User talk:Star Mississippi#top

@Star Mississippi - I came across a WaPo article about a WWI veteran who lived to 107. At the time of his death, he was one of approximately 50 WWI vets still alive. Not the oldest, as there was a vet of age 114 still living. The article gives his interesting life story. His notability would be (1) living in 3 centuries, from 1898 to 2005; (2) one of approximately 50 WWI vets alive; and (3) the oldest WWI vet in Texas.

Question: Do you think an article would pass Wikipedia notability standards?

• Washington Post article: {{cite news|accessdate=March 28, 2025 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2006/01/22/past-a-century-veteran-stayed-inquisitive/045ebcff-9875-46e8-849d-8ea0ce3d2d02/

|title=Past a Century, Veteran Stayed Inquisitive |first=Joe |last=Holley|date=January 21, 2006

|newspaper=Washington Post}}

— ERcheck (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! Sorry my on wiki time has been limited but I'll look at this ASAP. Star Mississippi 13:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't forgotten. I will try to get to your request this week Star Mississippi 02:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @ERcheck

:Apologies for the ridiculous delay. I know the discussions around supercenterians have been frought, but you present a good case here. I don't think it's a slam dunk yes, but based on what I saw and what I know of your writing, I'd !vote keep should someone bring it to AfD. There's some results clutter around [https://www.fairfaxmemorialfuneralhome.com/obituaries/Colonel-Kenneth-A-Myers-PhD?obId=23273993 this younger Ken Myers] but I see enough on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 00:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for checking it out. FYI, the younger Ken Myers you mentioned is not directly related to the 107-year-old vet, as far as I can tell. — ERcheck (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

At User talk:82.42.38.65#Proof via credits. I feel a partial block at least is required. DareshMohan (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for flagging @DareshMohan and @Izno for handling as I was offline Star Mississippi 02:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}}

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

We've previously discussed said subject matter months ago and I noticed you again reverted the article. It should be noted that my changes are all sourced from the primary sources listed in the citations throughout the page. The infobox is a vital part of any individual's wikipedia article and I believe that my edit should be wholly reinstated.

Thank you,

R. Clarke Robertclarke32 (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:the information about his religion and multiple charges is not in the article. He is a BLP and as we discussed, it cannot be added if it's not suitable. If you continue to add it, you will lose access Star Mississippi 03:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::The information about his religion and ethnic background is indeed in the article. In the third citation, https://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/features/12193/ a line highlights his religious affiliation, " says Jason, “I would have been the greatest Richie Rich, because Lenny Sylk is the biggest thing in the Jewish community. He’s got a trust that gives money to stuff like the ballet, a house with an eighteen-car garage, and a helicopter landing pad. Golda Meir used to stay with us when she was in town.”" Lenny Sylk is his father, and his mother, who was also of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, as shown in the obituary for her late father. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/classified/paid-notice-deaths-lubell-nathan-nate.html

::In the obituary the funeral was held by Gutterman and Musicant Jewish Funeral Directors.

::In addition to this, his multiple charges is also covered in the NY Times article which is the second citation within the article, https://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/features/12193/

::"Since being revealed as a pimp... convicted the next year of attempting to promote prostitution, Mr. Itzler has repeatedly referred to himself in media interviews as a pimp and commented on the latest headline-grabbing prostitution cases.", and "He was indicted last summer on charges that he provided a prostitute to a customer... Mr. Itzler, prosecutors have said, visited the room twice and sold $4,700 worth of cocaine to the customer.", and finally, "Mr. Itzler pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution, criminal sale of a controlled substance and money laundering, and agreed to a minimum prison sentence of four years."

::All information I added was not only suitable, but backed by prior citations linked to the wikipedia page. As I continue to attest to the fact that an infobox is not only a common but widely utilized element of many individual wikipedia articles I again request for you to reinstate my prior revision to the article. If you'd like, I could even add additional citations to my changes if that's more accommodating. Robertclarke32 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In addition to this, you also stated "Hi, apologies for the delay as I have been and am still mostly offline. You're welcome to reinstate the infobox."

:::Star Mississippi 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Now, I understand if you changed your mind but I'd again highly appreciate if you'd be willing to let this simple infobox get implemented alongside the very minor changes in the body of the article which I added according to the prior citations. Robertclarke32 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi again @Robertclarke32

:::You are using original research and synthesis to draw conclusions from sources, which is not allowed especially for a BLP. You're welcome to add the infobox as long as it is free of controversial information. Continued efforts to discuss religion and number of charges is in appropriate. I'd suggest a talk page discussion first to establish consensus, but will not remove the infobox should you choose to readd it within applicable guidelines Star Mississippi 21:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Done.

::::Removed the parts deemed inappropriate and readded the infobox accordingly Robertclarke32 (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No issue with any of your edits @Robertclarke32. I wish there was a better source than the Post for the OD, but it is what it is. Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I just found out that he was recently charged with making a terroristic threat and two charges of criminal contempt. I am unsure whether to add this or not as he hasn't been convicted of said charges yet. (https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/Detail?which=charge&docketNumber=gwMYjZ/NbWlPZxTDuhP5pA==&countyId=wTDNnHf/UHIgYlsGmMChHQ==&docketId=5GABnfgrxvGFE3Xs4_PLUS_V0_PLUS_w==&docketDseq=T/O1YN_PLUS_BG65HkOeqEnpAkw==&defendantName=Itzler,+Jason&court=Kings+Criminal+Court&courtType=U&recordType=U&recordNum=)

::::::When and if convicted, would it be acceptable to add it to the article amongst his other prior charges? Robertclarke32 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think per WP:PERP it's best to wait until the conviction happens, if it does. Contempt of court seems thin on its own, but that's just my opinion as a fellow editor. Star Mississippi 00:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Please use Talk:Elbridge_Colby#WP:EL to keep the discussion about the link usage centralized Star Mississippi 14:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

:Star Mississippi, you locked the Elbridge Colby page and restored it to previous version by David Gerard. David Gerard removed these three links in the external links section of the page without giving any valid reason:

• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/18/taiwan-ukraine-support-russia-china/ The United States should prioritize Taiwan over Ukraine], a 2023 opinion piece by Colby and Alex Velez-Green in The Washington Post
• [https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-tragedy-of-foreign-policy-realism/ The Tragedy of Foreign-Policy Realism] by Malcom Kyeyune
• [https://www.multi-polarity.com/episodes/episode/4305ed8b/twitter-spaces-the-realism-debates-malcom-kyeyune-tinkzorg-and-elbridge-colby Elbridge Colby on Multipolarity Podcast]

I RESTORED those links. I asked David Gerard why he removed the three links. He couldn't give valid reasons. Now you are siding with David Gerard. I want to know why. I didn't ADD NEW info into the page. I RESTORED previous deleted info that were deleted without valid reasons. Why I am vandal? The person that deleted info wasn't me, it was David Gerard. 138.75.27.166 (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tpw}}: WP:ELNO - those links are not supposed to be in the external links section. Vestrian24Bio 08:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I asked Star Mississippi, I didn't ask you. The three links are not fan sites, how do they violate ELNO? I don't understand. Can you clarify for me?138.75.27.166 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:If those links are usable, they should be references. External Links is not meant to be a collection of podcasts, opinion pieces. @David Gerard was correct in removing them and you were edit warring. If you continue to do so when the protection expires, you will be blocked. Anyone is welcome to respond, and I particularly appreciate @Vestrian24Bio doing so as I was offline. Star Mississippi 14:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::"Anyone is welcome to respond, and I particularly appreciate..."

::YOU were the one that locked the Elbridge Colby page, Star Mississippi, I prefer YOU coming out to respond. I am confused when others respond, they were NOT the ones who LOCKED the page. You understand or not Star Mississippi? I want to hear the reason coming out of the mouth of the person who locked the page175.156.138.32 (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::What wiki rules do those links violate exactly? Quote me something. Can you quote me something or not? Your reasoning is very weak Star Mississippi. David Gerard is correct how? I asked him for valid reasons and he can't even give me anything. You also can't give me anything.

No one can give me anything. David Gerard is correct because you said he is correct? That is your ridiculous reason star Mississippi?

175.156.138.32 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Star Mississippi, you think you are correct, then open your mouth and quote me some solid wiki rules.175.156.138.32 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:The United States should prioritize Taiwan over Ukraine, a 2023 opinion piece by Colby and Alex Velez-Green in The Washington Post

:The Tragedy of Foreign-Policy Realism by Malcom Kyeyune

:Elbridge Colby on Multipolarity Podcast

:These three links above, WHAT WIKI rules do they violate Star Mississippi? Do you even know?175.156.138.32 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::If you believe they're eligible as references, please use them as such. Do not continue to edit war and dump them into external links. We do not need or want a collection of materials by a subject and it's on you to show why these three are needed. Currently consensus is against you. Re: others responding, that is frequently how conversations happen and it's welcome. Star Mississippi 12:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So you mean to say you can't quote ANY Wiki rules? It's all based on whim? And I am labelled as a "vandal"? DAVID GERARD of all people - also cannot give me any sort of valid reasons to delete those links - is correct? What kind of crap is that Star Mississippi? 175.156.138.32 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Vestrian24Bio, David Gerard and I have all explained, including WP:ELNO

::::That you disagree doesn't change the situation. Star Mississippi 13:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::More than vandalism, it's malicious vandalism. The frequency on en.wiki of such pov-pushing shapeshifters is precisely why semi-protection is such an essential wikitool. Using shifting IPs this person has repeatedly made direct personal attacks on David Gerard in edit summary (some of which I was forced to redact); these edits over several days demonstrate they do not appear to arguing from a motivation of trying to improve the pedia. I don't see them relaxing their stridency here. BusterD (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::lol. You talk so righteously. What wiki rule can you quote to delete the three links? I want to see. lol. Nothing but a load of rubbish from you BusterD. 175.156.138.32 (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This discussion is not productive and we're going in circles. Please move on, IP. Star Mississippi 13:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How to move on like that? There is no justification for deleting the three links. I am labelled a "vandal" by the likes of BusterD. How to move on like that? 175.156.138.32 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::There are channels available to you if you disagree with the protection. My Talk page is not one of them since you do not wish to listen to the answers. You can either request lessening at WP:RFPP or if you believe my decision was wrong, WP:AARV. Beware of boomerangs for the latter though. Star Mississippi 13:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Very well. I am ready to meet things half way. By the way, you may not know, but this dispute was already resolved when David Gerard also suggested to use the three links as "ref" in the body of the article. I naively believed in David Gerard and used one the link as "ref" in the article. But David Gerard was not sincere. Once things cooled down a bit he immediately made up a pretext and removed the link that I used as "ref". This current round was started by David Gerard, not by me. I was angry when everybody sided with David Gerard despite the fact that he instigated the entire thing. I need guarantees that once I use the links as "ref", David Gerard will not pull his old tricks and delete them.175.156.138.32 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::IP 175: There are no guarantees anywhere (on this project, in life). But edit warring definitely won't solve it. You still have access to the article's Talk page. Use it to discuss the links with all of the editors engaged on the page and come to a consensus. Please stop describing others' edits as rubbish and crap. It is not productive. Star Mississippi 14:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Very well. This will be my last reply here. If David Gerard removes the link that I will be using as "ref", I will refer the matter back here.175.156.138.32 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::While I welcome any good faith questions, please use Talk:Elbridge_Colby#WP:EL so everyone interested in the discussion can participate. Star Mississippi 14:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Explained what? No one explained anything to me. There are 19 points in the ELNO page:

{{hat|copypasta}}

:::::Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page.

:::::Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

:::::Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.

:::::Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming.

:::::Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article should not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.

:::::Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See § Sites requiring registration.

:::::Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country.

:::::Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See § Rich media for more details.

:::::Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.

:::::Shortcut

:::::WP:NOSOCIAL

:::::Social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Facebook Groups or email lists).

:::::Shortcut

:::::WP:NOBLOGS

:::::Blogs, personal web pages, and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

:::::Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.

:::::Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.

:::::Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers, or customers.

:::::Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.

:::::Sites that are not reliably functional or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time (e.g., Instagram Stories).

:::::Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.

:::::External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages.

:::::Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.

{{hab}}

:::::The three links violated which rule How they did violate? What is the proof? Where is the evidence?175.156.138.32 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::At this point, 175.156.138.32 has disqualified all of their many shifting IPs by personalizing every discussion they're in. Nobody cares what their opinion is, because they haven't themselves valued it sufficiently. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I don't know if she's Wikipedia notable but this lady is fascinating! I would love to interview her. I had a heck of a time tracking down who she is with various name changes and such.

I've also been cranking out some drafts on Mississippi related subjects that would be great to have help on:

• Draft:Prentiss Institute
• Draft:Eliza Pillars

:* {{ping|FloridaArmy}} I made a few edits/expanded. — ERcheck (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Draft:David Leo Green
• Draft:Isiah Fredericks
• Draft:Eddie James Carthan (needs work)
• Draft:Charles Bernard Sheppard
• Draft:Philip West
• Draft:Barney Schoby
• Draft:Clayton P. Henderson
• Draft:Palmers Crossing

FloridaArmy (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for all of these. My on wiki time is still hit or miss, but will look as soon as I can. Flag away. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the AN thread, but that's not what I was looking for. The reason I posted to AN rather than ANI is because I want help addressing the issue of sporadically active mass deletions. I think it's a LTA problem, designed to fly under SPI radar, that needs more eyes and more brains than just today's account. How do I get people interested in the (potential, but I'd say probable) bigger/subtler problem, rather than fixing the bright and shiny obvious problem from today? Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Jclemens

:I have no issue with you reopening it, but I think your framing here is better than there where several of us misread your post as thinking today's nom was an LTA under the same patterns when they turned out to be an editor with some poorly thought out noms. I'd actually suggest Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy or maybe one of the Village Pumps? There is a broader problem of mass noms, of which this is one type, as is a flood of songs on last Saturday's log. This was touched on in User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_21#AFDLand because the issue is we don't have enough input and these floods make the problem worse. Is this helpful? Star Mississippi 00:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Those are great suggestions, thanks. I'm afraid I don't keep track of as many different moving parts of Wikipedia as I used to. And no, reopening wouldn't likely be as helpful as looking into an alternate venue that's less decisive and more deliberative. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Less decisive and more deliberative is the perfect phrasing and need because I think we (as a community) aren't sure what the answer is. Pinging @OwenX and @SportingFlyer if they have any ideas as they've had some good input on current state of AfD. Star Mississippi 01:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the ping, Star! Low effort mass nominations should be recognized for their disruptive nature, and treated like any other form of disruption. WP:SK already addresses such nominations, but only on an individual basis. We like to separate content forums from conduct ones, but when an AfD is closed as Speedy keep per SK criteria #1 through #4, the closer should take a quick look to see if it was part of a mass nom campaign, and issue a warning or a project space block. Our policies already allow this, but it may be helpful to add a few words to WP:SK about it, and maybe create some user talk page templates specific to this type of warning and block. I mostly deal with the AfD backlog area, so I rarely see fresh ones. {{u|Jclemens}}, you are good with legislative wordsmithing. Perhaps try a BOLD addition to WP:SK? RFCs rarely get anywhere these days. Owen× ☎ 11:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ok, see Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep#Low-effort mass nominations for a start. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::As is often the case with such RfCs, your proposal isn't judged based on whether it offers an incremental improvement, but whether it solves every possible problem we now have that anyone can think of. Sigh... Owen× ☎ 22:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh I see that picked up steam. I'll have a look later this week as I'm still mostly offline. Star Mississippi 00:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the ping! I've been on a bit of a wikibreak, but I agree - mass nominations without any effort are pretty clear and should generally be avoided. I'll look at the talk page though! SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the above-noted mass AfD nominations. Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285308190 this comment of yours], would you please consider also speedy-keeping Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MULE (also no !votes yet, and I'm pretty sure there has been coverage in reliable sources) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RefTeX (a keep !vote from me, but when the article was nominated it already had two references to independent sources with significant coverage, and I've since added two more)? —Psychonaut (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Psychonaut

:I just closed RefTeX as I must have missed that in their contributions, thanks for flagging. I have an issue with their spree, but on eyeing MULE, they may well be right. Or at least it's less obviously problematic sine sourcing is just to a conference paper. Searching is obviously a challenge given name, but if you find something I'm happy to speedy close it. I similarly left a couple of others i.e. The Witches of Breastwick, but have no issue if someone else opts to action or mass revert their noms. Star Mississippi 00:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I'm sure I remembered reading a lot about MULE 30 years ago, but it's hard to find online sources that old. Nonetheless, I did turn up an independently authored journal article and a book, as well as two peer-reviewed conference papers by the MULE authors, and mentioned these in the AfD. Perhaps you could have another look? —Psychonaut (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you, @Psychonaut. Looked and closed.

:::(I guess we're both sufficiently old, although this one wasn't one I stumbed on that I recall) Star Mississippi 02:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks so much! —Psychonaut (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :Sikh–Wahhabi War. 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. AlvaKedak (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you @AlvaKedak. I'll respond there to keep it central Star Mississippi 01:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You've deleted Better Than You Bay Bay, an article that was listed at AfD with the only discussion being Support by @HHH Pedrigree. I'm not sure if it's really vaild to delete an article like that without really a consensus being made- i suggest you undelete the article and close the AfD as a no consensus instead. TzarN64 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:The AfD was opened for two whole weeks. NOW, you want a consensus, after two weeks??--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's not really fair to just delete a article with only 1 participant. There was not enough consensus made to lead to that decision just yet. TzarN64 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is completely routine at AFD and normal. You'd be better off gathering sources to prove that the AFD missed something regarding WP:N. It's not about 'fairness', it's about a lack of notability being established. -- ferret (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Ferret for stepping in while I was offline.

:@TzarN64 if you believe my close was incorrect, not simply that you disagree, you're welcome to file a Deletion Review. There was no one supporting retention after two weeks, and no indication further input was forthcoming. That is a delete outcome, not a no consensus. I second Ferret's recommendation to find sourcing and improve the article so that it's not subject to G4 if you opt to restore it. But as I said, you're welcome to use DRV. Star Mississippi 01:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Im extremely grateful you closed that an thread i am at whits end and was slowlyl falling apart you probably prevented me from doing something extremely stupid •Cyberwolf•. talk? 01:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:You're welcome @Cyberwolf. Please log off and take care of yourself. Star Mississippi 01:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::They are accusing me of sock puppetry now. I quit •Cyberwolf•. talk? 01:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure who "they" is @Cyberwolf, but I see @Rosguill and @Tamzin trying to help you, as well as @Liz. Please step back and take a break. Star Mississippi 02:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Star,

I hope you're doing well. Well it's my second time here that I have not recieved any email back from you. I did wrote one on April 7. Would you mind checking it out? Cheers! Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Please leave your notes here @Rejoy2003 or at the Help Desk if better. I don't check email frequently and this way someone else can help you without waiting for me. I'm unfortunately not an efficient source of help, and would prefer to discuss all matters on wiki for equity. Star Mississippi 02:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Is there any rule regarding the colouring of tables in Wikipedia (tables means top of the tables — the headings)? XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is not an area I'm familiar with @XYZ 250706. Please ask at the Help Desk or Teahouse. Star Mississippi 00:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We've got a problem at Cumulative density function on which I'd appreciate your advice, as the closer of the recent AfD. {{u|Trovatore}} has pointed out that all unsourced material must by policy be removed, and therefore takes great objection to the material that we added (largely material added by me and by {{u|Michael Hardy}} during the AfD). Trovatore is in favour of converting it to a simple redirect or disambig, and feels that without references, the article is trivial and should not be there. The difficulty is this:

• (1) The AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cumulative_density_function) specifically discussed the options of redirect, and was relisted by {{u|CycloneYoris}} specifically to discuss the additional text. Therefore, if we reduce it to a redirect or simple disambig, we are blatantly ignoring your closure and the consensus.
• (2) We can't take this to Deletion review because the problem is basically that Trovatore doesn't like the outcome, not that you closed it wrongly or further evidence has come to light.
• (3) We can't re-open a new AfD straight after the old, for the same reason.
• (4) Redirect is absolutely not an option because several experienced editors rejected it at AfD, on the grounds that readers might be aiming at several different articles, this article's title being an incorrect portmanteau of several different names.
• (5) But if we make it a disambig with no text, how on earth do we write the wretched thing? We can't start "Cumulative density function may refer to..." because the mathematicians will all point out, quite correctly, that it cannot refer to any of those things because it doesn't exist (mathematicians are like that: very precise), and by writing "might refer to" we are expressing an incorrect view that the term is used by reliable sources to refer to those other concepts (which it isn't).
• (6) In fact worse still, Trovatore is quite reasonably insisting on reliable references stating that this is a common misunderstanding, which means we are doomed by the AfD to having a disambig about something that doesn't exist without being able to say it doesn't exist, because no one outside Wikipedia has said so (I can't find any evidence that the term actually exists except in the minds of confused students and the frustrations of their lecturers, neither of whom are not reliable sources).

Basically this is an AfD whose consensus outcome simply cannot be implemented. I don't know what to do. Is there an option to start over? Or do we just blank the wretched thing and reduce it to a redirect and hope no one objects? Any advice would be appreciated. Elemimele (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks @Elemimele! I'll respond at Talk:Cumulative_density_function#Disambiguation_pages_and_common_errors to keep it all central for all of us, and any further discussion. Star Mississippi 21:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

{{ping|Star Mississippi}}, The Air Force section of the Women in the Bangladesh Armed Forces article has an image which is saying that the female officer's photo is of 2016 but the last sentence of the section is written as 'This was the first time that women were recruited into the Bangladesh Air Force' - this sentence is saying about airmen's recruitment, here after the word 'recruited' as airmen should be added to avoid ambiguity as there is an image of an air force female officer of 2016. 37.111.196.145 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi IP 37. You're welcome to make an edit request on the Talk page. Thanks! Star Mississippi 19:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToadetteEdit&oldid=1287187037 this] violating unblock conditions? The whole thing was super complicated, but given you'd warned them I thought I'd ask you. — E_F⁵ 15:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:le sigh, yes. They are their own worst enemy @EF5. I have just further warned them. Star Mississippi 19:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ygm}} Netherzone (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It isn't really a technical issue. It is a workflow issue that usually appears for technical reasons. The Third Opinion request was on the queue, and two editors both responded to it at the same time before either of them took it off the queue. Because the two editors gave different Third Opinions, so that one of them was a Fourth Opinion, there was confusion. The way out of the confusion is an RFC.

I am still not sure what the Original Poster thinks the conduct issue is, but I think that there is rough consensus that there isn't a conduct issue anyway.

It was a workflow issue, with two editors volunteering for an open task at the same time, and causing confusion because they offered different answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! I don't recall exactly what this is about and apologize that it has taken me a few days to respond. Unfortunately if further action is needed, I'm probably not able to help. Apologies. Star Mississippi 12:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi, I know it's been a while, but can you please consider a page block from the article Grand Forks Border Bruins for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B042Cody&diff=prev&oldid=1287871446 this user who stated they are part of the organization's "media staff"]? They have been warned on their talk page, and have also been persistently edit-warring in their preferred content; see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Forks_Border_Bruins&action=history page history]. Any assistance would be appreciated. Left guide (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I replied there to keep it central, but wanted to drop a note here @Left guide to apologize for the delay. Always happy to help, but haven't been able to spend much time here. I anticipate that changing in June most likely. Star Mississippi 12:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi! Thank you again for your earlier input on my draft article for Sachiko Hayashi. I’ve now completed the full version and posted a note on the talk page here: Draft:Sachiko Hayashi. If you have time to take a look and share your thoughts, I’d really appreciate it. Sachikosky (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Sachikosky, unfortunately my time is limited but I'll have a look when I'm able to. Star Mississippi 12:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you @Star Mississippi I understand. I've done some volunteer work myself, so I completely understand how limited time can be. Thanks for getting back to me. Sachikosky (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, so I understand that you blocked the above mentioned user from mainspace a few days ago and their ANI thread was archived without resolution. I noticed earlier another account {{no ping|Brandon0504}}, who edits in the same areas (buses and trains in the UK), and has similar behaviour to the TL9027 account (for example similar way of naming files on Commons and uses the same phone model to take photos [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBL_BE37010_C1.jpg TL9027] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBL_BCE47020_R94.jpg Brandon0504] and then adding the images to their wiki pages in spite of the previous one having better quality Special:Diff/1288229455). I'm not familiar with the sockpuppet policies, but do you think this would be enough evidence of the user evading the block? And also about the ANI thread, should we un-archive it and add more input considering it ended without a conclusive outcome? Thanks, S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 01:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)