Open main menu

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

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.

Basalisk inspect damageberate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
No matter how cute you are, expect no quarter in the cruel world of Wikipedia.

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

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

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


Your submission at Articles for creation: Masks in western dance has been acceptedEdit

Masks in western dance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catherine Duncan has been acceptedEdit

Catherine Duncan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Dear Liz, I am Mary I have been an intern in a chinese renowned company for months now. I was in charge of updating the profile of the company in wikipedia. Before my arrival there was already an article on wikipedia but the data were out to date. Few months after i started the updating process. the page got suspended by you. The name of the page was 'CHINT Group' and the article got deleted on August 3rd 2019. Could you please restore it or at least explian me what i should do for the page to be restored? if not the most recent versions, the previous one that already existed before i started updating it because the company does not have any wikipedia page now. All the information that i updated were correct,i was using the intern data of the company, problem is most of them have not been officially published. If it is the reason why you deleted the article, please kindly let me know how to remedy to this situation. Regards, Mary.

Hello, Mary,
First, I have looked and looked and found no email that has been sent by you.
The article that I think you are referring to has been moved around to a lot of different titles. The pages I deleted were broken redirects...they were redirects to a page that had been deleted. I did not delete your article, just few pages (CHINT Group, CHINT Group Corp, CHINT Group Corporation) that pointed to it.
I believe that ultimately, the article that was deleted was on the page Chint Group that was deleted by admin Jimfbleak because the article was promotional and because of copyright infringement which would have happened if you, or another editor, used content that was taken from your company website or another source. Wikipedia content has to be original, written by you, not taken from other sources. If you click on Chint Group, you can see the reasons given for the deletion. Jimfbleak might have some additional comments if you contact him. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Liz, thanks for ping. Usually when I delete a company article I post a COI query and guidance on the main editor's talk. The problem here is that there have been multiple SPAs (one blocked as a user name violation) and ip editors. However, I'd guess that this ip is 玛丽1218 and I've posted this guidance on her talk page. Because of the copyright violation it won't be restored as it was, and earlier versions are even more promotional than hers, so it needs to be recreated in accordance with the guidance I've given Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Thank you very much for your kind answer Liz, the content that we wrote on wikipedia was specific to wikipedia. Like i said, i could not find many articles to support the information that i updated and the website kept asking me to cite the sources so i thought the easiest way to show the accuracy was to introduce the link of the official website. Doing so i tried to keep the information coherent with what was already written. May be that is one of the reason why Jimfbleak thought the article was promotional. I still do not have many published articles to cite as official sources except few reviews written in chinese. Jimfbleak, thank you for your guidance, i will modify the article (trying to follow as much as possible your instructions) and upload it again. Concerning the ip address i guess you know that many websites are blocked in China so i often use a vpn in order to open wikipedia and edit it so the ip constantly changes. Once again thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Liz! You've always struck me as a decent person and I wanted to ask your advice. I hope this question isn't putting you on the spot. I recently received a BLP topic ban - I don't think it stands up to scrutiny, but that's a personal opinion and I may be interpreting policy in a strange or outright wrong way. Additionally, maybe it's for the best anyway that I stop editing. I don't really edit in areas which don't concern living people, as that doesn't interest me, and I doubt that I have a noticeably positive effect sometimes. Do you think I should appeal it or not? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, PeterTheFourth,
I have seen few (none?) immediate topic ban appeals that have been passed. The only hope is that if there was a rogue admin who went against the opinions of every other admin participating in the discussion which I don't think happened here. There were some folks weighing in who didn't think it was a major offense but several people did.
I hope you can adjust your editing to accommodate this topic ban, which I think you could appeal in 3-6 months (without any violations). I think you have a positive effect on Wikipedia but I don't think you handled the AE complaint with enough seriousness which hurt you with the admins.
I hope you stay but, to be honest, I took two wikibreaks, one for six months and one for a year, and I came back with much more enthusiasm and energy so I don't think breaks are a bad thing. I encourage you to appeal the topic ban after a few months, when you've shown you can abide by the terms of the ban. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the advice - I'll step back. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...Edit

Hi Liz - I hope you may be able to help. I stupidly moved a page I was working on in Sandbox into the article section. I had not finished working on the content or confirmed the validity of the citations provided by the band I'm representing, so can understand it not being up to standard. Other artist pages were used as a template for the script, and it was definitely not my intention to use the Wiki platform as a promotional tool. I disputed the speedy deletion, and asked that the article be placed back in Sandbox mode so I may continue working on it, but now I can't find the person who actioned the decision to delete. I was not advised which sections of the article were seen as propaganda/promotional, or if only the citations were misleading. I intend on rebuilding the page in Sandbox mode with stripped-back information. When I am done, if I move to the article section, and you still feel it doesn't meet the guidelines, may I request the page be put back into Sandbox mode instead of deleted? Thank you in advance for any time you take replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsthezues (talkcontribs)

(talk page watcher) The page was Iron Empire; if you click on the red link, you'll see a log of who deleted it, in this case user:Jimfbleak. I agree that is was correctly deleted; Wikipedia doesn't host advertising, and we're only interested in what independent sources have to say about the article subject not what the subject has to say about themselves, and when it comes to musical acts we only cover topics that meet Wikipedia's very specific criteria for inclusion. If you think you can improve this to Wikipedia's standards I can restore it as a draft for you to work on, but be aware that unless you can demonstrate that the group meets these specific criteria we won't host an article on it, and that all promotional language needs to be removed from the article before it's published as a Wikipedia article and that every claim needs to be cited to a reliable independent source. ‑ Iridescent 15:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, thanks. Some of that page is a copyright violation and much of the rest looks as if it might be, although I haven't checked. There was a Draft:Iron Empire deleted by RHaworth too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action, Iridescent and Jimfbleak! Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for the confirmation. I'll find out what the band has in the way of external, independent sources say about the topic. Please restore to draft and I'll have another look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:4188:7D00:E50D:F166:1F8C:49D4 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

100,000th edit!Edit

  100,000th edit award
Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow! And it only feels like 99,000! Thanks for letting me know, MarnetteD! Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • You are welcome and cheers to the next 100K. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello Liz! Please take a look at this. I have already warned that the page has suffered vandalism since 30 August and that edits that have altered the page cannot be reversed, if not manually. -Aihotz (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Any vandalism can be reverted, the article does not need to be deleted completely. Again, if you wish to seek to have it deleted, propose it at AFD along with your reasons and perhaps consensus of editors will be with you. But it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Liz, my intention is not to propose that the page be deleted, but to alert that for a few days now that page has been totally altered. Proposing deletion has been the only (and fastest) way for other users to be aware of the situation.. -Aihotz (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Decentralized IdentifiersEdit

Hello @Liz:, Thanks for your time in reviewing Draft:Decentralized Identifiers. You speedy deleted the article, because of copyright concerns. You stated that I used text from But I used text from the same source as did, namely from w3c. W3c grants reuse by stating "Permission to copy, and distribute the contents of this document, or the W3C document from which this statement is linked, in any medium for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted". The other concern was that I used text from But I used text from the ebook "The Legal Aspects of Blockchain". I provided a link where you could request your own copy, but for your convenience, you can temporarily see the ebook here. As you can see on page 3 the ebook is under a Creative Commons license. Could you please undelete the article? --FlippyFlink (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FlippyFlink,
I didn't tag your article, I just carried out the deletion. I am reluctant to restore any content that has been identified as a copyright violation and I am not up to speed on all the intricacies of permissions and licenses (as I should be). Please contact one of the admins listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters and I will defer to their expertise.
Actually, one of these copyright pros, Diannaa is the admin who tagged your article for violating copyright so she might be best to speak to. Any of these admins handle these questions on a daily basis and will know exactly how to address your argument. I am out of my comfort zone here. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Liz, thanks your for your quick reply. I asked Diannaa to re-review the article. --FlippyFlink (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales page protectionEdit

Not sure but on User:Jimbo Wales#You can edit this page! he suggests that his user page is open for anyone to edit...perhaps I'm misinterpreting it? (saw this dif). Than again looking though the edit history of the page there's been A LOT of vandalism, so maybe that's why there is page protection? Thanks. OkayKenji (talk page) 20:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, OkayKenji,
It's basically continuous vandalism and reverts of vandalism. I realize that he doesn't like it protected but when it is just "vandalism-revert-vandalism-revert-vandalism-revert" etc. etc., it is exhausting for other editors to police it. The protection is only for 3 days and any admin can lift it if they disagree. Hopefully, it will discourage the recent vandals for hanging around until it expires. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, was thinking that was the reason. Apologies for bothering you. OkayKenji (talk page) 22:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Surly Squirrel (character)Edit

Hello. I noticed that you deleted this article after it was tagged for speedy deletion for having no meaningful content. However, I remember seeing at least some information on there, such as the creator of the character, etc. I agree that the article was extremely short (one or two sentences), but I'm not sure how this meets the CSD. You have more experience than me, so maybe you can teach me on this a little? Thank you. William2001(talk) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, William2001,
It didn't have enough meaningful content for an article in the main space of the encyclopedia. But it is perfectly fine to have this limited amount of content in a draft so I have restored it to Draft:Surly Squirrel (character) and will inform the article creator. It's a little surprising to me that you would speak up for such a weak article but you changed my mind. Maybe you can add some more substantial content to it. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I think moving it to a draft is a good choice. Have a nice time editing. William2001(talk) 00:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Liz and William2001. For some strange reason, I researched this squirrel, added three references to critical commentary about the character, and moved it to Surly Squirrel. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Re this, he may have gone red, but is (so far) continuing to revert me at Machiavellianism (politics), and post at my talk. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, Johnbod when I closed his ANI complaint he had said "fuck off" on his user page so I assumed that was it for a while. I'll keep an eye on his account. I expect him to return, but hopefully with less of a single-minded focus on Machiavellianism. As far as an ANI complaint goes, I think I would have closed it even with no retirement. There was no support for any sanctions.
You might curb the dismissive language only makes people angry and you don't want to be brought to ANI with any regularity. It's just a distraction from your good work creating and building articles. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Adding templates is not reverting edits.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/SuperWikiLover223. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, that was me adding templates.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
(EC) As per WP:3RR and frankly common sense, anything which undoes the edit/s of another editor in whole or in part is a revert. Adding templates once is not a revert. Adding templates back after they were removed is a revert [1] [2]. It will definitely count against you in an edit warring case and so may lead to you being blocked. If you weren't aware that you had already done it once and it had been reverted so you were doing it again, this may be forgiven as an accidental revert but clearly when you say "this is being removed for no reason" [3] then you were aware that you were undoing the actions of another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Block me then. Enough of the talking. Time to do the walk. Im leaving anyway, so it does not matter.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I never said I would block you. I cannot do so since I am not an admin. And it does not look to me like your edit warring is sufficiently bad to merit a block anyway from the small amount I saw. If you want to retire that's up to you, as I told another editor recently in greater detail, you should do whatever is best for you provided it isn't something disallowed by the community. But if your are going to continue to edit here you need to understand what a revert is and that we don't like edit warring and will block editor's for it. Your earlier comments suggested a fundamental misunderstanding which needed to be corrected lest it causes problems. Note that I composed my reply to your initial 1:59 comment then got ECs Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I've got mail: "SuperWikiLover223‬ sent you an email. You are a grade A asshole, John." Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
email apology for that received, and accepted. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Nb, Account now renamed to User:KingofGangsters. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Sooooo, Johnbod, I guess when someone says they are retiring, we should not take them at their word. Lesson learned. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure he meant it at the time - retirees often come back, usually after a longer break than that! Of course some don't. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I was ready to read him the riot act, Johnbod, but when I looked at his past 200 edits, they are almost entirely vandal fighting and reverting, he is not as focused on Machiavellianism as he was a month ago. I don't know what led to his ANEW report of you but I'd rather let the admins who patrol that noticeboard evaluate that complaint. I don't think there is much to it, you two just are at loggerheads. I'll keep an eye on Machiavellianism (politics) to see if there is any edit warring there. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, he seems to have given up there, but as I say, has been systematically going through the "What links here" removing links, or diverting them to NM, trying to strangle the articles at a distance. He has probably been quite successful at this, I don't catch all of them. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Liz, I appreciate that you at least looked at my edits before "reading me the riot act" (whatever that means), but I do not think it is in any way fair that you were going to do that in the first place, without asking me what happened, which is why I reported him at ANI/EW. Thats what he does, he acts tough while reverting me, and when that does not work and he is met with aggression himself, he runs behind admins backs like a coward. And somehow I am the guilty party. What he wants me to do is stop editing period, and is using this whole "Machiavellianism" article debacle as an excuse, as I did not edit that horrid POV article in 3 weeks, and its psychology counterpart all I did was edit a dab to be more specific to the reader. Somehow I committed a major WikiCrime, and now we are here. I will try to avoid him as best as I can, but if he does this again I will not waste any time shattering big Jonnyboy's ego, and I will not care about the consequences. Some people have to hear it the hard way. KingofGangsters (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


Took care of it Thx. Mercy11 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Andra and the BackboneEdit

Hi, the article was going to be deleted by prod within a few hours so moving to draft was in response to that, as there are sources that can be added, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Atlantic306. Thanks for the explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Anarchist writersEdit

Hi there, you nominated Category:Anarchist writers for speedy deletion because it's empty. The category was deleted by mistake last year and only restored yesterday after a deletion review; apparently it wasn't repopulated automatically when it was restored, so that will need to be done manually. Please don't delete it while I work on that. Jd4v15 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've repopulated the category manually and removed the db-catempty template. Hopefully that was the right approach to prevent speedy deletion! Jd4v15 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, Jd4v15, if you created the category, you shouldn't remove the speedy deletion tag yourself but I don't think that's a big deal now that the category is no longer empty. After an empty category is tagged, it sits for 7 days before it it deleted in case it was emptied improperly. Looks like that has been taken care of. But thanks for letting me know. I check the empty category category daily so I would have gotten to it myself but it looks like you've done it so no worries. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI threadEdit

I re-opened the ANI thread on me which you closed, this is because I have a right to reply and only I became aware of this thread a couple of hours ago. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for the premature closing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter Döhle Schiffahrts-KGEdit

Dear Liz,

to start with kindly let me highlight that I'm a newbee at Wikipedia. While highly appreciating the good content, I'm still getting accustomed to the article requirements (whereas I am also closely studying the official guidelines).

You deleted my draft page on the German shipping company "Peter Döhle Schiffahrts-KG" with the reason „G8:Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page“ which I frankly speaking don’t understand. Merely a citation of a publication on the company by an independent publishing house as well as a link to their corporate website was included in my draft. Furthermore, I would be happy to add some references like Financial Times, etc. and not only on this company, but actually others later on as well. But before preparing different drafts, I would like to know the exact requirements.

Thank you for your kind help!! Best regards, BulbousBow 56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BulbousBow56 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello BulbousBow56,
I think I deleted a broken redirect, I didn't delete your article. I think your article was moved (the page should state that) and then it was deleted by admin RHaworth on grounds that it was promotional. It will state this if you look at the deleted page. A broken redirect is just a redirect to a page that was deleted. You might contact RHaworth if you want more information. Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, BulbousBow56,
Now that I'm no longer editing on my phone, I was able to look into this. On September 2, William2001 moved User:BulbousBow56/sandbox to Draft:Peter Döhle Schiffahrts-KG, leaving a redirect to that page from your sandbox. On September 12, RHaworth deleted Draft:Peter Döhle Schiffahrts-KG for the reason of G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. This action left a broken redirect at User:BulbousBow56/sandbox and I deleted that page on September 13. I hope this more complete explanation helps answer some of your questions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

CSD C1Edit

Hi Liz, I've requested CSD for some of the categories if you wouldn't mind doing the rest? Also noticed you've been doing it for a long time too, I'll leave it to you if that's ok? Don't want it to look as if I've taken on the task, also busy at the moment and you've been doing a great job on this :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure Steven, UnitedStatesian also tags a lot of empty categories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

its my first time of creating a page on wikiEdit

i just created new sandbox page and moved for verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandumx (talkcontribs) 09:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

bailong NPPEdit

the redirect is wrhong, they are 2 different NPP at 30km far from each other. --Dwalin (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Dwalin, then nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. Don't just blank the page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
dunnow how works en:wiki. it:wiki works a bit different. make you the right way. --Dwalin (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

My concernsEdit

Dear Liz, you are a veteran here, please advise regarding this [4] Should I really ignore it even though I'm sure it's about me. I'm really worried. If that gets posted, people might want to research who the racist editor is. Can they at least be told that an editor is concerned and asked them to rewrite it to make it less obvious? Please advice. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GizzyCatBella,
From what I could tell from the ANI summary, the page has been deleted. I think you shouldn't agonize about it if the page has been deleted. If it still exists, post a link to the page and I'll see what I can do.
But, honestly, unless you have an editor who is hounding you, which I hope is not the case, most editors are preoccupied with their own work and won't spend their precious time doing background checks on other editors. Like I said at ANI, most of us have been cursed at and maligned here. Such is life on the internet. Unfortunately, many people are not polite when they get agitated online. Life online can be abrasive. If the personal attacks are direct and personal, we can sanction an editor but it really has to cross a line into racist, sexist or anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Let's keep in touch and let me know if it gets worse than innuendo. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Liz. I will. Hopefully, this is the end of this. I was very worried, that's why my desperate efforts for help. I really appreciate your reply; I can go to bed now. Thank you again.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz, I'm so sorry to retake your time, but the editor who created the page is now advocating for sanctions against me. According to them, I violated my Topic Ban by sounding my protest. If you have time (only if you have time) could you take a look at it? Here is the link to the conversation[5]. All I want is to have this chapter behind me and forget about it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


@Liz: User:Mewtwofaze has done some vandalism on Sean Taylor and should be blocked or even banned. I undid their stupid edit.Catfurball (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Catfurball. I posted a warning on their talk page. We typically don't block or ban an editor after one or two bad edits. In the future, feel free to post a level 1 warning on an editor's user talk page if you come across an act of vandalism. If there are previous warnings, go ahead and post a higher level warning. If there is extensive vandalism over time, post a notice at WP:AN/EW. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please UndeleteEdit

Could you please consider undeleting 2019–20 Florida Gators men's basketball team? The content of the article was fine despite being created by a banned user. I contributed several edits to it since it was created and all of the other conference teams' articles are up. Manually recreating the article from the point it was (full schedule, roster, etc.) would be a very long process. Thanks! Benhen1997 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ben,
I looked at this article and found that it was originally deleted as a PROD which would enable it to be restored upon request. THEN, it was recreated by a blocked editor. So, I've restored the article from its beginning, before the blocked editor worked on it. I hope you go into the edit history, look at the earliest edits and utilize what was there before it was deleted the first time. Because there is still work to be done, I've restored it as a draft. You can find it at Draft:2019–20 Florida Gators men's basketball team. Good luck with it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The PROD was likely due to there being no sources available at that time. With the preseason exhibition just over a month out that is no longer the case. Benhen1997 23:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
There are several other college basketball team articles that are currently deleted. Could you or a team of admins do the same action to these pages? Benhen1997 23:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This editor created dozens and dozens of articles on college sports that were deleted today, mostly by Barkeep49, although some by me. They'd have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If other editors did the bulk of editing, a case could be made for restoration. If they were a solo project by the blocked editor, they can not be restored.
It might help to know that he produced a huge number of these articles over a couple of days in August and then in September so I think they were likely modeled on previous year's seasons with new data typed in. Most of them were unsourced and some had been proposed for deletion. I think any editor well-versed in college basketball could reproduce them fairly easily with information from a university athletic department website. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Ben, I also discovered that some earlier versions of these articles exist in Draft space. For example, prior to the article (and its deletion), Draft:2019–20 St. John's Red Storm men's basketball team was created and edited. You should probably search for some of these articles in Draft space to see if they exist. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE NewsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019.

June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated!

June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585.

Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent.

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert!Edit

@Liz: User:ArnoldHimmler is know going by the name of User:Da Vinci Nanjing. I found this out when he illegally edited Usain Bolt. Can you block him again.Catfurball (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Catfurball,
Da Vinci Nanjing has been editing for 11 years! And ArnoldHimmler hasn't edited for over a year. You can try and file an Sock puppet investigation but ArnoldHimmler is stale. Checkusers don't retain data from that long ago. You need proof that these editors are the same person, not just your suspicions. And I'm not a checkuser so file a report at SPI if you think sockpuppetry is going on. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Jenifer RajkumarEdit

Hi Liz, you restored the article after it was speedily deleted (I'm confused how that even happened), but was there any content at Talk:Jenifer Rajkumar or was it blank to begin with? I don't want to fill in the generic WPs if that would get in the way of restoring it. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JesseRafe,
Well, while I was removing the speedy deletion tag, it was deleted by another admin. So, I restored the article. It had been tagged with a request from the creator of the page to delete it. But if you look at the edit history, you can see that there have been other editors working on the article. Normally, we only delete pages on request of the page creator if they are the primary or sole editor. If other editors have made contributions, this request for deletion is less automatically granted.
I forgot about the talk page so I just restored Talk:Jenifer Rajkumar. Thanks for the reminder! Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I know that other editors have made contributions, as I'm on of them. That's why it was confusing that the page was deleted in the first place -- was that an error on the part of the other admin who did so or is that the new norm? Just slapping on a request and it gets automatically deleted and if you as another admin hadn't noticed that'd be that? Doesn't seem right. Thanks for restoring the talk page! JesseRafe (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, admins vary with how they evaluate CSD-tagged pages. Some admins, like DGG, are very thorough and will check & see if the deletion rationale is valid. Others, are less thorough in assessing deletion tagged pages. I think that's all I'll say about that. Liz Read! Talk! 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

CSD logEdit

Hi Liz,

Just calling to thank you for maintaining your public CSD log.

I came across a series of categories that were accidentally emptied by a careless template merge. It was very useful that I could easily trace them for undeletion from your log.

Of course this was also because you are doing consistent work on deleting empties – thanks for that too.

If you do happen to spot a bunch that look fishy, as if they might have been emptied accidentally or out of process, feel free to ping me to check. User:BrownHairedGirl may also be interested if it looks like a template issue.

Cheers! – Fayenatic London 19:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Fayenatic. At times, I feel like I should not keep a CSD log because, well, I have a great many edits to it! It's almost all of my edits to User space and is even listed on Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions! But it can be handy if I need to see what has happened to a category I tagged. Also, UnitedStatesian also tags CSD C1 categories regularly as well and I think he might have a CSD log.
There are times that I do wonder about some tagging. There are dozens and dozens of Featured topics categories currently at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion but WOSlinker, an admin, tagged them so I assumed this was okay. What I sometimes do is look at who tagged the category as being empty and see what else they have been editing if I am unfamiliar with that editor. But I will alert you or BHG if I see something suspicious. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandeep DhaliwalEdit

I notice that you have two or three accounts. I hope this is the right one. I haven't done an article over a redirect in so long that I forgot I don't need to speedy delete. So I undid my speedy delete request. I will add text later if you have no problem with that. I started the article on a user page here and you are welcome to join in, at anytime. Thanks for contacting me. That was confusing. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem, Steve Quinn. It wasn't clear to me what you were trying to do. By the way, this is my only account now. Feel free to contact me here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

Draft:Hayabusa FightwearEdit

I recently noticed the draft was deleted and I am trying to have that action undone so it can be edited to the point where it is approved. Can that be done? It's the first article I've written and I've made all of the requested changes. If there's any help you can provide it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Edanjr (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Edanjr,
It looks like your draft was deleted due to copyright issues which means that the content was not original. I can see if any of it is salvageable but it would be easier to start from scratch.
Also, I am moving today so it will be a while until I can investigate this. If you are in a rush, it would be quickest to start over or ask the deleting administer to review it. Liz Read! Talk! 15:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I was hoping the email I sent would have cleared up the copyright issue (the article was written based on info I provided to that site). I will contact the deleting administer as well. Thanks again! Edanjr (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I haven't checked my email today & because of this move to a new house, I'm editing from my phone and some editing is easier than others. I will check on it all after this move is over. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I checked my email, Edanjr, and there is nothing from you. Back to unpacking. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding! It was sent to the permissions email address on September 5. And good luck with the unpacking! Edanjr (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Anne PuckridgeEdit

Hi Liz. I actually posted something on this about a week ago, but self-reverted because I thought things were sorting themselves out. That was, however, a little too optimistic and things seem to once again be moving in the wrong direction based upon this latest post. Perhaps my tone so far had been too abrasive or perhaps the way I've been trying to explain things has only caused more confusion which is why I'm wondering if you'd might take a look at things and see (1) whether any posted so far is incorrect and (2) whether you might be able to explain things differently.

I tried getting the members of WP:MILHIST involved, but that seems to also have been received with mixed results even though I think it has actually led to improvements being made to the article. The article creator is a new editor who's not very familiar with Wikipedia; they are pretty much also an SPA which is not automatically a bad thing, but doesn't indicate a lot of exposure to how policies and guidelines tend to be applied. They say there's no COI and I believe them, but at the same time I think the cause that Puckridge advocates on behalf of is something the creator also feels quite strongly about (given they are also currently working on User:The Retiree/sandbox/Annette Carson as well as User:The Retiree/sandbox/R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 1, User:The Retiree/sandbox/R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2, User:The Retiree/sandbox/R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 3, User:The Retiree/sandbox/R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 4 and User:The Retiree/sandbox/R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 5) and that may explain the occasional ADVOCACY, RGW and NOTHERE type of comment they make. Since nobody from MILHIST has nominated the article for deletion, I assuming she meets some WikiProject guideline if not BIO; at the same time, it's not really intended to be as much of an article about her cause as it is about her as a person. Moreover, she's still alive which means BLP comes into play and there's not lots of wiggle room when it comes to sourcing, etc.

I actually thought I was making progress, but this last post includes quite a lot of WP:OTHERCONTENT type of arguing and even perhaps some mild WP:OWN in expecting that others should run their edits by the creator first before making them. There's also a bit of taking things personally (e.g. a As the writer of this page, I certainly don't recognise it comment made in an early post) and assuming others are being offended because they may disagree with some of the edits being made or feel the article needs to be more in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Anyway. perhaps you (or any of your talk page watchers) could bring some fresh eyes and a fresh voice to the situation and try and ensure the creator that the edits being made are being made in good faith and are not being made out of any feelings of animosity towards the creator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly,
I'll take a closer look at this article today. If you feel that the article subject is not notable, you know you can nominate it for deletion at AFD but it looks like you are trying to assist this author to build a stronger article. I think the folks at WP:MILHIST are more interested in battles, tanks and ships than someone like this but it was a good move to try to get more eyes on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 13:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I asked at MILHIST because they do work on biographies and Puckridge seems actually notable for her decorated military career in addition to her activism. I also thought someone at MILHIST might have some luck in tracking down sources about her early life. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Block please...Edit

... on aisle User talk:Terry MacLean swat khan. Thank you. (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done I gave them a short block and left a warning. We'll see if he stops vandalizing religious articles. Liz Read! Talk! 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll look into it. Thanks, 209. Liz Read! Talk! 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I want work on the article Eric Akoa which you deletedEdit

Hi Liz, I tried to create a Wikipedia page with the subject name Eric Akoa only to discover that a draft has been created before and it was deleted under speedy deletion. Can you restore the draft so I can see why it is was deleted or work on if there is still need to because from my observations Eric Akoa is notable and have newspaper publications that show he is notable? (Creativecreatr (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)) Hi Liz, The article was deleted through speedy deletion and as of then they were no many sources online to establish his notability but I checked now and there are sources that show his notable. I want you to restore the page as draft so I will improve it to Wikipedia standard.(Creativecreatr (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC))

2019–20 Utah Utes men's basketball teamEdit

I know for a fact that I edited this article and G5 does not apply. Can you please restore it? Did you delete any other articles by this user? If so, please double check there were no other contributors on those either. Smartyllama (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, note that there is a DRV open for similar mass deletions by Barkeep49 and if you made any additional season deletions that actually did qualify under G5, I'd imagine whatever happens there should also apply to them, so you may wish to chime in. Smartyllama (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: The DRV is now closed, but the closer did not consider the articles you deleted as they were added too late. I have no desire to create a new DRV that will almost certainly lead to the same result, but G5 should not have applied to the Utah one, so could you please undelete that one in particular plus any others which have edits by non-blocked users (I obviously can't see the edit history so I don't know if there were others)? Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Smartyllama,
I'm sorry I haven't been more responsive but I've had a wonky internet connection at my new place & have been editing on my phone which is very cumbersome & clumsy (no cut & paste).
What happened is that this article was restored but in the meantime, the article creator was found to be a sock so even though it was restored from the PROD, it was deleted because a blocked editor created it. I will look it over tomorrow morning (it is evening here & I'm out of the house) and see what we can do. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Liz: I'm aware of the history of the article. After I requested it restored from PROD, I made multiple edits, which means G5 should not have applied (as I am obviously not blocked.) Take a look at the edit history and you'll see that. I don't know if any of the others you deleted had any edits by non-blocked users, but if so, G5 should not have applied to them either and they should be restored. Smartyllama (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


Dear Please Unblock to recreation because My Article is written by Wikipedia Experience Team from reliable Source. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2191:f484::f98:ae69 (talkcontribs)

I don't know who you are but this IP account is not blocked. This article, however, is protected because it has been repeatedly recreated & deleted. I see no reason why it should be recreated & deleted yet again and you don't offer any reason why I should change this opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1505 in the Spanish EmpireEdit


A tag has been placed on Category:1505 in the Spanish Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 ballot measuresEdit


A tag has been placed on Category:2020 ballot measures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please un delete The NosferatuEdit

I am astounded and deeply upset my attempts to add a page for our band The Nosferatu has been not only deleted but labelled a "hoax".

Not only am I a founder member of a successful Gothic Rock Band (incidentally long story but I actually founded it not co-founded). Our current band is called The Nosferatu for legal reasons and is a direct descendant of this band:

We have our own website and facebook page and are very much a real active band, not a hoax.

While I may not have understood the rules, I am confused and very hurt that my attempts to give fans rwal information is being treated in such a harsh way.

I urge you to reconsider this. If it were a hoax would we:

1. Have a legit facebook page with over 1700 likes/followers? 2. Be playing live shows?

I happened to think wikipedia was there to give people accurate information, however you are not allowing us the opportunity to present facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladjanicek66 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vladjanicek66,
I have undeleted Draft:The Nosferatu upon your request and assertion that it is not a hoax. But I think it will be deleted again if you don't have reliable sources that can account for your notability. It doesn't matter if you have Facebook fans or have live performances, you need coverage by substantial newspapers, magazines or mainstream websites that can state that you are a notable band. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. If you have any more questions, I recommend you visit the Teahouse where you can ask them. Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Vladjanicek66, are you sure it's not the same band as Nosferatu (band), which already has an article? Why is there verbiage that was copied from that article? It should be rewritten from scratch, not use the band of the same name as a template. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Vladjanicek66, please clarify whether this is a spinoff band from the original Nosferatu band or a renaming? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I just posted a message to your talk page about this, AngusWOOF. It looks like this is a spin-off band. But you are right that the content should not be taken from an existing article. Vladjanicek66, please rewrite any content that you have taken from the existing article on your original band. Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Liz, thanks, I removed the second CSD tag. Vladjanicek66, please look at other spinoff band articles for examples, like Peter Hook and the Light, and note how they focus on their activities as a spinoff. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy DeletionEdit

Hi Liz,

I hope all is well with you. Upon trying to add an article about the Application CarSwoop, designed to reduce fatalities caused by impaired drivers, the article was removed because the account name matched the article name. Since then I have done some research and realized I should have read all the rules before trying to add any articles.

I would appreciate any advice on how I can go about getting the article added to wiki. It would serve as the same purpose as the articles on Uber and Lyft.

Thank you,

Hi Liz, I eagerly wait for a response on how I can rectify the issue. Much appreciated. Pureyoo (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I was just wondering what the point of restoring Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 23 October 2019 after I deleted it? The window for images to fall in this category had passed and the category was empty. The category for the following day had already been populated by the time I deleted it. This is no different from Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 October 2019, which would have otherwise been scheduled for deletion today, but was deleted by you nearly a week ago because it was also empty under the same circumstance. ƏXPLICIT 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Explicit,
I thought that you deleted the Oct. 23rd category a day early. So, I restored it in case any contents were added to it in the intervening 24 hours. It turns out that nothing was added to it so I deleted it once the UTC clock moved to Oct. 24 and all Oct. 23rd categories that were empty could be deleted. This is the first time I've run into this so I just assumed it was an accident.
If I've made a mistake, I apologize but I went by the UTC clock and the date on the category. After the UTC clock hits the next day (X), maintenance categories for the previous day (X-1) that are empty can be deleted. It's all in the page log for Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 23 October 2019. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1927 national football team resultsEdit


A tag has been placed on Category:1927 national football team results requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

my article removedEdit

Hii, this is shivanshpatel312 you recently deleted my article from wikipedia . It was on the concept cars and its future aspects. I am a new user for wikipedia so wrote my article by taking help of different sources as i have an assignment for my college. If i write by my own then nobody is going to trust it so i took the help of different scholarly journals. So i request you to add back article on my sandbox i wont publish that on the wikipedia i'll just keep that for me. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivanshpatel312 (talkcontribs) 19:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Shivanshpatel312,
Do you have the name of the page that was deleted? I'm pretty sure that I deleted the redirect to the draft page that was deleted by another admin. But it would help to have a link to the page so I could check out the page history. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 14:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Red links to deleted categoriesEdit

Hi Liz, I confess that I have a longstanding bee in my bonnet about red links caused by deletions. Years ago I expanded the section of WP:CFDAI on checking backlinks when deleting categories via CFD, following similar requirements re AfD etc.

It's just dawned on me that CFDAI doesn't explicitly cover speedy deletions under WP:C1.

As you process a lot of those, may I ask, do you normally check backlinks when deleting empty categories?

This has come to my attention because another editor pointed out the deletion of Category:Ancient Germanic history and culture as empty on 11 September 2019, still linked from Category:Germanic history.

Pardon me bothering you if you normally do check but that one slipped past as an oversight. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Fayenatic,
This is probably the most polite request I've ever gotten! Of course, I can be more thorough checking backlinks. At least half of the pages I delete are broken redirects caused by admins who don't check "What links here" before deleting draft pages so I know how very common it is.
As for CSD C1 deletions I'll admit that I thought if another category was linked to an empty category, then the category would not have been empty in the first place. And categories usually have little content on the page itself so I didn't consider instances as in the example you mention. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Liz Read! Talk! 15:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I always think it's a big ask, to request a volunteer to do even more work!  
Thank you for accepting this cheerfully.
Is there anywhere other than WP:DGFA that this could be documented, for the benefit of others who work on speedy deletions? – Fayenatic London 22:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that answer. The most active deleters sometimes even forget to delete the talk page. I don't know how to slow them down to check for "What links" here. This used to be one of my pet peeves (admins not checking rationale for deleting tagged pages, much less links) but I've learned to accept it and restore pages if I think there are severe missteps. My efforts to try to change the behavior of people who have been admins for a decade or more have mostly been unsuccessful. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Concept cars and its future aspectsEdit

The name of my article was concept cars and its future aspects. I request you to add by article in my sandbox so i can just fix it as i am doing an assignment for my college. Thank you Shivanshpatel312 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Shivanshpatel312,
I think it had a different name but I have to go through my deletion log and track it down. As I think I said, I'm very sure that I deleted the redirect from your sandbox to the article or article draft and I didn't delete the article or article draft itself. But I'll track down the details and let you know. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Shivanshpatel312,
I have the details of that page deletion but I think I will post them on your user talk page so you are more likely to see them than here. Sorry for the delay. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Category notificationEdit

Hi Liz. A few months ago you asked if I wanted you to tick the notification box when deleting categories I'd created. Apologies for the slow reply - I've had much Wikitime of late, but you're right in thinking that it's not necessary. As you can probably tell almost all my category creation is for other people from Special:WantedCategories and the like. While I am fairly ruthless about a lot of them I tend to err on the side of creating marginal ones, even those I think are 60:40 not to be created, just so that they are "out there" and can have more eyes on them. So yep, I'm fine with not hearing about their deletion. <g> Thanks for all the tireless work you do, I know how thankless the category work can be. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Le Deluge. I used to not notify category creators about speedy tagging until one creator got very upset and brought the matter to ANI and now I err on the side of notification. But I assume most prolific category creators like yourself aren't attached to individual categories and are responding to requests for categories, not creating categories to support articles you are working on. I don't like cluttering up user talk pages with unnecessary notices so I'll refrain from posting them on your talk page, at least for CSD C1 cases. You might also alert UnitedStatesian who also tags a lot of empty categories as well. Thanks again for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019Edit

Category:Articles by type of contributorEdit

Did you look at the CFD? No one is arguing to keep this. G7 applies. Thanks. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We usually do not delete categories by a G7. And it does no good to delete a category while it contains subcategories (that contain thousands of pages) that must be redirected. You'd have red link categories. Let CfD handle this. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


Hello Liz,

I noticed that you informed Lmatt that a category they had created was up for speedy deletion. I have blocked this editor several times and since being unblocked, they have gone on a spree of Hotcat editing. There is a discussion on my talk page about this matter. I am rarely involved in category discussions and have no experience with Hotcat. Would you be willing to look into these recent edits and express your opinion? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, I'll visit your talk page when I get back to my computer tonight. It's not unusual for relatively new editors to go overboard creating categories. It's a problem when it interferes with the existing category structure which, after 18 years, is pretty set at this point. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
They registered in 2005 and have edited heavily although sporadically since 2011, logging close to 10,000 edits. I had warned them to steer clear of controversial editing at the time of their last block. Since their block expired about a week ago, they have made roughly 750 edits. Most were to controversial categories, but others were to highly controversial topics such as transgender and TERF issues, assault rifles, serial rape, prostitution and pornography. I am very concerned about this editor but want other administrators to take a close look, because the editor has criticized me forcefully several times, accusing me of bias. I do not consider myself involved because all of my interactions with this editor have been as an administrator. But I want to be cautious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstart for you!Edit

  The Teamwork Barnstar
For your help cleaning up the fallout from the Portal:Contents move. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
You'd be the third half of the half barnstar I gave El C and JJMC89. Since 3 halves is improper I hope you don't mind a teamwork barnstar. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Not at all! Liz Read! Talk! 16:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Manika KaurEdit

Hi, have moved this article back to mainspace because it passes WP:GNG and was approved by an admin (David Gerard) who unsalted the title, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Atlantic306. I was just fixing the broken redirects. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Liz".