, I am aware of the fact that communication on Wikipedia is not a good thing for my health, and I will appologize a second time for writing to you: I intend no harm with my post. But I do have knowledge within history, and I will allow myself to post this, and hope that you will at least consider this when encountering articles about people prior to the 19thcentury here on Wikipedia. This does not need to result in any sort of discussion: I simply ask you to humbly consider this. Thank you, and have a lovely day. --Aciram (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What I would say is that, as a result of the comments you made about my moving one of your other articles to draft, I looked at your contributions and found that you have produced a large number of poor-quality short stubs that would not have passed review if they had first been created in draft. If I see an article that is not fit to be in mainspace, regardless of who wrote it, I will speedy delete it. I would recommend that you draft your articles in future, so that you can be alerted to any problems before they get deleted for not meeting the criteria for inclusion. If you believe Gertraut Munk really does have a claim to notability, I can restore the article, but it will go into draft space, not into mainspace, until it is properly referenced and the evidence for her notability is clearly stated. Deb (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editing by user Vg8443

Hi Deb,

I hope you are well. I'm afraid we've got a clear case of WP:CIR on our hands. New User Vg8443 is editing Deaths in 1989 and making many mistakes. There are problems with spelling, capitalization, the format of the entries and the order of them. Not a single citation is added. Have a look at the Rev history and you see what I mean. He/she does not respond on (his/her talk page). I suspect Vg does not speak English and is unfamiliar with the latin script. I have to check every single edit and it takes all of my time currently. Earlier this week we already had to take action regarding other activities: see this discussion. What can I do? Mill 1 (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have given a final warning and will block if there is any more such activity. Deb (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you are to thank. Cheers Mill 1 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Your deletion of Bassa Vah alphabet

... left behind many pages linked to it, which now will have redlinks. This is not helpful. – _•Raven  ^.talk 18:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the problem goes back to this move. Deb (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Football at the 2022 Asian Games - Men's tornament

Hi, can you undelete this please. As I've already removed the more applicable R3 tag, it isn't an uncontroversial deletion and thus should be treated at RfD as was ongoing. J947 † ^edits 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. It's clearly a misspelling and the discussion doesn't seem to address this point. Deb (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Many redirects from misspellings are helpful, and in my opinion it's up to RfD to decide the fate of ones like such which aren't unambiguously implausible. J947 † ^edits 21:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The nomination doesn't address the true reason for deletion of the misspelled redirect. Deb (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm disputing that this is uncontroversial maintenance. I don't think that created-in-error G6 applies so much to redirects, where the very fact that an error was made is itself an indication that the redirect could be helpful. It's unhelpful pedantry to speedy delete a page based on its creation scenario when it might otherwise be kept if it were to progress through a slow deletion process.

I could just recreate the redirect, but that would further obfuscate an already confusing page history and log. J947 † ^edits 04:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@J947: If you are disputing that created-in-error G6 should not apply to redirects, that discussion should be probably had at the {{Db-error}} talk or CSD talk, as from the first edit of the template it says because it is a page that was obviously created in error, or a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. (emphasis mine). The moment he created the template in Jan 2015, Oiyarbepsy added it to G6 at CSD as well. Jay 💬 06:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said – but perhaps created-in-error G6 indeed should not apply to redirects as a blanket rule, to be completely honest. It doesn't matter whether a redirect is created in error or not as to whether it is helpful to the reader; all bad redirects that fall under G6 can be handled via R3 or RfD anyway.

But the point is: (a) I contest that the deletion of this redirect is helpful, (b) therefore an undeletion should occur as this is now obviously a controversial deletion, and (c) given it survived R3 and was at RfD should not have been G6'd in the first place. J947 † ^edits 08:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can contest that the deletion of the redirect is helpful when you are yourself nominating it for deletion. Deb (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll shut up in a moment, but I was simply surprised to see it speedied when I'd already removed the speedy, and was hoping a quick undeletion would clarify the situation – irrespective of my personal opinion on its merits. Starting this thread did not turn out particularly helpful at all. J947 † ^edits 09:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I just think your action in removing the speedy notice was inappropriate. Deb (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait, removing the R3? Seemed a pretty plausible misspelling – not particularly helpful, but nor too out of the blue. Only later when I realised the correctly-spelt redirect was unhelpful did I think this redirect deserved deletion. Roughly 60% chance of being deleted at RfD, I'd suggest – which far clears the bar of speediability. J947 † ^edits 10:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The act of contesting the deletion doesn't make it controversial. But if you say that the G6 deletion was not valid, and the deleter disagrees, then it becomes controversial. You cannot compare R3 and G6. They are opposites in a way - G6 may act on a redirect created from a page move, whereas R3 specifically says it does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, and you were right in declining the R3 (although you did not decline it for this reason). Jay 💬 10:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(the moved page was also recently created). G6 error really shouldn't be applied to old redirects though anyway, for the same reason as R3 cannot be. J947 † ^edits 22:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

deletion of Kitchen Studios article

hey there, i really don't understand why the article i wrote on a very legitimate artist collective in my city, working abroad, making a name for itself, was deleted. this whole process really makes no sense. Stefano blanca (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's legitimate is irrelevant. You have to follow the rules on notability ("making a name for itself" suggests it hasn't reached that level yet), advertising (see Wikipedia:NPOV) and declare any conflict of interest you may have. Deb (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Cloudibn13 talk page use

Hi Deb,

I just wanted to note here that the user Cloudibn13, who you blocked eight months ago for promotional editing and username, is using their talk page to further promote their business (diff) instead of placing an unblock and name change request.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023

Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270 Online events: New: Alphabet run U, V, W | Disability | Women in Education | CEE women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Wikimedia CEE Spring 2023/CEE Women - Wikimedia contest with postcards and prizes The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Use the Google translate app and camera on your phone to translate text from an article or book Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

"Case of the black bitch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Case of the black bitch has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 28 § Case of the black bitch until a consensus is reached. Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Battles of The Ancient World (Video Game)

A non-web-based video game is not eligible for A7, which is why I tagged it as G11. I'm glad it's gone as it was a piece of crud created by an incompetent editor, but... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll change it. Deb (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

1885 Gorge Bridge train crash

I’d like this back in draftspace to rewrite to fix the copyright issue. SurferSquall (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't do that because of the copyright violation. You will need to start again. Deb (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? SurferSquall (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a copyright violation, as was said. It would be unlawful to provide you with a copy. Just rewrite it based on the original sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

why would it not be allowable fair use-wise? it’s material compiled by a county government. SurferSquall (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you need a copy of this when you have the original source to work from? Just get on with it, rather than ask for a copy of what you already have. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If you still can't wrap you head around why this is a copyright violation, quite frankly you lack the competence to be editing here. It's been explained to you multiple times. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't a violation-I wasn't aware having it again in draftspace would be such an issue. point taken, I guess. SurferSquall (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Creation protection

Some group of socks involved in UPE is continuously trying to create Abhilash Pillai (film writer). It was deleted multiple number of times within a short period of time. I think it's creation in mainspace should be limited to extended confirmed users. Please do consider my opinion. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes

Spicy

• Ale jrb
• Dbachmann
• DGG (deceased)
• Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Hemanth Choudhary/sandbox

Hello, Deb,

I guess you disagreed with my assessment when I removed the CSD tag on this User page that labeled it as promotional. Then Jim deleted the page and decided to undelete it. I guess it shows how admins can assess pages differently. But it's still useful to look over the page history of tagged articles. I hope you are having a good weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I was! :-) Deb (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

PS. What makes it blatantly promotional is the external link. Deb (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

1970

in your edit of 20:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC) of 1970 you introduced

• <ref>{{cite journal|journal=Austrian Information|year=1969.volume=23|issue=6|page=8}}</ref>

which is missing a title. Please supply the title, and URL and author as well if possible. Also, {{cite journal}} is only for academic journals; you probably intended {{cite magazine}}. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. Deb (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion FxPro

Hello! Подскажите, пожалуйста, как мы можем восстановить страницу FxPRO?

Ранее вы ее удалили, но я вижу, что на сайте присутствуют такие же статьи на другие компании. Например, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forex_Club

Также данная компания имеет большую значимость, т.к. является международной.  На других языках статья о компании FxPRO не удалена - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro

@Виктор Воронин Виктор Воронин (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to tell me something or ask me something, please use English or Welsh. Thanks. Deb (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how we can restore the "FxPRO" page?

Earlier you deleted it, but I see that there are the same articles on the site for other companies. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forex_Club

Also this company has a lot of importance as it is an international company.  In other languages, the article about FxPRO is not removed - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro Виктор Воронин (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned about it, since you didn't write the draft? If you want to create a new draft, written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, no one is stopping you. Deb (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry will have to go public, please check it

God this is a maddeningly buggy site! Spent 3 hrs in visual editor, to replace their page, switched to html to be sure its a draft that you can check, and that deleted the entire thing!

I Have to get a page up for them. Doing it in visual and hitting publish seems safer as then it exists. All this is gone. Can you make it a draft and review it since you know how these work.

SusanatSolarPACES (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Deb, this is the SolarPACES page rewrite, thanks, Susan SusanatSolarPACES (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:WikicommonsJessDiaz

Hello, you blocked this user two years ago as a promotion-only account. New account TheGreatJess, created in January, has heavily overlapping edits and has just recreated the spammy Advance Montessori Education Center of Isabela, Inc. of the original account. Thanks, 217.127.250.215 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked the user. Deb (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

ABBYY

Hello, Deb,

The ABBYY title has been protected since June 2022

The ABBYY (company) article was rewritten by me from scratch by translation from https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Redirect/revision/39216011 Then the article was significantly revised to strengthen the demonstration of the notability of the article's subject.

The subject has been of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that is demonstrated in the article, see also Talk:ABBYY (company).

Please move ABBYY (company) to ABBYY.

--Perohanych (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Oleg Tolmachev (CEO)

Hi! Is that enough https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AOleg_Tolmachev_%28CEO%29&diff=1156561313&oldid=1156514946 ? Are there any other specific comments on the article? --Perohanych (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. If you think it's ready, submit it for review and it will be rejected because it's promotionally-worded. Deb (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273 Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y & Z | LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green: June 2023 GA Editathon event page Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023 global campaign The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Hudson Valley Writers Center

Hi Deb, you declined the CV speedy request on Draft:Hudson Valley Writers Center saying there's no violation, but the copyvio detector still reports quite substantial similarity with a number of sources, albeit that it's all quite fragmented. Are you using another detector tool and getting different results, or am I missing something? Or are you perhaps saying the fragmented nature of it isn't enough to make it a CV? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No. I couldn't see, and still can't, any evidence of a CV worth acting on. It just seems to be names and titles that are duplicated, and there's nothing much you can do about that. Deb (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. I still think it's a bit more than just names etc., but you're probably right that it's not worth deleting all of it. I'll just remove the sections I think are CV and request revdel, then. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Abraham David

Hi Deb, the page "Abraham David" has been deleted, kindly move the item to draft so I could go through it. Regards Hillarys (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you responded to the request for you to declare your conflict of interest? Deb (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of page The_Brains_Canadian_Psychobilly_Band

You deleted my page for copyright infringement, but there was NO infringement. The requester is conflating TRADEMARK with COPYRIGHT. The information I pposted is biographically accurate info about a different band of the same name. The info I used is used with the permission of the band. There was no coyright issue at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brains_Canadian_Psychobilly_Band Strongwebs (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually I deleted it as advertising, which it is. Deb (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The Brains Canadian Psychobilly Band Issue

Hey. So remember that you deleted that page earlier. Well he created the page again with the same exact copyrighted text. A.R.M. 23:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

• Ddstretch
• Prodego
• Resolute

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Canterbury

Canterbury has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Systematic draftifications with inadequate explanation

Hi Deb,

You appear to be enforcing a personal rule that inexperienced editors are not allowed to put new articles in mainspace? Or is there something specifically inadequate about these new articles? In any case, I think your explanations “moved without review by inexperienced editor”

Example:

16:08, 10 June 2023‎ Deb talk contribs‎ m  10,779 bytes 0‎   Deb moved page Battle of Orchha to Draft:Battle of Orchha: not ready for article space - moved without review by inexperienced editor undothank Tag: Disambiguation links added)

—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Continue here from my talk. “ You appear to be enforcing a personal rule that …”, I hope we agree is short of a personal attack, but it is a suggestion that you are not appearing to abide by the guidance at WP:DRAFT. There is right now a quite pertinent discussion about liberal draftifications at WT:DRAFT.

I don’t think I have criticism of your draftifications, but of your messaging to the newcomer. I understand your preference to not tell a newcomer that their English is quite poor, but, two things, (1) I think that is a mistake as it’s better to upfront with the main problem, and (2), I’m not sure it is an acceptable reason (alone) to Draftify, as poor English and simple mistakes are actually encouraging of enticing newcomer edits to fix them (in the style of the early years of Wikipedia). SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I get that, but I feel that not pointing out to a newish user who is consistently producing articles of an unacceptably low standard that they need to submit their work for review is not doing them or anyone else any favours. Deb (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You draftified another of his creations, without feedback. Ok, I guess sufficient feedback was already previously here: User talk:Ajayraj890#Final warning. He deleted your warning, whether adminshopping, and tried tricks to evade being seen ignoring your advice? That’s serious. Your advice, “My advice to you is to use draft space and wait for your articles to pass review” I guess should be reworded as an “instruction” (it does come with a threat of block) and linked to in future draftifications, for the benefit of people like me, who come in late after the user approaches us for help. For the WP:FORUMSHOPPED.

Not all of his creations are as bad as the worst, but all are liable to contain unattributed quotes form the source material or too-close paraphrasing. I think a fresh note to that effect on his talk page might be a good idea? I could do it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, feel free. I don't understand the reviewers who are passing articles that are barely intelligible. Deb (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2016 in Vietnamese music

The article 2016 in Vietnamese music has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

overly specific

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1375 books

A tag has been placed on Category:1375 books indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276 Online events: New: Women in Red's 8th anniversary | Alphabet run A & B | Sports Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Look out for contributors interested in writing about women and invite them to join Women in Red Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Helmut Koller

Hi Deb. I came across this deleted article while assessing a user for autopatrolled, and am a bit shocked by what I found. I'll just describe what the sequence of events looks like from my perspective—I'm sure you'll see it differently—and maybe we can work from there:

1. Helmut Koller was created in mainspace
2. It was nominated for WP:CSD#G11 [1]
3. You made bold move of the article to draftspace, declining the CSD in the process [2]
4. You told the author that this was because the article "doesn't seem to conform to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Advertising" (note that link is to a disambiguation page) and asked them to "work on it in draft before submitting for review".[3]
5. Three weeks later, the author recreated Helmut Koller in mainspace with significant improvements to the tone [4]
6. You deleted the recreation under G11 (the same criterion you previously declined) and indefinitely fully protected the title
7. The draft was never submitted and was automatically deleted via WP:CSD#G13 six months later

Can you see what I mean? The author clearly objected to your bold move, which they had every right to, and yet at the same time made a good faith effort to address your concern. But because they didn't go through AfC as you asked—and correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't actually have any grounds for insisting that they do that—you used your admin tools to keep the article in your preferred location. Fortunately this user doesn't seem to have been discouraged, because I can imagine many inexperienced would have just given up if faced with this level of capriciousness. Am I missing some context here? – Joe (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really. The original author was User:Arthistory21, if I'm not mistaken. His/her version was deleted by User:Seraphimblade as blatantly promotional, which it was. The draft was eventually deleted as abandoned in 2017. The version created by User:HRShami in 2022 was far from being his/her first article, and was substantially different from the previous version but still read as promotional, so I declined the speedy request and moved it to draft to offer them a chance to improve it. This draft was deleted by User:Liz in 2023 as abandoned. Despite the draft not having been reviewed, it was recreated with very little change to the promotional wording. I haven't had time to look through every version in detail, so I may have missed something. Let me know if you still disagree. Deb (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just talking about the 2022 version(s) created by HRShami. I suppose the root of the issue is the same as what SmokeyJoe was getting at above. It's fair enough to move something to draft because you think it's promotional, but what is the grounds for using your tools to keep it there over another editor's objections? Why did they have to use AfC? – Joe (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The answer to that is that I advised them that the article was too promotional to remain in article space, but that they were welcome to work on it in draft. Instead, they chose to recreate the article, with very little improvement, in article space. That strongly suggested that they were unable or unwilling either to take advice or to recognise the flaws in the content. Perhaps they had forgotten what came before, or perhaps it was an attempt to avoid having to go through a review, I don't know. (If you believe that the slightly revised article was of an acceptable standard, then of course that's quite a different argument.) Different editors have different views on how such a situation should be handled, and another administrator might not have given them the second chance that I had tried to offer them; then you wouldn't be coming here to berate me for an implied misuse of admin tools. But I'm used to this kind of criticism, so you'll forgive me if I don't continue this discussion any further at this time. Deb (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you consider this berating, Deb. I've tried to approach this tactfully and with as open a mind as possible, but it really sounds like the answer to my last question boils down to "because I said so"? I don't think that attitude is within the acceptable range of discretion when using the admin tools and I'll have to think about what to do next, if you're not willing to change course on this. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You must do what you think is right. I believe I've given you a perfectly reasonable explanation. Deb (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission of a deleted page

Hi,

You recently deleted a page, Drafts:Swa Diamonds, marking it as advertising or promotion. I understand and accept the remark. I personally know the owners. The son of the owner, Jameel, who is a friend of mine asked me to create a page for them, as a favour. I will recreate the page, without any additional promotional materials. Hope it isn't an issue.

They won a Guinness record for incorporating most number of diamonds in a sing ring in 2022, and got a lot of international media attention including CNN and Fox News- I feel it is a big deal for a start-up company founded in a small state in India. And they won awards like the Swadesh National Award from a prestigious media firm in India which was awarded by central ministers at a national conclave held as part of India's 75th anniversary of Independence celebration. I feel they are worthy of a Wikipedia page in their name.

Libinthathappilly (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive Content Removal at Portal:Current Events

Hi Deb,

I wanted to seek your assistance on an editor's actions in relation to Portal:Current Events. As established in this discussion which you helped coordinate, consensus affirmed that names of countries should be added (and presumably linked) when locations are mentioned on the portal. This has been standard practice at the portal up until now, both prior to and subsequent to the discussion.

Recently, the editor has been enforcing the removal of countries (or sometimes cities) through deletion of the content [5], [6], contrary to standard practice and consensus. I note that for some removals, WP:OVERLINK is cited, but not actually relevant, given that adding the country and linking the article are separate actions [7]. In this entry, the same content is reverted three times [8], [9], [10].

Personal attacks have also been made on other editor's for adding and/or linking countries in the portal [11], with the user having a history of making personal attacks through his edit summaries at the portal, over a long period of time [12], [13], [14].

As you helped coordinate the previous discussion, I wanted to see if you could help resolve this issue. I have tried to address the civility issues with the user directly on his talk page, but was met with hostility [15] and refusal to engage in constructive discussion. The user also cited WP:CIR & WP:DTTR which I felt was unwarranted and potentially a personal attack.

I recently had a content dispute with this editor (as mentioned in his revert), where my conduct was admittedly not ideal, which may be the source of the hostility. However, the content dispute was resolved and this is an entirely different matter.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for your help. Carter00000 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For once I'd agree with you. It's not appropriate to remove geographical context, though I daresay User:IJBall (of whom I have no personal experience) would argue that he's just trying to keep it short for the purposes of the portal. In my experience, a few editors are obsessed with the idea of "overlinking" and make a habit of removing links wherever possible, and this particular user is no worse than others in this respect. I take your point about the personalized edit summaries, but I think you would need more egregious evidence of disruptive editing in order to get anywhere at ANI. Deb (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Deb, see my revert to your revert – many, many editors are needlessly violating WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOPIPE at Portal current events lately. Somebody needs to put a stop to that. Also, countries do not need to be included for major international cities (e.g. London), or when the context of the Current event entry makes the country's location obvious. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Countries may not always need to be included but adequate context must be included; it's basic. Someone needs to put a stop to the assumption that everyone knows where places are, just because they are in the US or UK. Someone also needs to put a stop to the obsessive habit of unnecessarily removing links. Deb (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK is a guideline, and there is good reason for its existence. If you link to a "city" or "city, state" article, everyone is two-clicks away from getting to the country article, if they want or need to find it. There is no excuse for linking [[city]] and [[state]] and [[country]] – it is completely unnecessary to do that – linking [[city]] or [[city, state]] (one link, not [[city]], [[state]]) is perfectly adequate for everyone involved. Excessive linking also looks unprofessional and amateurish.

And, FTR, I do agree with "adequate context must be included", but many times at Current events, that is handled in the (linked) topic headers, so the country does not need to be included again in the summary. And certainly, not linked.

Finally, again – it is absolutely not necessary to include the country (or state/province) with major international cities like Tokyo, Moscow or New York City. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, it is absolutely necessary to include context and not to assume that people who access Wikipedia already know everything you do. The "Over" section of the word "overlink" testifies that this is often a subjective judgment, as is yours in this case. Deb (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Deb,

Thank you very much for your assistance and very prompt response to this issue.

As the editor reverted your previous revert on the 3 July page (going over 3RR) and made reverts on the 4 July page, I reported him to the 3RR noticeboard [16]. The editor was subsequently blocked for a period of 31 Hours for edit warring and incivility [17]. Upon the editors request, the block was extended to indefinite [18].

Carter00000 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Albert Evans-Jones

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Albert Evans-Jones, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Albert Evans-Jones

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Albert Evans-Jones, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Just delete everything that you don't like.

Sjw idiot is censoring stuff left right and centre. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about, sorry. Deb (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Become a vandal today

It's time to stop licking Jimbo's Boots and become a vandal. Vandals don't have to follow the rules and can create as many sockpuppets as they want while admins are restricted to being goody two shoes. 86.8.115.13 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

How amusing you are... Deb (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

	Women in Red 8th Anniversary
	In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

PureLocal - Australia's Business Directory

Hello,

There are other Australian business directories who have added their page to Wikipedia with a description and link. We did this earlier today and it was declined nearly immediately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PureLocal_Business_Directory

If we remove the link from the draft then will it be accepted? It says that we are self promoting so I'm guessing that the included link to the homepage was the issue ?

We tried Wikipedia 2 years ago and had the exact same result , we simply do not know what to do.

Thank You,

Katie Manning 2407:7000:8C3D:8D63:F158:1311:1777:E210 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

If Wikipedia have declined to the entry for [https://www.purelocal.com.au www.purelocal.com.au] can they please remove all information contained about this from this page. We have been a prominent business directory since 2014 and do not understand why Wikipedia are publicly displaying that we've been deleted. 2407:7000:8C3D:8D63:F158:1311:1777:E210 (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Because that's what we do when people don't follow the guidelines. And since you admit it's not the first time you've done it, why did you try again, especially without bothering to read the guidelines? Deb (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me, it means a lot to me

Hi Deb,

Thank you for sending me the message that you did. I'd like to rewrite my page and then send it to you in advance to make sure I'm not violating anything. Are you OK with that? Also, my user name is danjab. How would I retitle the page so that it's actually my name?

Best, Dan Jablons (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Agnes Clifford Smith

Hi, you declined a CSD on this draft just now because you didn't see any evidence of copyvio - but I've already removed the copyvio from the article. Since there's effectively nothing left other than direct quotes, I went for a full CSD rather than a revdel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I declined the submission as non-notable. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dusti she's probably notable, but most of the refs are gone since I had to remove the copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2023

Women in Red August 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280 Online events: New: Alphabet run C & D | Indigenous women | Film and stage | Geofocus: Arab League Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimania 2023 will be held in Singapore, 16–19 August, and will be facilitated by the affiliates in the ESEAP (East/South East/Asia/Pacific) region. Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

1991

About your edit on 25 July 2023 on the 1991 article. I wasn't saying that over 100,000 people died in that village alone, I was talking about Bangladesh as a whole. Just to clarify. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I know what you were trying to say, but you introduced a lack of clarity into the entry. Deb (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Creating a new page for Together Price

Hi Deb! I hope you are doing well today. This is regarding the previously deleted page, Together Price. I want to create a new page about Together Price using different content. Since you deleted the previous one last July 12, I needed to inform you about my plan to make it, hoping the upcoming page won't get tagged for speedy deletion. Please advise. Thank you.Ladybug2023 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection as long as the new one is different from the old one and you don't have a conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Mary Forbes, Countess of Granard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Forbes, Countess of Granard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Forbes, Countess of Granard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

JMWt (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Alan Llwyd

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alan Llwyd, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 in Wales

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 in Wales, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Zeus sports

Dear Deb,

I was wondering why the Zeus sports page was so quickly deleted, marking it is as advertising. That is crazy. It was just a page about a well known kit supplier company who provide kits to well known football teams in and outside of Italy. The article was also not finished yet.  Brooklynlegv (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Scottish Castles Restoration Projects - ongoing

Dear Deb

Sorry to bother you again, but I’m still trying to deal with the Castles Restoration draft.

I’ve been trying to get in touch with Richard Nevell for several days now, but despite a few messages to him, he hasn't replied. He might be on holiday or something or just too busy. I’ve been asking him if he wanted to do any more edits to the Draft before I contacted you, but perhaps we can assume that he is now quite happy with the edits he made?

Now, I’m wondering if you have had a chance for a further look at the Draft and wanted to do any more edits? I noted that you had done quite a few already, thank you, all of which I agree improved the clarity of the Draft. If you are quite happy with things as they now stand, do you think you could now approve the Draft for promotion to an Article? Of course, if you want to have another look and possibly do some other edits that would be absolutely fine. Many thanks for your help. ArchaicW (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I admit I'd forgotten about it. I will have a look. Deb (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I can see you have done quite a few more edits to the text, which I hope has moved things on. Should I perhaps now put it up for Review again? Regards ArchaicW (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, why not? Deb (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do so now ArchaicW (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Deb

Thanks for your last message and for carrying out those further edits. This is getting slightly embarrassing, but I wonder if you now feel that the Draft could be accepted and moved to Article space?

'Asilvering' thought that the topic was notable, then asked Richard Nevell to help with this article. This Richard did, saying he thought the topic was notable and he seemed to me generally supportive with his comments and a number of edits. Then you very kindly also had a look at it and did several more edits in two occasions.

I suppose we could wait for another reviewer to come along, but I can’t honestly see that there is much further room for improvement to the Draft as it now stands? Is it possible you could accept it now? Many thanks. ArchaicW (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Deb Just to let you know that I've put the draft article back up for Review. Thanks ArchaicW (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd rather not review it myself as I wrote a lot of it. What I most hope, though, is that you can see why I think that my version is an improvement and that you understand why others labelled it an "essay". If not, you'll end up with further disappointments. Deb (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Deb

Can I try and persuade you to change your mind?

Not in my interests, not in your interests, but because it seems to me we’re now just denying anyone with an interest in Scottish castles the opportunity to learn about a notable aspect of the subject of which many would be largely unaware?

One way or another, everybody involved seems to accept that the topic is ‘notable’! Following Theroadislong and Asilvering’s comments, I did quite a lot of edits, then at Asilvering’s request so did Richard Nevell. I assume you think it's notable as well, or you wouldn't have spent a lot of time on your edits?

The other reason I think you would consider that the draft is now acceptable is because I suspect you are in ‘the trade’ – either an architectural historian or an archaeologist or at a stretch a historian. Can't imagine anyone else would have come up with an obscure reference to Miles Glendinning’s book on the history of conservation, especially not an even more obscure reference to the costs of Fawside!

Waiting for yet another reviewer is just going to lead to more edits which I can’t see are now needed. Many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

For a start, I'm not 'in the trade' although I know a lot about history. I use Google Books a lot to find references. I don't see that there will be any difficulty in getting the draft past review now, without any further edits. Notability was never the main problem. User:Asilvering might well consider re-reviewing it. However, it's best to be patient; sometimes we all have to. Why not work on something else in the interim? Deb (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't like to re-review anything I've previously declined unless it's a real obvious case (eg, I say "if you can find two substantial reviews for each of these books, they're notable" and someone adds that immediately) or I've made an obvious mistake. Especially in a case like this where it's a particularly subjective criterion. Better to have more eyes on it than to end up with a single reviewer functioning as a gatekeeper. I'll flag it to the AfC talk page, though. This draft has already spent so much time in limbo, I'd rather it didn't sit through the full four-month queue. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

About Bartınspor page

Why did you delete the Bartınspor page? I also gave you the official source of the Turkish Football Federation. Bartınspor is an existing club and its page should be on Wikipedia. BARTINLI (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Existing does not qualify any organisation for a Wikipedia page. Please read the guidelines and familiarise yourself with the correct way to create an article. Deb (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 at Women In Red

Women in Red September 2023, Vol 9, Iss 9, Nos 251, 252, 281, 282, 283 Online events: New: Alphabet run E & F | Women writers & their works | Geofocus: Celtic nations Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: The books she wrote might be notable, too; learn 5 quick tips about about book articles. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Article

Hi Deb, I was wondering why my article was nominated for a speedy deletion by you. I read the reason you put for nominating it and to say that she is not important is questionable. Numerous articles have been written about her, from independent sources. Sources like the New York Times, CNN, and even nonprofit organizations like Gold House. This is just to name a few. I also saw the other reason for the article being deleted.  Someone else writing an article about her two years ago and still being labelled as "lacking in depth significance" raised some questions for me. A reason they provided to support the deletion of an old article was that the writer used unreliable sources. I am not sure whether their sources were reliable, but I do know that mine are. Like I said before, mine come from articles written by websites and companies that are in no way connected to her and are as strong as any other source can be. Therefore, to tie my article to this old one and say that mine should be deleted because the old one was deleted raises concerns. Especially if the reason for connecting them was from using poor sources and because of her lack of importance. I would also like to mention that this is all written in an unbiased way. Everything written in my article can be traced back to the sources provided. Meaning no opinions have been mentioned and everything written is backed up. I would love to hear from you about this, just so we can come to an understanding. Thank you Aescamilla45 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't nominate it; someone else nominated and I deleted it. However, I can see a case for re-drafting it. What's your personal connection with the company and why didn't you create the article in draft space and submit for review as new editors are advised to do? Deb (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No connection to anyone, I just saw the page for the store as an easy way to get into editing pages. So, for my next step in creating a page I just figured I could make a page for the owner since there was so much online about her. It would be easy with all the information, and it was. I also did read that I could submit the article for review, but I was under the impression that it was not mandatory. I read the guidelines and knew I followed them correctly. Therefore, I figured there was no need to. I'd really appreciate it if this could be fixed. Thanks! Aescamilla45 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello I am following up since I haven't heard from you in almost a month. Again, I am still very interested in fixing this issue. So please let me know if there is anything I can do, thank you Aescamilla45 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm really surprised to see that you haven't made any contributions since you last contacted me - practice is the best way to overcome any issues you're having in following the guidelines. I suggest you re-draft the article, and if you have any questions, use the Wikipedia:Teahouse facility. Deb (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, I am eager to start on other articles. Its just I prefer to fix any unsolved issues with anything I have contributed so far. I would imagine someone with as much experience as yourself can understand where I am coming from. By solving this obstacle I think I can learn what not to do for future articles. But honestly, I still haven't seen any issue I caused with my article. Only suspicions, and that alone shouldn't be reason to delete it, let alone receiving a response like the one I just did. I was hoping for a more professional response, especially from someone that is adamant on following Wikipedia guidelines.

But thank you for the suggestion, I will be sure to re-draft it. Aescamilla45 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't expect a "professional" response from volunteers - which is what all our contributors are. All you can ask is that we get back to you when we are not too busy with our own work. In the meantime, we expect newcomers to continue to make small amendments to existing articles in order to hone their skills. Deb (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

speedy delete

{{subst:Deprod draft}} Hi Deb, please consider reading my article that was deleted immediately it was from a NPOV and it was not an advertisement. Psychology informant (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was a poorly sourced draft that read like a CV, and I think I'm justified in believing that you have a personal connection to the subject. Deb (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Deleted Draft "11 Days For Earth's Healing"

Dear Deb,

I have been building the draft after article on the above subject and since I am no pro at it, the process took time of more than a year or so. But in between suddenly this draft was deleted and after multiple request of restoring the draft I was directed to you to make further request by the contributor who deleted the draft.

Below is the link of past conversation between me and him. Please go through and read about the subject I am writing about and see how important the subject is and you all should help me make this article a worth and informative article for all the readers. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Draft%3A11+Days+For+Earth%27s+Healing

Looking forward for a positive response on this. Thanks. Incredibleteem (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at the deleted content and I can see nothing to justify undeleting it. Even if it weren't a copyright violation, it's not written from a neutral point of view and therefore is in breach of one of Wikipedia's most important policies. Deb (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes

• Pppery
• Theleekycauldron

• Dwheeler
• G.A.S
• Royalbroil
• Ssd

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Together Price, again

Hi Deb, some weeks ago you deleted Together Price. A now-blocked sock Ladybug2023 then asked you about it here on your talk page; I don't know if they were the creator? Now a new user Sydneycindy has submitted Draft:Together Price. I wonder if you might take a look at the deleted version and see how similar it is to this? I'm happy to open an SPI case, but just wanted to check that I'm not barking up a wrong tree. TIA, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if they are connected. The new draft is certainly a lot better than the old one, but I've just reviewed it and turned it down because it still sounds somewhat promotional. I will be surprised if there isn't an undeclared COI. Deb (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Jeffrey M. Feingold

Hey there! You replaced Red-tailed hawk's copyvio speedy tag on this article with a draft tag after moving the article back to draftspace – the speedy tag has been restored by Sennecaster, and looks to me to be valid. Any objection to me deleting it? Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I just suspect that the person who created the article could be the owner of the copyright. Deb (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks :) I'm gonna take it as G11 and G12, it seems to fit under both. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

R3 deletion

Hi, I'm not sure about what the error on 2023 Asian Athletics Championships – Men's polo vault is? I presume it's a misspelling, but I've scoured that long title a few times and as I don't see anything wrong I want to know your reasoning for deleting it as a misnomer. J947 † ^edits 08:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think they meant "pole vault". Deb (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Haha thanks – glazed over that one. J947 † ^edits 08:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing query

On 1 February 2003 you added the words "Its fortifications were subsequently restored" to Byblos. Please give your source. 2A00:23D0:C32:2601:998F:A7BF:6379:214 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Did I? That was twenty years ago, when sources weren't required. Deb (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The International Quiet Ocean Experiment (IQOE)

Hi, the draft article I submitted for review yesterday was marked as copyright material and flagged saying I am connected to the organization. (I'm just a high school student, I know of IQOEs work, but have never worked with them), The draft was also deleted a few hours ago.

Everything written was written in my own words. The listed working groups were indeed the same ones listed on the website but all the descriptions were re-written (and references to the original sources on the IQOE site).

I would appreciate it if you could let me know what steps I should take to edit the article before submitting it once again! I can also rewrite or reorganize things and get IQOE to send proof the logo has an open license. Thank you.

MonitorMyOcean (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Old IP indef

Hi, Deb. I've been looking through old IP indefs and came upon Special:Contributions/71.255.126.146. If I'm correctly reading the WHOIS information, it probably is still allocated to a school (address matches Salem High School (New Hampshire), ISP name appears to just be the name of their sysadmin), but after 13 years, it's hard to say whether there'd be vandalism if we unblocked. Would you object to my unblocking? I'll keep an eye on the IP, and if vandalism recurs I'll reblock for, say, 5 years. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine. Deb (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Tanush Reddy

As a recently active admin, would you be willing to take a look at this? I don't know if U5 is suitable. Thanks. NotAGenious (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's blatant self-promotion. Deb (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, have a nice day. NotAGenious (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User talk:PeggyIdog00d

Please ignore the post to which I pinged you. I had earlier responded to a request to delete the user talk page, and I assumed you were also responding to that, but I then realised that you were responding to a more general request to delete an account. JBW (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Deb (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ghaznavid campaigns in India

Hello, you tagged Draft:Ghaznavid_campaigns_in_India#Under_Mahmud_of_Ghazni as unreferenced. This was the introductory or brief explanation of the same topics covered in the later sections. Now, I have also provided a reference for it. If there are any other issues within the article, please bring them to my attention. Thank you! Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyright appears to be a potential issue with most of your contributions. It is clear that you are copying verbatim from some of your sources - please be careful about that. Deb (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No sir/mam. I have cleared the issue now. I never copied verbatim from any of the sources. You can check that. Please don't make false allegations without checking. Thank you. Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You can use Earwigs tool to comfirm that. Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Earwig's tool doesn't access every possible source, but this is an issue that has recurred over and over, most recently a day ago when User:Diannaa was obliged to change the visibility of some of your edits to the article for that very reason. Deb (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there was some similarity between this article and a source, but I had already addressed that before submission. You can see this by checking the article's revision history. However, you didn't even check the articles and sources; instead, you made a statement, "It is clear that you are copying verbatim from some of your sources." Please check the sources, and if any similarity remains, and you still believe I copied verbatim, please reply again. I can provide a snippet view of the sources with page numbers if you wish. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That would be an enormous task. Deb (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What else can we do? I've invested a significant amount of time editing this article. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that, if any further copyright problems occur in the future, you can expect action to be taken. Deb (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Chuck Tollefson

It appears you just deleted an article per WP:A7 on a three-year NFL player and league champion - that is in no way a case of A7 - may I request you undelete the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Articles must explain what makes the person notable and this one didn't - no mention of championships or anything else. I've put it in draft for you to work on. Deb (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

And I moved it back to article space. "Not ready for article space - no refs, no claim of notability" is objectively an inaccurate deletion rationale. The article stated He played his entire career with the Green Bay Packers, winning one World Championship when you deleted/draftified it. And "no refs" is not a valid speedy deletion rationale in any way, shape or form. The article also is 15 years old, another reason to maybe hit pause on outright deleting it without tagging or notification. I provided a source and tagged it as a sole source article. I also added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers/substubs, an active stub clean-up activity part of the larger Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Football biography cleanup. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly Deb, I have to agree with BeanieFan11, this was a bad deletion under A7. Two clear claims of notability: playing 3 years in the NFL and winning an NFL Championship. This was a PROD or AFD candidate, but no way speedy deletion candidate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, articles of this age should not be draftified which is for recently created articles. I was coming here to mention that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I put it into draft so that someone could fix the problems, as was clear from my conversation with User:BeanieFan11. "No refs" was not the speedy deletion criterion, which was A7 - requiring a credible claim of importance. Without refs, it's not credible, and I've spent a long time looking for the notability criteria for American footballers - if you know of any, please let me know where they are. Deb (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please now go back and fix the referencing problem and add some detail to the article. Deb (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:A7: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Your comment Without refs, it's not credible is a blatant misrepresentation of A7 and you are also blatantly misrepresenting what happened. You outright deleted the article and only brought it back to draft space because you challenged on the bad deletion. Liz, as another admin, thoughts on this? Also, with respect, please don't tell me or other editors what to edit (Please now go back and fix the referencing problem and add some detail to the article). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I do somewhat understand Deb's concerns - the article is in really poor shape - so when Newspapers.com is back up again I'll make sure to expand Tollefson's article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Deb's concerns are definitely valid! The article needs to be improved, as do literally thousands just like it. But needing improvement isn't a valid speedy deletion criteria, and it is important to make that clear. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's as vital to argue about criteria as it is to maintain the standard of articles in mainspace. Nor do I think it's wrong to ask people nicely to do the necessary work. But that's just my opinion. Your statement that I "only brought it back to draft space because you [sic] challenged on the bad deletion" is certainly a misrepresentation of what happened. Deb (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Your answer is evasive and avoiding the point. Please provide a response to the A7 criteria. You deleted an article based on A7 and are wrong regarding the WP policy. You've been an admin for longer than most. If you still believe that this version of the article that you deleted was eligible for A7 then there is likely a systemic issue with your understanding of policy that needs to be addressed at a larger forum. « Gonzo fan2007

(talk) @ 17:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Deb, would you please reply here whether you understand how to apply A7 in the future, noting that this deletion was against that stated policy? If so, I'm happy to move on. If not, then I think for the sake of future A7 deletions this discussion will need to go to move to a larger audience. Regardless of your belief on the quality of an article, as an admin you are expected to administration the stated policies on Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do whatever you think is appropriate. Deb (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Deb, I have opened a discussion at WP:AN/I on this topic here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Women in STEM | Geofocus: Sub-Saharan Africa Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" Good Article editathon Tip of the month: When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

• Alex Bakharev
• CorbieVreccan
• Cyphoidbomb
• Davodd
• Hog Farm
• JamesR
• KnightLago
• Mark Ironie
• Nosebagbear (deceased)
• Rschen7754
• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

• Ferret
• RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Draftification of Battle of Palkhed / Treaty of Mungi-Shevgaon

Good afternoon! I wanted to ask you about a recent draftification that you made. A couple of days ago, you moved Battle of Palkhed into draftspace (located at Draft:Treaty of Mungi-Shevgaon), after a request for this move was made on the talk page. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, articles older than 90 days should not be draftified; yet, this particular article existed at its current title since 2005. While there may have been inaccuracies in the content that were pointed out, I don't think draftification was the correct venue for this. If the title needed to be changed, WP:RM seems to be the way to deal with it. If time was required to work on improvements, the editor who wanted the change could have easily used a sandbox in the meantime. If the article cannot exist in its current state at ALL, WP:AfD would be preferrable, else we end up on the off-chance where the draft gets lost and never returned to mainspace, which would would be as if it got deleted while avoiding AfD entirely. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(I've also gone ahead and moved it back to article space, using the new title for now, where it can be addressed further as needed). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I renamed it by moving it to draft under a different title. There's no need for RM unless it's controversial, but you may have a point there. However, in moving it to mainspace, you moved an article that was known to be inaccurate into mainspace without fixing it, and you ignored the fact that the revised draft had already been turned down at review and a second review hadn't yet taken place. Without checking, you could have moved a copyvio into mainspace. It's possible the article should really have been deleted, but without any in-depth knowledge I hesitate to do that. After six months in draft without improvement, it definitely would have been deleted, as it should have been if it was incorrect/unverifiable. Deb (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Deb, Could you please review the article on the "Battle of Kandarpi Ghat" to determine if it is prepared for inclusion in the article space? In my opinion, the article requires a copyedit and should only be submitted for review after confirming the existence of such an event. It's important to note that numerous Wikipedia articles have previously provided misleading information to readers. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

To conclude the timeline, it seems that User:Thewikiuser1999 moved the redirect I left from draftspace, to Battle of Palkhed, which was formerly a red link. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Utopes However, a significant issue arose. Despite the article's existence since 2005, it contained highly misleading information. What's most astonishing is that this misinformation went unnoticed, with no proper source verification. The title "Battle of Palkhed" was, in itself, irrelevant, as there was no actual battle at Palkhed in 1728 between the Nizam and Baji Rao; it was, in fact, a treaty. Furthermore, Baji Rao did not defeat the Nizam. Additionally, much of the context was either missing or included false information without proper citations. How did a peace treaty become mislabeled as a battle? What's even more intriguing is that many authors relied on Wikipedia as a source for their books without fact-checking the article. Numerous videos were uploaded, and this misinformation even found its way into school textbooks. This inaccurate information has misguided countless individuals. Editors are citing sources that themselves relied on Wikipedia in the first place. I am concerned that there may be more articles like this one. Articles of this nature continue to mislead people as long as they remain in the mainspace without proper intervention. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I prefer to not use 'Battle of Palkhed' since there was no battle. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield

Dear Deb, administrator, eminent Wikipedian, I was looking at the article Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield and in particular the very last paragraph about Elizabeth's portrait that you seem to have added on 17 August 2018. Perhaps you do still remember something about it. It starts with "Elisabeth's portrait was painted ..." First of all it is not clear which Elizabeth is meant, the mother, subject of the article, or her daughter, last mentioned above? I also have a problem with the citation. It points to Walpole's Complete Works in the 2015 Delphi edition from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=86GwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT788, but there is no mention of Elizabeth on this page. I found that "The Works of Horatio Walpole" 1798, Volume II, p. 420 (https://archive.org/details/worksofhoratiowa02walp/page/420/), in "Description of Strawbury Hill", mentions a portrait of Elizabeth (subject of the article), a copy of her head after Lely, that was owned by Walpole. Is that what you were referring to? With many thanks, respectfully yours, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I can't remember how I came up with that citation, which is obviously wrong. There is a reference to a Lely painting of the countess in Perry, Lara. History's beauties : women in the National Portrait Gallery, 1856-1900. United Kingdom: Ashgate, 2006. It says that one of her descendants acquired it from Strawberry Hill but doesn't specifically mention Walpole. The existing prints of the portrait (several at the NPG) just say "after Lely", which means he did paint her, but I can't find a record of what happened to the original after the 19th century. Deb (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Jijo Antony

Hello, If I am not mistaken, you draftified the page because of a COI/blocked user concern. Would you mind undoing this draftification, please? An Afd was taking place and whoever created the page, its subject fairly meets the guideline. If you prefer, although that draft is tagged for speedy deletion (but if rules are respected it should be denied as the page was created before ban) I can recreate the page in the main directly. Thank you, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC) (Update, the Csd was obviosuly declined. Let me know if you prefer: moving the page back to the Main yourself, or rather have me doing it).

Why would you do this, when there is already Draft:Jijo Antony, which was actually the reason for the G6 deletion? Deb (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my wording was awkward. I meant re-"move the page to main" (had it been you, you would have technically recreated it directly, I suppose). I assume this means you're not keen on undoing your draftification? I find it a bit too bad that the improved version was lost in the process and that I will have to spend time on rebuilding the page, that's all. I also find that doing this in the middle of an Afd was not the best solution. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the draftification was anything to do with me; as far as I can see, that was done by User:Eagleash. I am finding it hard to understand the article history as it is but you would have been better off leaving it in draft because the better version from 6 October is still in the history whilst the AfD is now based on the less good version that you moved from draft. Deb (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. The log identified you as the admin who did the deletion and I assumed you also had moved it. I hadn't seen this message. Will check the October 6 version. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask what version precisely you think is better? I see longer versions from October 7 (GMT) (with non-neutral analysis of his style, unsourced mentions of his family, which I removed). As for the draftification by Eagleash, it was in May. If I can reconstruct the history of the page correctly, you did speedy delete it yesterday leaving only the old draft behind (hence my message yesterday). Is that correct? Maybe if you don't mind, let's pursue this exchange on the Afd TP. Or ping me if you wish me to know your reply. Thank you. Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I speedy deleted it because there was already a version in draft that had been rejected and that you had just left there when you created a new one in mainspace. The older versions are not visible to you because they have been deleted. That's why moving the draft into mainspace wasn't the right thing to do. Deb (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Eugene Krabs

Hi, Deb. It seems that a user known as Anti-draftifier vandalized this page while I was sleeping. It is one of my previous username—my original one—and I was wondering if you could undo the deletion and restore the version prior to that user's edits. It was a redirect to my username now; otherwise, my signature on other talk pages from when I had this username appears broken as a red link. Thanks in advance. Amaury • 17:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorted, I think. Deb (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Holy Ten page

Hi Deb, I have encountered a problem regarding a page called Holy Ten. A user that joined Wikipedia on the 10th of October 2023 called User:Pocket Noodle tagged the page for speed deletion. Thereafter User:Liz just came and moved the page to drafts without any form of discussion at speed deletion page. I just slept while editing because I’m in +02:00 GMT timezone and woke up in this mess. Thanks, I hope you can help me Mindthem (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you asking me to do? Deb (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If they is nothing you can help me with. It’s okay. Have a good day by the way. Mindthem (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

Yes, I tagged it for speedy deletion as "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

I stand by that.

Liz chose to "incubate" it.

So? Pocket Noodle (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Mohan S. Gundeti

Having seen Mohan S. Gundeti, I don't believe it was a good G11 candidate and would prefer that you undeleted it and started an AfD if you believe it should be deleted. Fram (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel that Mohan S. Gundeti was clearly promotional and that there is almost certainly an undisclosed COI. If you disagree, feel free to reinstate as I don't have time at the moment. Deb (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not being an admin nor the article creator, I'm unable to reinstate this. Fram (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mohan S. Gundeti

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mohan S. Gundeti. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fram (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

BFI

Hi in this diff you converted a BFI url Special:Diff/849153795/926586575 - nice! I was wondering if you had knowledge of a map that informs the old ID 27594 is the new ID 150019875 .. or did you simply look it up manually? -- GreenC 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I don't really remember this at all, but I'm sure I must just have looked it up. Deb (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Owen issue..

Greetings and Felicitations.

The topic of Sassoon and Owen - it does seem a tad sensitive, no clue as to why.

You added the word, TESTIMONY - to this little section of the SS article. Apologies if it was another editor - the word is a little loaded and does not help achieve the goal of NPOV IMHO.

It makes the very small section - sound highly defensive - this article is part of the WP LGBTQ 'initiatives' - Sassoon was homosexual and this is not in question.

I am aware of the major edits to this part of this article in the past - I did remove the academic 'analysis' trying to support a likely physical relationship between SS and WO. I did read the letters between the two men.

As it now reads - it is fairly NPOV and tones down the prior 'defensive' stance introduced by the word 'testimonial' - the citation was to Sassoon anyhow - not sure if that would have been NPOV because he was seriously struggling with his sexual identity at this point.

I'm not sure it is really an earth shattering matter - I made this totally NPOV - the letters between the two men are a fact - and someone with an agenda can always weave a story.

I certainly have no agenda and embrace NPOV and try not to SYNTH.

I also also removed the highly detailed academic 'Catholicism' analysis - well intentioned but inappropriate for an encyclopedic tone - IMHO.

Kind Regards - BeingObjective (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sassoon was bisexual. Even including Owen in a section about his sexuality is implying that he and Owen had an affair. However, it's very clear from Sassoon's own writing that, although he knew that Owen worshipped him and probably had romantic feelings towards him, his feelings for Owen were not reciprocal. Otherwise he surely would have made an effort to contact him at the end of the war - but he had already moved on and was busy making friends with T. E. Lawrence and Thomas Hardy. Owen was one of many close friends. Yes, Sassoon did help to introduce Owen into gay circles in London and elsewhere, but it doesn't follow that they had a sexual relationship as your wording, and that of earlier contributors, suggested. The popular idea that they had some kind of torrid "affair" is complete myth, not supported by anything either of them actually wrote. If it's the word "testimony" that's a problem, I thought that was reasonable in view of the context in which it's written, but "statement" would do equally well. Deb (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your position - it is not really NPOV and my only intention was to remove the edits made in June 2023. I do not think you are in disagreement with those deletions. I have no particular issues with anything you state - we likely have read all of the same materials and perhaps leaving it language neutral solves the issue - you originally stated your changes were improving language - the use of SS as a NPOV commentator on his own sexual behavior from the HM - at that point in his life is - not NPOV. Cheers and thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

SS's comments on his own actions are the nearest we can get to the truth. No one else was there. Deb (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Tricky and very circular - - I am fairly sure Sassoon was not neutral as to his own conflicted feelings at this period of his life - it really is a very small detail and the current language states what you want - it is just less 'defending WO honour' - this is how it reads if left - I would strongly prefer it be left as is - it is pretty NPOV as is now. I did remove a lot of the 'offending' language - so I would hope you see we actually HOLD THE SAME OPINIONS? BeingObjective (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with that. However, SS was writing to someone who was fully aware of his sexuality and had been a major influence on it and him. There would be no reason for him to dissemble. Deb (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings 'Deb' - sorry to belabor the point - you did note all of the material I deleted - thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and thank you. Deb (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Life

Just seeing this. Hope things are or soon will be OK. Stay safe Star Mississippi 14:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Good memories of a long life can outweigh grief, and the worst is over. Deb (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad you have good memories to comfort you in this time. Hope grief is as gentle as possible. Star Mississippi 14:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289 Online events: New: Alphabet run I & J | Geofocus: Indian subcontinent | Women in Politics Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Tip of the month: When translating articles from another language Wikipedia, don't forget to include attribution in your first edit summary. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Deb:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Francisdsilva

Beg to differ It's webhosty and a tad promotional. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it merits speedy deletion. If it's a misguided attempt to promote the user, it's not likely to be a very successful one. Deb (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Bessie Bamber

I was just about to start editing that page, starting with this source - https://www.thegreatcat.org/the-cat-in-art-and-photos-2/cats-in-art-20th-century/bessie-bamber-1870-unknown-british/. Probably not much to add, but at least a couple of dates and an attempt at demonstrating notability. Can you reinstate it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC) PS: Another source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Deb (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-approval of Wirepas article

Hello Deb, I'm sorry to bother you but I have a question concerning your non-approval of the Wirepas Connectivity Suite article. You write that it reads more like an advertisement. Is there any specific part of the text that does so? I have made a few small edits, removing parts that I guess could be viewed as more advertorial. I have also added a citation from the largest daily newspaper in Finland. I've read all the links about notability etc. and am having a bit of trouble understanding why, in case my new edits are not approved, this is not notable or neutral enough. If you would have the time to give me some advice that would be really appreciated. Thanks! Ruisleipa (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is that you have included only complimentary content about this product. For example, "The power-domain positioning offered by Wirepas Mesh provides a good trade-off between implementation costs and positioning accuracy for low-power systems" is an entirely subjective statement. The person who wrote the document you have cited was funded by Wirepas and worked for them, so is hardly impartial - this is therefore not a reliable source in this context. You've focused in on one product, when the author actually says that it's the power-domain positioning that represents a good trade-off, not specifically Wirepas. And that's just one example. Deb (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

HI, thank you for taking the time to reply. I'll adjust the text. Ruisleipa (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

About Priyanka Chahar Choudhary

Hey Deb, would you be willing to unsalt this title so Draft:Priyanka Chahar Choudhary can be accepted through AfC? The draft has references that appear to demonstrate notability, satisfying concerns raised in the AfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the unprotection, Deb! I also just discovered the redirect Priyanka Choudhary which will need to be retargeted to the newly created article, but is also fully protected. Would you be able to unprotect or edit it? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Page for Pakistan Humari Pehchaan removed

Hey deb, so my page was recently removed, it's about and NGO so I'm assuming it isn't neutral enough, however I did not have the knowledge that it had been moved out of my sandbox, because I recently made my account and was still learning on how to do that, how can I recover it back to my sandbox so that I may fix it? I do understand the reason and will gladly rectify it, but I spent quite some time on paraphrasing it and so hence it isn't copied anyone, so I would really appreciate if it could be reinstated and I could move it to my sandbox or just have the text so that I may convert it to a neutral and non-advertismental point of view. Thanks! Probably hamza (article Pakistan Humari Pehchaan - NGO) Probably hamza (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I don't recover promotional material, wherever it may be, because we simply don't allow it on Wikipedia. I would suggest you rewrite it from scratch. Also, please ensure that you declare any conflict of interest you may have, on your user page. Deb (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Princes in the Tower

Well done on your recent edit of the Princes in the Tower page.

I wonder if it would be possible to block user 93.36.218.51 and (likely sock puppet?) user 79.52.45.84 from making further changes to that page and other related pages which they have recently altered.

Since reading Langley's book the users seem to have gone on a (non-WP) mission to rewrite Wikipedia to conform with a Langley-ite view of history. Axad12 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll protect it from anons. Deb (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Good call, especially given that 93.36.218.51 is now starting to claim that the recent edit by you was censorship and POV. Axad12 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ødyzon page,

hello, I don't understand why you deleted Ødyzon's page. Kuru had put it back online a few days ago. I incorrectly added the sources and the artist's musical tracks, when I saw this message I then updated the article so that it was as you want, but it was already too late since you deleted it... 92.161.87.206 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can't demonstrate notability, the place for you to create an article like this is in draft space. Please read the guidelines before you attempt to recreate it. Deb (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I made this draft a few months ago now (more than 6 months), and the page was accepted about 1/2 weeks ago, then Kuru deleted it, and put it back online. I understand what I did wrong and what I forgot, so can you re-upload it so I can edit the article to fit the criteria and then let me know if it's Good 92.161.87.206 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted it on the condition sources are added and it remains in a non-spam state. I have not yet seen any solid, reliable sources and I had requested that you refrain from adding any further SEO blogs. As Deb notes, use the draft space for any further work. Read WP:COI as well. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia to be honest, so I just saw in the "talk" section that you sent a message. here are the reliable sources. Tell me if they are good:

https://flaunt.com/post/discovering-odyzon

https://www.attackmagazine.com/features/introducing/odyzon/

https://www.radioscreamitalia.it/2023/09/28/odyzon-prodigio-della-scena-musicale-francese-annuncia-la-collaborazione-con-malita-nel-nuovo-singolo-stay/ 92.161.87.206 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you the same person as User:Mgmtofm? Deb (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No why? 92.161.87.206 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That was the person who originally created the article which you claim to have created. Deb (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah.. but it’s not me, but I help to create the page 92.161.87.206 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s really impossible to re publish it with good sources etc..? How can I do?

Thank you. 92.161.87.206 (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Just stop now. It's obvious that you don't understand either the purpose of Wikipedia or how it works, and it seems like you have no intention of making the effort. On top of that, your English is not very good, and that's probably why you are not taking in any of the advice you've been given. Also, in your persona as Mgmtofm, you've admitted to a conflict of interest. So I would seriously suggest that you are not, at present, going to be able to contribute effectively to Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Maduabughichi1972/sandbox

Dear Deb, Hello, I think Maduabughichi1972 is not aim to clearly build an encyclopedia and after you deleted Draft:Philip Ikeazor. he was recreated this draft with same content +same ref, next time if he re-creating this draft again, so, I will do rejected it if possible. This aacount s only for promotion & advertising. I think they need to block.Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he's admitted to a COI but is still posting more or less the same content to promote his boss. If he does it again, he'll be blocked. Deb (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Deb, Well, Thank for replying. :)~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Women who died in 2023 | Honoured Women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Avoid copyright problems by rewriting in your own words. You can check any article or draft with Earwig's copyvio detector. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please help me

Dear Deb, Nice to meet you again, I see Draft:Spinach (software)'s topic's are notable, Should I accept this submission in this time or not?, please can you help me. Thnx :)~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 12:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Deb, Thank you for your commenting on here.Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification re: Deletion of “Political Repression in India”

Hello @Deb, I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could shed some more light as to why this draft was deleted under G11 — I tried to ensure NPOV through the inclusion of different points of view; were my efforts insufficient? I tried to model the article after Political repression in the Soviet Union…could you please share some advice for improvement or let me know if it shouldn’t be written at all? Thank you. $Clyde2_{3}^{9}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that the NPOV requirements were not met. If you are going to make a statement like "millions have suffered political repression", it's a highly subjective view and it's just not enough to cite a general source that doesn't actually say that at all. Deb (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I see, understood. When I rewrite the draft, would you be able to give it a look over before I submit it for creation? $Clyde2_{3}^{9}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. Deb (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello Deb, I'm reaching out regarding the restoration of the Al-Baas Al-Islami article on my user page. It was removed due to promotional concerns. While it may have carried a promotional tone, crafting a promotional article was not my intention. The situation arose because I initially created the content through a simple translation from Urdu, and during that period, my activity on English Wikipedia was limited. I wish to highlight my contributions, specifically shedding light on Al-Raid, a sister magazine of Al-Baas Al-Islami. I kindly request the restoration of this page to my user space, as I am eager to continue refining and expanding upon it.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 05:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Intention is not part of the reason for the deletion. I don't restore articles that have a promotional tone because they are not allowed on Wikipedia - anywhere. I checked out your article on Al-Raid, and I see that that article also has a promotional tone, so I will be making some changes to that as well. Deb (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you don't restore articles with a promotional tone. Is this a personal preference, or is there a specific rule on Wikipedia addressing this issue? If it's based on personal preference, I may need to consult another admin.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 03:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes - or you could just read the guidelines and go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deb (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nogger

You know, one has to be very careful how one types that! I almost typed 'nugger'.

You have every right to decline my CSD. I just wanted to point out that, in my view, the draft stands a >50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. That is the standard level of acceptance for an AFC review. That you disagree is fine. It might have been more appropriate, though, for you to review the draft and decline it, with rationale, either instead of or as well as declining the CSD..

We don't usually disagree, you and I, and I'm certainly not taking it personally, in the same manner that I don't take personally an AFC borderline acceptance that then gets sent to AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I just saw your revert comment "Draft not yet approved" or similar. I'm sure you know that it cannot be approved when there is a redirect in the way. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I know that it can't be moved when there's a redirect. But I don't see anything to suggest that someone's in the process of reviewing it again. There's no protection on it, so nothing to stop any other admin reviewing it and doing the deletion. Deb (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The clue, really, was that I asked to have the redirect deleted. 😈. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit confused there and thought I was talking to two different people! Deb (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for sorting it out. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Another Sock

Good Day, You and @Bbb23 previously blocked this User:Tocteck. This person keeps copying this article Johnel with different accounts even after being blocked as User:Johnekk and User:Tocteck, this user went ahead to create another account User:TCBRIGHT and he is probably going to move the copy and paste 'User:TCBRIGHT/sandbox' to mainspace again after being autoconfirmed. Please see this through. Regards. Adambenji (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, he won't be recreating it at that particular name again. Deb (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Noooo, you deleted the wrong article!!!. I only reported the person because he was using multiple accounts to copy the contents from the article you just deleted and edit it to fit his own biography in a sandbox User:TCBRIGHT/sandbox which was already deleted by User:Bearcat. The sockpuppet individual which was User:TCBRIGHT has been blocked. Please revert the deletion of Johnel, that was the article I was protecting from the blocked user!! And it was created by me on May 2023. Please revert the deletion. It was a mistake. Thank you Adambenji (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please revert the deletion, you misunderstood my report, now my confidence to report sock and vandalism has reduced to 1%. The article you deleted was the one being vandalized by User: TCBRIGHT and other accounts I listed earlier which have been blocked. I have reported the previous cases to User:Vanderwaalforces before. Please revert the deletion, it was a mistake. My regards Adambenji (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You specified the article Johnel and that was the article I deleted. Deb (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, please don't ever move your own draft into article space without waiting for a review. Deb (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but please I didn't specify the article Johnel for deletion, I only said "This person keeps copying this article Johnel with different accounts even after being blocked as User:Johnekk and User:Tocteck" I meant that the person always copy the contents in the article Johnel and usually paste it to his sandbox. Please, I've been working on that article for quite months, now I regret reporting that individual. please understand me!, I reported him for copying another article and you deleted it. Please!! You also locked the name from being created. Please the whole situation just turned upside down. Please the subject you deleted was notable and has been on mainspace since June 2023. Please this is all a mistake and I've explained all I can. Adambenji (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The cause of all these is that I didn't explain better probably. I just ended up being the victim. please, I've explained that the user has been blocked and the sandbox that I really meant to report (User:TCBRIGHT/sandbox) has been deleted already. I was only protecting the article I created "Johnel". It was reviewed by User: Reading Beans days after being created, I'm the author of that article, why would I report an article created by me. I'm pleading for a revert. Please. Adambenji (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see any record of the draft passing a review. I'll restore the draft and you can try again. As long as it passes, an admin will be able to move it to article space. Deb (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you.Adambenji (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deb - is this really a new article? It was moved to mainspace in June. I think it probably should go through AFD, rather than unilaterally draftified. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The article creator moved it himself without getting a review. Since then there have been many mysterious anonymous edits and I'm concerned about the COI. I don't think it should leave draft space until the many issues have been addressed. But of course it's open to you to request a deletion review. Deb (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

:::I don't really follow the logic. This was a valid article, it's been extant since June, it should be restored and an AFD started like any other page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

PS - Per WP:ATD-I, the policy is that "Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD".  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts never mind. Since the editor in question has now publicly declared a conflict of interest, this does seem a valid reason to keep it as draftified. As you were then. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?

I spent a lot of time and energy developing that Wikipedia page for a foodservice company, and you destroyed all my hard work!!!! Someone needs to restore the page as soon as possible, because this is a brand that has relevance. NorthPark1 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to make any further contributions until you have read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:COI. Deb (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Richard Hakluyt

I have nominated Richard Hakluyt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The lost skill of typing

Your recent post invoking typing skills [19] gave me a personal chuckle. I, too, am proud to have achieved similar levels of proficiency. And everytime I stumblethumb through the screen on my phone I think "two semesters of typing class down the drain..." Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's never wasted as long as you can get your hands on a proper keyboard! Deb (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No links in section headings

Hi Deb, I see you have reverted some of my recent edits to month articles like January 1960 in which I removed links from section headings, with the explanation "dates are linked in time-related articles".

Please read MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS, which I linked in my edit summaries:

For technical reasons, section headings should:

• ...
• Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.
• ...

These technical restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus.

The Manual of Style is very clear here that section headings must not contain links, and explicitly says that exceptions to this rule are not allowed. —Bkell (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. That's not correct. See MOS:UNLINKDATES: "Dates, years, and other chronological items should be linked only when they are relevant to the subject and likely to be useful to a reader; this rule does not apply to articles that are explicitly on a chronological item, e.g. 2002, 19th century." Deb (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not removing the links because of that rule. I have no problem with January 1 being linked in the January 1960 article. The problem is that these links should not appear in section headings. Section headings should not contain links. See MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. —Bkell (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that you would not object if it read:

January 1, 1960 (Friday)

• The Republic of Cameroon, etc....  ? Deb (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The hard constraint here, coming from MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS, is that section headings should not contain links. I think it is appropriate for each day to be a section, and so it makes sense for the date to be a section heading, as it is now. But we can't link the date in that section heading, because section headings should not have links. If you believe it is necessary for the article to contain links to January 1, etc., then those links should be somewhere in ordinary article text, not the section headings. So, for example, we could add an intro sentence to each section, just below the section heading, like the following, perhaps:

==January 1, 1960 (Friday)==
The following events happened on Friday, [[January 1]], 1960.
*The [[Cameroon|Republic of Cameroun]] became independent ...

If the links are in article text, then they're fine; but the section headings themselves should not have links. That's the problem here. —Bkell (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you not see the nonsensical nature of this argument? There is no reason for the section header not to be linked in this case. Having these links in the month articles is clearly useful for navigation purposes and does not cause technical problems. Deb (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't my own argument. The Manual of Style forbids links in section headings. It is quite clear on that point. If you want to argue against the Manual of Style, please take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. —Bkell (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed years ago on the talk pages of the Month articles, so I'm not interested in what the Manual of Style "forbids". The Manual of Style is for guidance, not slavish obedience. Why not do some content creation instead of faffing about with small cosmetic details that add nothing to this project? Deb (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Links in section headers in month articles. —Bkell (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, personally I don't think the article needs to have links to January 1 and so forth, so I don't think there's any need to add a somewhat artificial intro sentence to each section just to shoehorn that link in there. But I won't object if others feel that this is the best solution. In any case, what we need to avoid is links in the section headings, one way or another: either drop the links entirely, or put them in ordinary article text. —Bkell (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You deleted Ack unix (redirect to AWK)

Some people say "awk" as "ock" or "ack" (like "ach"). The redirect page helps people find the right page if they only heard the term, and have not seen it in writing. It should not be deleted. GhostCarrot (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"Ack" doesn't sound like "AWK", so why would anyone say it? Deb (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

AWK is pronounced as "awk", like "ock", as in "smock". The term shares phoneme similarites with "ack" when it is said with a strong "ä" phoneme, like "äck", which is common in some accents. GhostCarrot (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Such as? Deb (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again. GhostCarrot (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What accents are you referring to? To my mind, this is still extremely unlikely. Deb (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There are some european accents where "ach," "ack," and "ock" sound very similar to each other. Eastern Europe comes to mind. GhostCarrot (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

One or two accents that you can't specify are really not a justification for a redirect. Surely someone from Eastern Europe would be looking on their own language 'pedia, not the English one? Deb (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You are fighting me on the plausability, which is a wrong thing to do. I would advise you to stop wasting others' time. GhostCarrot (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say it's you that is wasting time. You can always go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion if you feel it's important to retain this redirect. Deb (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, stop wasting others' time. GhostCarrot (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Deb, here's more absolute nonsense! Ock (unix) Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 11:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Has it been nominated yet? Deb (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok I assumed you'd nominated the previous ones but I guess not. I guess from the Ack unix history, somebody had used {{Db-r3}}, right? So I just used that on Ock (unix). I think there's only two in this particularly preposterous series of time-and-particle-wasting nonsense. But also Perc computer, an implausible typo and with an implausibly needless extra word too. I'm a perpetual n00b at deletion because that's such a last resort for things that are just bad. What a cryptic process. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 03:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it's okay, you're not wrong. I'm allowed to delete things without them being nominated, and I rarely nominate them myself. However, if someone argues the toss - as in this case - I tend to wait until I know someone else agrees with me (e.g. you) and nominates it. Admins get a lot of flak, especially when people appeal and get their decisions overturned, so I try to err on the side of caution. Deb (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Deb

Linjieshi keeps re-creating pages about Zhang Meng, such as Christina Zhang, Christina zhang, and Zhang meng(writers). The content of the article is promotional. 203.198.108.133 (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Radio presenters has been nominated for merging

Category:Radio presenters has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Dear Deb, Hello, please delete Humayun Kabir (TLC politician) and Draft:Humayun Kabir (politician, born 1963) these are wrong title of an article. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Warming polity

Hello sir I recently check that you blocked @Warming polity because of Promotional activity but i think that case is clear Sock Puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/50mMidas/Archive check this for your reference he is only Promotiong 3 pages Poybo Media , Justin Jin , The Vach. 103.149.126.107 (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I know. That's how I know he was here solely to promote. Deb (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 in Wales

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 in Wales, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Deb! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Deb: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296 Online events: New: Education (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Temperance women Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2023 Announcement In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part of the #1day1woman initiative! Tip of the month: Check out the new navigation on our Women in Red Project home page. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Orchomen new IP sock

Deb, it appears that Orchomen has a new IP sock, 37.245.46.159, seen here: [20], can you please review and block as necessary. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've warned him/her, but you need to offer some evidence. Deb (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

UAE IP address, 6 day old account that shows a complete familiarity with MOS, tagging pages as single sourced. Mztourist (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And immediately after your warning, a new UAE IP appears: [21] Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The best way to stop IPs doing this is to protect the articles they are focused on. What do you think is going on with this particular guy? Deb (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I only see it when they edit the Vietnam War ones, of which there are over 100 pages. However they seem to be doing all sorts of war/battle pages. Is protecting them all practical? Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

And another IP: [22]. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edgar Samuel

Hi there, I reverted Edgar Samuel back to namespace. The article has sources, was imported from cc-by content with a note about the licence, so I couldn't see the reason for it being pushed to a draft. Let me know if I am mistaken tho. Jim Killock (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The lack of a claim of notability plus the failure to add categories are good reasons for it to remain in draft until reviewed. Please move it back to draft until that has happened. Deb (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are done. Jim Killock (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have tagged it asking for further citations. But the article already has three independent sources. Why does it need more than three sources, two of which are from academic publications? Jim Killock (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This source is neither significant nor independent. I'm sure you can find something better. Deb (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

At least two qualify as independent surely? How many does this need? After reading the guidance it says that "all contentious statements need to refencesd" or similar, but I can't see what isn't verifiable from a reasonably independent source, assuming that academic and press obits qualify. Jim Killock (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought that someone who's been around as long as you have would have wanted to make your article the best it could be. Deb (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

For sure and I appreciate dozens of rubbish aticles must pass your way and need this kind of action, but TBH the content there is probably what is available to me at this point and serves its purpose as a basic intro when using the person in article links, eg in Moyse's Hall.

If I get time later, I will start checking through books and academic article for further expansion. Expansion is different from inaccuracy or lack of verifiability; I would only want to have a banner asking for more references and implying possible inaccuracy applied if the information within it isn't verifiable. Is anything in the article lacking a suitable verifiable source?if so I will be happy to find a better source or remove it. Jim Killock (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you not want others to help improve the article? Frankly, looking at the Jewish Chronicle source, I'm surprised how little you could find to say about the subject. Not even his full date of birth. Deb (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

An alternative banner asking for people to expand it would be helpful, for instance.

Yes there is more from the Jewish Chronicle that could be added. i will do that later perhaps, but there is also a bit of common sense that's needed not to stray into NPOV territory by reiterating a lot of character and personality information. Jim Killock (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:John Jenkins (racing driver)

The auto racing John Jenkins was born in Ohio to Welsh parents. His father was also named John Jenkins.

Best regards, RegalZ8790 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I gave a source for him having been born in Cardiff. Deb (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Where's the spark, that began the fire?

I'm curious as to what happened to @4me689:, who (If I remember correctly) began adding those image collages, last year. We ain't heard from them, since last October. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps they are still here under another name. It's odd how newcomers pop up so often to create collages, but I haven't seen any obvious evidence of misconduct. I would not be surprised if there is off-wiki canvassing, but that would be difficult to prove. Deb (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Kajsa.sandvik/sandbox hoax

Hia @Deb. On User:Kajsa.sandvik/sandbox you undid my CSD hoax, are you sure? Quoting from the draft..

Saint Vellani was born July 5th 405. She lived a normal life until 422 when her life changed for ever. The Saint went on the most important trip in her life when she decided to go on a pilgrimage to Texas. In Texas she met the Queen of Norway. This amazing and beautiful young ice queen

Marital Status: Ed Sheeran

Qcne (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't deny it's rubbish, but the subject does seem to have existed or at least believed by some to have existed. Tell you what, I'll delete it as nonsene. Deb (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Meghipur

Please undelete Meghipur. There's currently a giant sitewide discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of uncited articles on this exact issue, and even a special-case PROD process for them is failing to achieve consensus, so we definitely shouldn't have admins engaging in sua sponte deletions that lack community support. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it's been tagged for years and have you seen the creator's contribution record? I'll think about the best course of action. Deb (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 in Wales

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 in Wales, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:ITSAINSIDEJOB

Yes I believe it does. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

JMC Academy

Excuse me for being an idiot. I missed the second AfD when I was looking at it. I don't know why. TarnishedPath^talk 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Easily done - you'll do worse things before you're finished here! Deb (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO content

Dear Deb, Hello, Please see User talk:DreamRimmer#WP:COPYVIO content.can you help me about that.😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. It's not a good article. In fact, I'm not sure if the topic is even notable outside the US, though of course I can't speedy delete it; perhaps it belongs in Wikiquote rather than Wikipedia. User:Jengod is correct in saying it's not a copyvio, but at the same time it doesn't add much to the sum of human knowledge. Perhaps the contributor will read this and could give us a view as to why she created it. Deb (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7 @Deb The topic comes up occasionally in d the history of the U.S. Reconstruction period. I'm working on an article about a political cartoon called Andy's Trip where it appears but it comes up in multiple places in the histories of the Johnson administration. When I found the quote from the Cleveland book, I thought aha, it's finally time to start that article, which I'd been thinking might be necessary since I created a similar "memes of the American Civil War era" political history article called "Oh we'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree." I thought this section of Sumner's speech was a good summary of Johnson's original statements and his turn; the quote was set apart as a blockquote, attributed, and sourced. The article is a stub, it's still growing. Happy to discuss if this should be merged into a different article or deleted altogether. jengod (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I see - thanks for responding. What would you think of transferring the text to Wikiquote? Stump speech is also something I've never heard of before and I wondered if this is a specifically US expression. If Johnson's speech is a good example of one, maybe it could be included there - unless of course there are loads of such speeches that are well-known in the US, in which case there could be other options. Deb (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7 @Deb Stump speeches are actually a fascinating topic (if you're a huge political history nerd 😝 )--I actually don't know if other countries have similar terminology! Johnson was particularly dependent on rote/repetition since he never wrote down his speeches (he was marginally literate due to a deprived childhood but had a knack for handling crowds at public events) but I think this particular one would be undue weight since it's such aftermath-of-the-American-Civil-War deep lore--he is an interesting 19th c example tho. Hmmm...

Regarding the "treason made odious" article, how many sentences from the public-domain pamphlet republishing Sumner's speech about Johnson quoting from Johnson's speech can I use without it being flagged? I will prune.

I might end up just merging it to the Andy's Trip or pardons for ex-Confederates or a broken campaign promises of American politicians article or something but I'm still sourcing and building. Thanks guys, for working through this with me. jengod (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I'd say you could use most of it on Wikiquote. You could probably do with more analysis of what he said if you are going to expand the article, so you could include lots of short quotes rather than the whole text. "Stump speech" does seem to be a US expression (though the article on it doesn't say so) but there may be an equivalent that I'm just not familiar with. I suppose Husting would be the British equivalent, but it's probably not quite the same thing. Deb (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Deb, Hi, I've identified this draft as WP:COPYVIO and they possibly 96.3% suspected copyright violations.I've tagged for speedy deletion, so, please delete them. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Whats your problem man?

Bhai Teri dikkat kya hai, delete kyun kia page, it was in works, kaam nahi hai kya zindagi me kuch? AkhilV1998 (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

AkhilV1998, this is the English language Wikipedia so please communicate with people in English here. You are welcome to contribute to the Hindi Wikipedia if you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Jack Viertel

Hello. The context for the page you deleted about Jack Viertel is that he was mentioned in a theatre studies seminar as a scholar we should read, the Wikipedia was only in Simple English, so I 'translated' it through that function. Wasn't aware that it had previously been deleted. This is likely to recur because it's absurd to have one in Simple English and not in English. For what it's worth, the professor thought his book was basic musical theatre reading. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Described here as "one of Broadway's leading producers" https://webapp2.wright.edu/web1/newsroom/2017/11/20/wright-states-musical-theatre-initiative-to-host-long-time-broadway-producer-jack-viertel/ and the book described as "invaluable" here https://dctheaterarts.org/2016/03/07/190288/. This review says it would be"impossible to find anyone who knows more about the subject." https://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2016/04/constructing-musicals-jack-viertels.html I'd have to say prima facie he easily meets WP:notability due to "significant coverage". Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 28. —Cryptic 23:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A question about "The subject doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria"

Hello. You wrote in your decline of a draft:Volodymyr Lisovets that "the subject doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria". To your mind, what sources can identify the notability for swimmers??? Because I added some independent articles from Ukrainian and English media/result books, where Volodymyr Lisovets only reminds. Moreover, I have different answers about this question, so I will be grateful for your answer. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read the notability criteria for sports, which I gave you details of. Deb (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Natalie Jane

Please undelete Natalie Jane. You deleted a months-old article (having been in mainspace since October 2023) claiming it was a "mistaken redirect target", which does not make sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see. I'll have to look at the history again. Deb (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcement Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event. Tip of the month: AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks for deleting the page

Hey there, Deb. Thanks for deleting the page. I had asked Liz about doing it, but it turns out you did it much quicker. Anyways, thanks again and cheers! NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Deb (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ditto, Thanks for deleting the page today!

I suspected it was spam as well, but I had apprehensions about the legalese of labeling it as such. SteezeBurglar (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2024 in jazz has been accepted

2024 in jazz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Deb (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Dear Deb, I created an article with this name on 4 December 2023 via WP:AFC process, but I saw in recently Arvind Kumar Jatav is created Radheshyam Bairwa and before creating this article they remove all content from my article and also tagged for blp prod and redirect you're created article, I humbly request you to please block it from editing otherwise it will ruin all my articles and my hard work will go in vain, I have nominated its duplicate article for deletion. please help me. 🙏😔😭 ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Because it is difficult to understand what the problems are, I have gone back to the December version of the article and removed the subsequent edits. If you want to make improvements, you can now do so. Deb (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Deb, Thanks a lot for helping me. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Mistaken creation

Hello, I mistakenly Moved one of my article to User:Inside a Madrasa which is now deleted by you. I was moving it to (Article) i.e Inside a Madrasa. Sorry for my mistake and thank you for deleting. — QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 10:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

College of Engineering Knust

Hi, just a question, I see you speedy-deleted it under both A7 and G11, but I thought A7 explicitly didn't apply for educational institutions? Shouldn't it be G11 alone? Not a big deal, just to be sure I'm not mistaken! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You're correct. But I won't be undeleting it! :-) Deb (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, it was still G11 anyway, just to make sure I didn't forget something when tagging it! Happy editing, Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Rohitlaxman once again performing copy-and-paste moves

Hey there, Deb. Just this morning, I went on Wikipedia and saw on my watchlist this user. When I decided to search up his article in the mainspace (which it should have been deleted by you), it did show the article which I'm pretty sure this user once again copy-and-pasted. I don't think, no matter how much we try to delete it, this user will learn their lesson. Is it possible to block them for a while? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Okoo

Since the page was 3 months old (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=155091595), it is not eligible for WP:R3 "pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are", and while as a Template:R without mention, its retention at WP:RFD is far from certain, it is possible an alternate target will be found, as such please undelete the page, thank you. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DDC7:75BD:E444:D6B6 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the most recent redirect, not the previous one. Deb (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The page was a redirect continuously until an inexperienced user incorrectly turned it into an article, now if you wish to leave those revisions deleted or not I don't care, but the original redirect as created by TimTims2022 was not WP:R3 eligible as you have just conceded, and that revision at least should be restored. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DDC7:75BD:E444:D6B6 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Any update? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C63:8C0B:3FA3:468B (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relatedly, X-42 Pop-Up Upper Stage was also not eligible for WP:A7, which does not apply to experimental vehicles. I do not know if it is independently notable (most of the entries on List of X-planes are so more sourcing is likely available). But even if not it should be redirected to that page instead as a valid Template:R to list entry, as such please undelete that page as well. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C63:8C0B:3FA3:468B (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Flow Logo

Hello! I'd requested deletion of File:Flow Logo.png on its talk page. You deleted the talk page, but not the file. If you wouldn't mind also deleting the file, I'd be most obliged. Thanks! Dukese805 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's weird. I don't know how I managed that! I'll sort it now. Deb (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Dukese805 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)