User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 21#AFDLand

{{atop

| result = Answered at @Wwew345t‘s Talk to keep the discussion central. Star Mississippi 18:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Was told to come to the closing admin i would like to express my concern that the page should not be deleted on two baisis survivor winners usally had pages all of them did infact until one user (george ho) nominated several of them for deleltion ignoring the years of predecnxe because of his own opinion and the keep votes outwietj the merge votes the point is the nominater is biased Wwew345t (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

As you were the nom. on the first AfD, you may be interested that the merge is now complete on this page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schengen_Cloud&redirect=no] following the second AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the merger and the headsup @Sirfurboy. Much appreciated. Star Mississippi 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Morning and Happy new year. Please forgive my ignorance as I am new to editing. I have recently joined a company called Verne. I have been updating our Wikipedia page as it was marked for deletion. I updated the page before Christmas and have just seen that it was deleted on the 28th. Please can you help me understand the steps I can take to have the page restored. I am keen to make the page informational about our company and the work we are doing in the space of sustainable data centres.

Many Thanks,

Al Jenkins Al Jenkins at Verne (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Al Jenkins at Verne and apologies for the delay in my response. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verne Global was that Verne Global does not meet the criteria we have for companies to be considered notable. What we’d need is what other sources say about Verne. These should have a certain depth to them, not just acquisitions and mission related work.

:Thank you for noting your relationship to Verne, please read WP:COI for how you should note that on your page. If you believe my reading of the discussion was incorrect (not just that you disagree), you’re welcome to file a deletion review but I think that’s unlikely to succeed. Normally I’d offer this to you in Draft space so you can improve it and then submit it to WP:AfC, but I am unable to do so for tech reasons I’m dealing with that have nothing to do with your inquiry. So I’m pinging two other admins: @ScottishFinnishRadish @DoubleGrazing (any other TPS also welcome) to see if they’re willing or able to help in the mean time. DG also edits in AfC and may be able to help you there as well. I’m happy to help more fully next week when I return to full editing, but happy to try and answer any questions in the meantime. Star Mississippi 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. Yes, I'm happy to restore this to drafts on the conditions that @Al Jenkins at Verne

::#makes a prompt paid-editing disclosure (I've posted instructions on their talk page);

::#agrees to put the draft through AfC review and not attempt to move it back to the main article space themselves; and

::#after re-publication (assuming?) complies with WP:COI editing rules, incl. but not only by making edit requests rather than editing the article directly.

::That said, the deleted article will require a wholesale rewrite, because it is currently written entirely from the company's point of view and not based on summary of independent and reliable secondary sources as would be required by WP:NCORP. For that reason it is debatable how much use restoring it actually would be. Nevertheless, my offer stands per above. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @DoubleGrazing for the excellent advice here. I'm partially back on line

:::@Al Jenkins at Verne please let either of us know if we can help further. Star Mississippi 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

During the unban request, Drbogdan linked [https://drbogdan.livejournal.com his livejournal account]. If you follow that through, it's clear he's using wikipedia as a webhost still by calling a historical version of the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drbogdan&direction=prev&oldid=1232617906 "my profile"]. I don't know if this is a case for deleting a userpage history for abuse? Or if he's found a bit of a loophole to WP:NOTWEBHOST in this case. Or if nobody particularly cares, I suppose. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Warrenmck. My reading is that is more likely applied to editors without a history. Whether Dr. B's can be considered productive or not, he has as history. I may be wrong on that and you're welcome to flag it for broader look. Thanks for flagging in either case. Star Mississippi 18:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

{{np|Petsy916}} moved your user page to theirs. I'm not entirely certain how to undo that move without accidentally breaking things, so I'll leave it to you. If you actually control that account (I'm all but certain you don't), feel free to lift the block on that account. --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Yamla and @Cryptic for the block and clean up. Not sure how I made that new friend. Star Mississippi 14:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You closed this AFD as a redirect - except he is not mentioned on the new target page and likely never will be, given his minor association with the club... GiantSnowman 12:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'd be fine with it being deleted at RfD, or him being mentioned.

:Do you think I closed it incorrectly? Happy to relist to save bureaucracy Star Mississippi 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

draft:Ramkripalyadavg_(YouTuber) Please correct it and submit it 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have no interest in editing this draft. Please respect consensus. cc @Bonadea Star Mississippi 15:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Oh wow, that's fascinating musical history. Thanks, as always, for sharing your insight and for including me this month @Gerda Arendt Star Mississippi 14:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Thank you! - Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:: ... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, friend. Music has such power of healing, which the world very much needs right now. Be well Star Mississippi 19:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: Thank you, - yes! - Today is Schubert's birthday. I added a pic of music-making to his article (and my story) and raised a question on the talk, regarding the lead image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

What I wanted was for the template to be changed to a softer tone of voice.

As it is: "Please stop." (Full sentence)

Proposed edit: "Please stop ..." (Expand sentence beyond the word stop.)

I would've done this but the template is protected so that only admins can edit it. style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the clarification @CyberTheTiger. Unfortunately this is not an edit I can implement due to tech limitations in my current set up. Star Mississippi 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::aren't you an admin of Wikipedia? style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I am, but I have been editing primarily on mobile, which has its limitations. Please get consensus for your requested change and if no admin is watching, file an edit request. As I read the discussion, there is not yet broad support for your change. Star Mississippi 01:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again @CaptainEek for [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1271355808 this fix], and @Daniel for one forever ago on DRV. Do you two or any other TPS know how to properly do single quotation marks on an iPad? I’ve tried to use it to complement my otherwise typical non availability when away from my desktop, but I seem more limited than I expected (no scripts, etc.) Thanks! Star Mississippi 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Funnily enough that correction was mostly accidental. At first I thought it was my oppose vote and I'm like oh that's weird why did the formatting do that, so I corrected it. Then I saw it was your oppose vote, and was like well...they'll probably appreciate it :) Can't say I use apple devices so not sure how to fix that... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::Very much appreciated, but hate when editors have to clean up after me. Thank you! And yes, we seem to be in the minority. I was going to ask @Cullen328 for their help, but they use (or reference, in their essay) a device I’m not familiar with Star Mississippi 19:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I use Android phones and Windows computers. Sorry, I am not an Apple guy except when it comes to pie and the Beatles. Cullen328 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Go to Settings on the iPad, then tap General. Now tap Keyboard and slip the slider to off on Smart Punctuation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you so much @Sirfurboy. Or perhaps thank you since I can drop dropping reverse quotation marks all over the place. Much appreciated.

:::::@Cullen328 I'm an Apple person, but new to iPad world. My desktop doesn't do that, or I turned it off years ago and forgot how. Star Mississippi 21:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tpw}} Don't know about the iPad, but on iPhone I'd press and hold the (slanted) single quote in the 123 menu to get other options including the straight one. Same method works to get n-dash instead of hyphen, accented versions of vowels and so on. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you! I knew that for accented letters, but not for punctuation.

:::::::I've turned them off for now but will mind that if I need it for other things on the iPad I'm not yet aware of. Star Mississippi 13:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Bed of crocus, Ehrenbach.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

On the main page today, 300 years after its first performance, Bach's cantata BWV 125, - a lovely very intimate piece, with peace and joy in the title. Enjoy listening with score - I discovered that only now! - Today is also the birthday of James Joyce, who has an article by many authors. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

today: a German-born Spanish art collector, - the video in her honour is remarkable, as what she gave the world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I find today's birthday child particularly inspiring, by enthusiasm and determination. That was - believe it or not - a pictured DYK in 2021, without the last line though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Today's story is about Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart. The video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Today's is about an opera singer on her 35th birthday, - don't miss the short video which shows her in movement, - they had a Japanese movement coach for the production that impressed me in 2022. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2804:D45:963E:EF00:C992:D0BE:A203:E82D has been putting in fake death dates on a number of BLPs without sources. Looks like vandalism. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks! From @Ponyo's block of {{iplinks|2804:D45:9682:1B00:51F2:A409:79BE:768F}} and same targets, guessing they're not the only two. Ponyo, feel free to take the one@Zenomonoz reported over. It was a stopgap block and then I saw the other one. Star Mississippi 03:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::I've soft blocked 2804:D45:9600:0:0:0:0:0/40 for a year. If you look at the contribs related to time and dates from that range going back to 2021, it's mostly this same editor. Account creation is enabled to help limit any collateral. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, as always @Ponyo. Slowly learning ranges. Star Mississippi 02:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi -- Could I ask you to take another look at this? I believe the editor is good faith, and they would not be the first to be wound up by overenthusiastic interpretations of the medical project's guideline on reliable sources. One of the sources that is being questioned is a book from Springer, another a journal from Wiley -- while they might not be ideal medical sources for the uses in question, we are not talking someone adding medical content sourced from blogs, popular newspapers or even research papers. The copyright issue seems to be from 2022 and I think they do now understand that they are not allowed to copy material to Wikipedia, even if it is widely copied around the net. At heart this seems to be a content dispute pursued on one side by (over-)stringent interpretations of MEDRS, and on the other by exasperation resulting in incivility. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for your note @Espresso Addict. I'm going to respond there to keep it central, but appreciate the flag as I somehow missed their last post despite the ping and my using them. Silly gremlins! Star Mississippi 02:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Let me know if you'd prefer me to shift this to a proper SPI. For now, I've put it in the present discussion. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Zenomonoz that's a question to be definitively answered by an SPI clerk. I think it's better for record keeping,but it will be a behavioral analysis as the prior accounts you identified (thank you) will be too stale for CU. Star Mississippi 14:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there somebody/somewhere I should ask, or just leave it on ANI until that happens? Zenomonoz (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think your question/sub-section there is fine as is. Merging it now will probably need a tool any way. @Espresso Addict any particular thoughts? I'm not super active in SPI Star Mississippi 14:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't work in SPI at all, sorry. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks @Espresso Addict. @Zenomonoz it looks like Spicy weighed in with all needed information as far as an API and you and Moribundum have been in touch with ArbComm so probably as resolved as it's getting for now. Star Mississippi 16:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I didn’t contact ArbComm btw (am I supposed to?) Zenomonoz (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Apologies @Zenomonoz, I thought you had shared your findings. I'd recommend you emailing a permalink to that sub thread to them. You don't have to. Star Mississippi 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Will do. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::who should I email? Zenomonoz (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sorry, missed your prior. User:Arbitration Committee has the means of reaching out depending on whether you have email enabled. Star Mississippi 22:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inappropriate reasons for initial ban + admins refused to remove ban for non specific reasons despite evidence that it was inappropriate. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Tarlby for the heads up. I'll respond there to keep it central. Star Mississippi 01:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Not sure if this is an issue, but in their most recent unblock request on their talk page User talk:Moribundum they say they disclosed one account to ArbCom {{tq|"disclosed old account at arb com as requested"}}. During the ANI the user said they had multiple other accounts. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Zenomonoz

:::I don't think it's a major issue, but you're welcome to leave that on their Talk if you think it will be helpful to the reviewing admin. Star Mississippi 22:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Alright, I didn’t, but I did leave [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moribundum this] comment which Moribundum removed for harassment. Ultimately, it’s their talk page but normally in an unblock request others are allowed to comment. Ah well maybe I'll let it go. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think it's best to let it go for now unless you want to flag the reaction. Personally, I wouldn't, but you'd be within your right to so entirely your call @Zenomonoz Star Mississippi 14:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you - not only is it bad for blood pressure (so my doctor tells me), it also makes identifying repeated recreations more difficult. I would rather a sock recreated their latest attempt at recreating their vanity page at a title that had been deleted a dozen times, it makes it so much easier to notice. Between middle names, prfessional titles, disambiguators in parenthesis and whatever else, there's no way that salting can actually stop someone from recreating their spammy page - better to keep it all in one place in my opinion. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yep. Much easier to track.

:I know there are some instances where a title blacklist may help, but I'm not familiar enough with that to know if & when it would be a good outcome. Thanks for your assist on that AfD @Girth Summitas it helped put it to bed. Star Mississippi 21:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Star, how are you doing? I am still confused on your closure, although it's last year already, but I'd think that was a bad closure. Please revise Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @SafariScribe. Doing well thanks, and I hope the same for you. While I see your argument, the consensus here was against retention as participants were not convinced the guideline or sourcing was met. If you want to go to DRV, you're of course welcome but I think the easiest path here is to work on it in draft to allow you/other interested editors to find the sourcing and then move it back. Thoughts? Happy to draftify if you'd like. Star Mississippi 13:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Please could you refund P. Shanmugam (CPIM) as :Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM) so that it retains its edit history.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Toddy1. This is done. Noting here as I will at their talk, I have p-blocked the primary editor from editing the article. Another admin is welcome to consider but it is my opinion that nothing good will come from this. Star Mississippi 14:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hey, Consider deleting P. Shanmugam (CPIM) under WP:R2, and we have to ensure it doesn’t get moved to the main space without going through AfC. GrabUp - Talk 14:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the reminder. Now R2ed.

:::I think the p-block will prevent that @GrabUp but open to other suggestions. I want to leave it accessible if @Toddy1 or other editors are interested in working on it. Star Mississippi 14:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I am interested in doing a bit - but I am busy right now. Soman said that he/she would look at in a few weeks and do a bit - see User talk:Soman#Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM). Regarding AfC, I do not have a lot of faith in it - I once submitted an article for review - the reviewer took 3 minutes on mine and 3 minutes on the one he/she did before mine - doing it properly takes a lot longer than that. Luckily for the one before mine, someone else moved it from draft to mainspace and it is still there now.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::My on wiki time is never super consistent @Toddy1 but happy to help on AfC if I'm online when you need it. You or @Soman are welcome to ping me on this as well as I'm not watching the draft. Star Mississippi 16:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Star Mississippi}} Please could you review :Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM). Soman did most of the work improving it; I only helped a little. Do you think it is ready to move back to mainspace?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Good morning @Toddy1. I don't have time today, but I'll look at it as soon as I'm able. Feel free to ping another reviewer in the interim as well. Star Mississippi 13:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Can you please tell me how to nominate any article which has previously gone through AfD but survived it? XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @XYZ 250706! Assuming it has been at least six months, WP:AFDHOWTO, specifically "The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)", will guide you through. Twinkle will make that much easier if you use it. Star Mississippi 18:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Star Mississippi Thank you for the guidance. Can you please tell whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.L. Santhosh and B. L. Santhosh are related to same subject or not? XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::They are about the same person @XYZ 250706 but not eligible for WP:G4 as the article is much different to the one deleted in 2020. If you believe Santhosh still does not meet notability guidelines you're free to re-nominate without any issue. Star Mississippi 18:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I think there was another discussion regarding it : {{tlxs|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. L. Santhosh}}. So it should be third nomination, am I right? XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Star Mississippi Can you please frame the initial steps for nominating the deletion of the article? I will give reasoning centring Wikipedia policies. I am facing problems with this for being nominated multiple times. XYZ 250706 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::here you go @XYZ 250706 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. L. Santhosh (2nd nomination) Star Mississippi 19:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Star Mississippi Should I fill replacing your comment or after your comment? XYZ 250706 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::After my comment. Instead of !voting as you normally would, phrase it as Nomination statement or something similar to make it clear. (about to hop offline for a few hours so if anything time sensitive, ping the folks at teahouse Star Mississippi 19:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, you're correct @XYZ 250706.

::::What I'll do is make a procedural nomination and then you can fill it in. It will also show you the steps needed should you make another. Star Mississippi 19:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

After your final warning to this user not to be incivil, he left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HyperAccelerated&diff=prev&oldid=1276184375 this message] on HyperAccelerated's talk page, accusing him of having an "agenda". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:thanks for flagging @Helpful Raccoon (and also, wonderful handle!)

:Blocked. They're welcome to show they can be a part of the community in an unblock. Star Mississippi 20:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you both for handling this. Really appreciate it. :) HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been watching the campaign on commons to get pictures of the subject and his books uploaded, 100% of whcih are copyvios, and uploaded by two authors whom I have flagged for Commons sockpuppetry. I echo your critique of the article sufficient to send it to AfD. I am not asking you to comment there. If you do I have no intention of seeking to influence your opinion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:I've also filed an SPI. May be meat or UPE, but still... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks @Timtrent @UtherSRG I was cleaning out AfC in mainspace and didn't have time to look further than tagging it. I was surprised that their second edit was User_talk:Dream_Focus#Request_for_Assistance_with_Davi_Santiago_de_Souza's_Encyclopedia_Entry but figured DF may have been a mentor or something since that system sometimes makes for precocious edits. I am close to p-blocking them from the mainspace article, but perhaps they'll take your advice before that's needed @Timtrent. Star Mississippi 21:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I think we have turned their attitude around. I hope so. I deploy persistent and determined politeness, while never giving a millimetre 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDavi_Santiago_de_Souza&diff=1274741857&oldid=1274738302 These edits] show that I was premature in my hope and that I am mistaken.

::::Might I suggest a formal shot across the bows backed up by a promise of action if they do not desist. They are WP:NOTHERE so far. I have given them a clue that action may be heading their way on their talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've just p-blocked. Longer note on their Talk. Star Mississippi 00:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::A firm but fair outcome The behaviours had gone o more than long enough. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Timtrent @UtherSRG given @The Squirrel Conspiracy's note, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enzo Duart now exists. Unfortunaely I think we'll find more friends based too on your first comment here, Tim. Let me know if I'm missing any pieces. Star Mississippi 15:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think :Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davi Santiago de Souza is worth noticing. I left a comment on the one you just mentioned and will leave the converse comment on this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Ah, Sralidy is indeffed on ptWiki! Duck sock of Jessica 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::and it was Jessica's photo they just "found".

::::::::::Sorry for the SPI mess. Not sure how I missed yours. Star Mississippi 16:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It was Uther's. The clerks are used to it. Now they are alerted it is best left to them. We well meaning folk can cause an enormous mess with our goodwill.

:::::::::::Jessica's uploads now have permission requests. I like w:pt:WP:PATO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::And @PhilKnight just cleaned it up. Something about a knight to the rescue in there :D (thank you) Star Mississippi 16:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I requested global locks: meta:Steward requests/Global#Various socks and cross wiki spam - Lock all. They have been locked. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Yupyup. Here's how I (usually fail at) ensuring we don't make duplicate SPIs.... I do a "What links here" on both the sock and master's talk pages. If either are already on an SPI, then I know to use that SPI and not make a new one. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::thanks on that, and for putting an early end to that AfD.

:::::::::::::::I am in awe of the time and energy spammers have for this nonsense. Star Mississippi 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Yeah, I figure that was an appropriate use of WP:IAR. I try not to do that often, and I'm glad I chose the right time to do it. Yeah, I don't fully understand why these spammers work this hard for no gain. They must believe that they can get something past us... which means they probably have. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::@UtherSRG Ah, my friend, without them Wikipedia would be less fun. Look at the enjoyment this bunch have provided so far and doubtless will provide again. We can be Hercule Poirot from our keyboards. We can work as a loosely constituted ad hoc team.

:::::::::::::::::I think it was a snow close after removing socks, wasn't it? IAR is good, too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Fair enough... they do add some excitement. :D And you're right, SNOW applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely going to move in with my ninja star which was a similar type of "let's make it up" fun. Thanks, as always, for the help Owen! Star Mississippi 00:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Can you please mention any new page reviewer or source analyser in Wikipedia by the help of whom I can analyse sourcing of some political ideologies? XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! I don't think they edit much in politics @XYZ 250706, but @Cunard is among the best source analyzers I know. I dabble more in AFC, but I think @Robert McClenon may also be an NPP. He's definitely a good source reviewer as well. Either of them may have some recs as well. Star Mississippi 00:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::User:XYZ 250706 - Is there an article for which you would like a source analysis done? I mainly do source analyses in connection with Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Quick question regarding your closure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Locations_of_Shakespeare%27s_plays&diff=prev&oldid=1275414015 here]. What's "Atd" please? AndyJones (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, forget I asked. I've found it. Alternatives to deletion. I looked it up and got Awaken the Dragon, which didn't seem to follow!! AndyJones (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry for delay and thank you for reminder that we need to layoff acronym soup! Although dragons could be fun! Star Mississippi 18:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, AndyJones,

:::Wikipedia:Glossary is a helpful page to check for abbreviations although I had to add ATD to that list as it wasn't there. It's not comprehensive but it has a lot of commonly used terms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. Thanks both! AndyJones (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I'm not sure what is going on but it seems like these days we have even fewer editors participating in AFD discussions that normal which was low to begin with. Any idea of where we could go put out an appeal for more help? It's hard to find consensus when the only participant is a nominator and one person who has no opinion at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Liz. Sorry for the delay, you pinged just after I logged off. I'm not sure of the answer, although I do see the issue as well. There have been a lot more relists. Pinging @OwenX to see if they have any insight. And major kudos to both of you for the Trump adjacent closes. I couldn't. Happy to step up too where else needed. Star Mississippi 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is a serious problem. I keep finding myself more often having to bend our QUORUM rules just so I can close a triple-relisted AfD as something other than NC. One thing I'm trying to do more of is acknowledge by name in my closing statement those who put in the effort to do a proper source analysis. These people are the true heroes of AFDLand, and they need to see their efforts really make a difference.

::I can think of at least one AfD regular who is getting worn down seeing her well-thought-out and meticulously BEFOREd nominations of third-tier footballers and cricketers fail due to a couple of "Keep - he's famous around here" votes, or worse yet - return through the backdoor after a brief draftification sans-AfC.

::People want to see their work here making a difference and being recognized. Content creators get that by seeing the page they wrote thrive. AfD participants don't get such a direct feedback. We need to find a way to provide that positive feedback, or we'll keep losing our regular participants. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I disagree that we need to provide "positive feedback" at AfD, especially if we're talking about deleting something. In my experience, it's a lot harder to argue that something should be kept. We're just discussing whether something is notable enough for the project. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I never said the positive feedback should be limited to one side or the other. Whoever puts in the work to do a proper source analysis, whether !voting 'Keep' or 'Delete', should be recognized for their effort, regardless of the outcome. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree that it is harder to argue "Keep" because those editors, who take AFDs seriously, need to go out looking for sources which can be time-consuing. But I don't think OwenX was taking one side over another just wanting acknowledge those editors who put in a sincere effort at considering AFDs, no matter what their stance is. I've been closing AFDs since autumn of 2020 and since then I've gone to 5 or 6 regulars and thanked them or given them a barnstar for their help reviewing AFDs. They are really exceptional. And most of them have been pleased but they don't think they are doing anything remarkable. But I should make these posts more often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Surely the effort to !vote keep or delete is the same, as long as the effort is actually taken to look for and evaluate sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think you collectively have hit the nail on the head, it's work to find the sources and then address whether or not they speak to notability/are WP:SIRS, etc. It's much easier to cast a drive by !vote in either direction. It also doesn't help when we have admins casting !votes that are out of sync with current consensus simply because they disagree with that consensus.

:I'm not sure what the answer is to be honest. You've tried a lot @Liz in discouraging flooding of AfD and I don't think that has been as much of a problem, there just isn't engagement with AfDs (and AN, as you noted on that topic ban discussion). Star Mississippi 14:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::Although my original post was about a shortage of regular editors at AFDLand, I worry about our admin corps, too. Didn't we just elect like a dozen new admins? Except for a handful, I don't see them around the usual places where admins generally help out. Maybe they are off, working in a niche area that is not on my daily trek around the project or a noticeboard I don't frequent. We could surely use a few more eyes and policy-based opinions at AN and AE. I mean, since COVID-19 (and even since last summer), many longtime admins have started to depart and we need the help! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Things don't look too bad when it comes to closing AfDs. In my morning scan of 8-day old stragglers, I rarely find more than a couple still open, usually of the contentious, political kind y'all leave for me to handle... Of course, that's because you've already closed the other 100+ the previous evening. There are a few AfD regulars who'd make a good admin. I'm worried about losing their participation as !voters if they are promoted, but we should certainly consider running those who are interested through RfA. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I'll add spending an hour or so contributing to AfDs to my daily list. Took me an hour to make assertions in 14 needy processes. Getting punchy at the end, I'll confess. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It looks like the freshly-elected November 2024 admins have taken on the new task of bulk mass AE protections in ARBPIA in response to preemptive protections being explicitly authorized in WP:ARBPIA5. See the giant walls of text at WP:AELOG/2025/PIA, which looks unprecedented. I found at least four admin names there doing mass protections who were elected in November; to be clear, I think that is respectable commendable work. As for AfD, I used to be an on-and-off regular there but lost interest and motivation to do that for a while, but still check into SM's talk page here sometimes since it seems like a friendly community hub with good discussions. Left guide (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh yes, and @DoubleGrazing pre and post election has been a major force at AfC. I'm not knocking any admin for where they choose or choose not to work, just that there aren't enough of us which hopefully the latest RfC will address. Star Mississippi 14:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:Unpopular opinion: {{tl|sofixit}}. You shouldn't be closing afds if you can't contribute meaningfully to them as a non-closer. Relisting is not a net positive when we regularly see daily subpages with half or more of the discussions originating from a different day, and clearing out the page for eight days ago isn't "fixing a backlog" unless everything on it is actually closed and not just reshuffled. If there's an afd that old without enough commentary to close it, add a comment.{{pb}}Also, the more closers treat afds as suggestion boxes and substitute their own interpretation of policies and guidelines for the peons', the less motivated said peons are to bother commenting on afds. —Cryptic 05:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::I have to actually look at my AfD stats @Cryptic but I feel like I've been closing more as N/C. I feel that unless it's a BLP or other problematic content (usually failed verification), if people can't make a case that it needs to go, it's fine if it hangs on until it can be improved or a quorum can form. We've gone from the holidays to summer to there's just a lower level of participation. I don't know if it's that we've reached a place where AfC/speedy/PROD take the load off and what's left is complex, or just that so many of the old backlogs have been pared down. Does it hurt the project if we have a perma stub on a pre-internet athlete in a country where English reporting isn't common and we don't have a lot of people capable in X language? Does it matter whether place A was a siding/town when all the sourcing htat may indicate GEOLAND or not is offline or non English? Probably not Star Mississippi 00:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm admittedly biased since I close and relist AFDs on a daily basis but I don't think it's closers' decisions that are keeping participants away. I think it is because in the past, editors often spent a lot of time, finding sources and evaluating articles and when the AFD closures don't go their way, it's discouraging. I can't say I blame them, I'd wonder too, if my time was better spent doing other tasks. We definitely have fewer editors making "Keep" arguments and a lot more flimsy "Delete" arguments that aren't even arguments, they are just "Me, too" opinions.

:::And we could really use your insight helping with more AFD closures, Cryptic, if you have the time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it can be quite a waste of time, yes. I must have spent a couple of hours fruitlessly looking for sources for the skateboarder that you (Liz) just deleted, when it's way out of my usual editing sphere, just because I hate losing things that are probably notable to deletion simply because no-one can be bothered to look for sources, but I'd be far better off just quietly creating articles on notable things that interest me and that actually have available online sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Linking since I just closed it and it's not a canvassing issue. I'm just really not sure what other options there are for things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B1t and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kristin Brooks Hope Center. There's a language issue and a small org one, where at some point we just have to stop spinning the wheel. I am very glad to be done ( i think?) with all the Indiana villages. Star Mississippi 14:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think I just ran into the noms that kicked off this thread @Liz. Alas I had to N/C most of them despite being willing to fudge NQ a little as @OwenX referenced as there just isn't enough assessment or opinions strong enough to !vote. The information is helpful and way more than a bolded vote, but overall amounts to "meh" and we kick the can six months Star Mississippi 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

On 3 March 2017, an article on Bruce A. Hedman concluded an AfD, with a deletion conclusion for lack of notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion-Bruce A. Hedman. The most recent version can be found [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Bruce+A.+Hedman×tamp=20170227053817 here.]

I want your opinion on whether or an article on Prof Hedman would pass a notability assessment now.

:I discovered that he was granted won a John Templeton Foundation prize for his 1992 paper cited below. The award is given by the John Templeton Foundation, the same organization who gives out the prestigious Templeton Prize.

:* Article: {{cite journal|accessdate=2025-02-16

|url=https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Complete.pdf |format=pdf

|author=Rev Bruce A Hedman, PhD

|title=Cantor's Concept of Infinity: Implications of Infinity for Contingence

|journal=Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith |date=March 1993|volume=45 |number=1|pages=10-16

|publisher=Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation}}

:* Reference for the Award: {{cite journal|accessdate=2025-02-16

|url=https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/NewsLetter90s/APRMAY93.html

|title=Bulletin Board

|journal=The Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation & Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation

|volume=35 |number=2 |date=April-May 1993|quote=...received a John Templeton Foundation award for a paper... among the winners: mathematician Bruce Hedman of the U. of Connecticut...}}

Hedman's unique combination of academic and pastoral roles distinguishes him as a notable/interesting figure.

Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::Not Star Mississippi, but it looks as if the Templeton Foundation prize was considered at the previous AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry @ERcheck, I was offline and thanks as always EA for your insight. I agree with @Espresso Addict that it was considered and consensus was that it wasn't an award of sufficient prestige despite the granting organization. That said, it was nearly 8 years ago and I don't think anyone would question you for giving it another go either in draft of mainspace. Academics are when I really miss DGG, but I know Randykitty edits in academics if you want to ping them. Happy to lend a hand too if I can. Star Mississippi 00:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::Randykitty's AFD/PROD focus is on academic journals (that's pretty narrow) but it might be able to offer some help. And I miss DGG every day! I went to him with all of my questions about drafts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I can't believe it's almost two years. I think of him always, but also any time I'm in a physical library. Me too @Liz. Surprised we didn't run into one another there more often. Star Mississippi 03:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, @EA, and @Liz — I've created a draft article: As I looked for additional information on notability, I found his particular fields of study, including combining mathematics and theology and ministry, even more so make him unique and likely worthy of an article. In addition, his work on Cramer's rule — see the section on his Academic career — is particularly notable. Please take a look at the draft here --> User:ERcheck/Draft3, and let me know what you think.

— ERcheck (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Somehow missed this @ERcheck. Looking now, or tomorrow evening. Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks @Star Mississippi! — ERcheck (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd support a move to mainspace here. While I'm not sure it would pass an AfD, I also don't see an obvious reason to file one. I think he's the typical academic (not at all sure about pastoral notability) who has done solid work in his field. Star Mississippi 02:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Mainspace - Bruce Hedman. If you have a chance, please review and √. — ERcheck (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Star Mississippi — ERcheck (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (3rd nomination) got a close. A reasonable one, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'd totally forgotten about that, but agree it's a good solution as far as that discussion Star Mississippi 02:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I've seen them get blanked by others after a ban. Is this something that's appropriate with Greg's user page (not user talk page)? Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Graywalls and thanks to you and @Netherzone for flagging the recent issues

:I think I've only seen that when it's blanked and replaced, such as with WMF ban or CU notice. I don't recall seeing it often with community bans, but I could be misremembering. Star Mississippi 02:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::What purpose would it serve to blank his user page? Netherzone (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::: {{re|Netherzone}}, The page would be a vehicle for him to flaunt his work on other Wikiprojects page and encourage his hand picked editors to bloat up articles he's stated. Graywalls (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi, hope all is well. Just curious about the close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunger (poem). None of the four !voters opined that the article should be kept, so am just curious why you opted for no consensus versus merge/redirect? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Eddie891. Sorry for the delay, I was offline. I see the script appears to have eaten half of my comment which I'll go amend. Without further input following Garudam's relist, I didn't see a consensus for either merge or delete. the close does not preclude that discussion happening. Would you prefer I relist? Happy to. Star Mississippi 00:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, that makes sense. If you wouldn’t mind relisting, I will ping the two delete !voters to see if they would be opposed to smerging, and hopefully we could get a consensus from that. It just feels unfortunate to me that the article would be de facto kept when nobody has opined that it should stay (though I understand why you closed as you did). Anyways, thanks for the quick response! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{done}} but forgot to ping you when I mentioned. This definitely makes sense as a consensus to do something is much better than kicking the can down the road. Star Mississippi 01:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Cheers, thanks so much! Hopefully a consensus will be reached either way. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind revisiting your redirect close of WP:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 3609?

1. Rosbif73 argued against an item at the airport article and redirecting. Rosbif73 also removed the entry, which has not been restored, contrary to "where it is already mentioned" in your closing statement. Esolo5002 noted the removal at the AfD with over three days remaining, but no one responded directly.
2. The delete supporters provided topic-specific rationales along the lines of WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Airline and airport articles (essay, shortcut WP:AIRCRASH). No one cited it at the AfD – per its own recommendation – but Rosbif73's removal edit summary linked it. None of the merge supporters explained why a mention would be due.

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Flatscan. Apologies for the delay, I was offline. With three merger suggestions plus the deletes and draftify, a redirect with the history seemed the best outcome. I really don't see any way else to close that discussion so would have no issue with DRV if you believe I was wrong. Star Mississippi 02:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks for your reply and openness to a DRV; no worries about any delay. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of FedEx Express Flight 3609. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Johnmarrys has asked for a deletion review of :Davide Lo Surdo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 05:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

You warned this editor for UPE and for knitting socks. Any additional information you wish to add would be useful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Star. It has been quite a while since we interacted, as I have become increasingly inactive on Wikipedia and edit only sporadically. It's good to see you are still active.

I recently came around to Sport in Albania (again) and tried beginning a clean-up there. It has always bugged me that there are a bunch of breathless match-by-match reports, sometimes with more or less worthy sourcing, but too little focus on sport in general in that country (as at most parallel articles).

Anyway, my clean-up was rather drastic, a series of 10 edits that pruned out unexplained tables, entirely empty sections, a second image with a duplicate caption, and the breathless sort of play-by-play communicating the (exciting!) exploits of Albanian athletes. I also expanded and corrected a number of references.

I am disappointed but not surprised that my edits caught the attention of (you'll never guess) an IP-editor from Germany. And it's not so much that they undid my changes (re-adding unsourced content and mystery tables), but that they're throwing around the charges of racism again (not at me, this time). The IPs are 2A00:20:D00B:B20:3B24:E54A:6A72:D714 and 2A00:20:D046:B1C0:14BB:C30:FE7:F21F, both from Germany, and the racism (from ...:F21F) is aimed at User:Adelbeighou, who reverted ...:D714's first flurry of changes. I can't say that Adelbeighou {{em|isn't}} editing provocatively or even with a racist slant, but I do hate to see the knee-jerk accusations be our German friend's first resort.

Also, I thought this guy (presumably Xoni98/Prishtinë25) was blocked. Do I need to assemble evidence and file a report at one of the messageboards?

Thanks for whatever advice/help you can offer. I hope you are well and editing happily. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @JohnFromPinckney. All is well here and I hope the same is true for you. Always good to hear from you, although I wish that IP had moved on. I'm guessing the IP blocks have all expired. I think much of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xoni98 will be stale, but it's worth filing since the disruption is active. @Tamzin I'm not clerk shopping, but any further insight since you've looked at this mess before? Thanks either way! Star Mississippi 01:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I've been a bit busy today and not up-to-date on discussions but how did a discussion on a topic ban, in a few hours turn into a consensus to site ban this editor? Color me surprised. I mean, I think I thought an indefinite block might happen at some point in the future but I didn't see that particular discussion closing in favor of this outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Liz. I'm about to log off but you're welcome to reopen it. My read was there was no dissent at all. Not sure how familiar you are with their history, but the account appears to have been created to agitate, rather than improve the project. Alas they are not the only one using current political shenanigans as a cover. But like I said if you believe my read was wrong, please do reopen the discussion as I don't expect to have substantive on wiki time until later tomorrow. Star Mississippi 03:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I just read through their talk page from the last three days and I can see what happened. I advised them to drop the stick and move on and it looks like between them and Thumpus, they doubled down on their complaining and mischaracterizing the project. Things were going downhill when I really thought they were about ready to drop the dispute and go back to editing. But I was wrong. Since I closed the WP:AN, partially out of discussion exhaustion, I don't want to intrude in this ANI discussion. Sorry for questioning your decision-making. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You never intrude @Liz and please always question. And you hit the nail on the head, neither of them was good for the other editing productively. I think this is the challenge new editors face, they don't understand that we (project) don't function like other sources of information. And you see public officials who get louder until they get their way, and they think that's a path forward. Plus new accounts jumping right into articles fraught with political talking points sadly does not end well. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 13:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I would like to second the request to re-open the discussion, per WP:CBAN site ban discussions must be open for 72 hours. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Apologies for the delay @Primefac, I was offline. At this stage, I'm going to decline not because I'm unwilling, but simply because there have been two declined unblocks and reopening it at this stage would lead to more confusion IMO. If you're aware of a way that won't be disruptive, happy to. Let me know? Star Mississippi 00:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just to note, that second unblock is about appealing to ARBCOM, so I think that would be more disruptive over what to me seems to be a technically that should be followed. (Part of why Lincoln2020 was upset had to do with how they thought an RfC was handled; while the early site-ban goes against this RfC. Not fully equivalent, but hopeful you get my intend here.)

::::::As for how to go forward, the only options I can see are to re-open the full discussion, re-open everything except for the SBAN discussion and have it restart anew, or have ARBCOM review the SBAN and have them decide how to proceed. (Again, I think this is something ARBCOM doesn't have to deal with provided some action is taken to follow WP:CBAN.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have re-opened the discussion on procedural grounds. Noting that the outcome does appear to be fairly obvious, I have left Lincoln blocked, as reinstating the block 12 hours from now would be rather pointless (and possibly more disruptive than necessary). Primefac (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Primefac @Super Goku V I commented there to keep it central, but I'm fine with this. My hesiation yesterday was purely of timing. We all want the same outcome of closure/path forward, whatever that looks like. I have a feeling this broader AP2 issue is headed back to ArbComm regardless of the particular players much as Israel/Palestine did late last year. Thanks both for moving forward while I was offline. Star Mississippi 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Hi! Just want to be sure you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EEng 11:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Star,

Thanks for all of the AFD work you did today. Beeblebrox, who was handling quite a few AFD closures, has a schedule change and will not be available for AFD work until maybe sometime in the the future. For the past two weeks, I've been having a series of migraine headaches which have me avoiding more stressful editing work or areas of conflict. I'm just not in the condition to argue policy or any other matter. Much of the headaches are connected to the situation of the world right now which is out of my control but I can at least do more demanding work in the mornings because the caffeine really helps with the migraines.

Aside from all of that, I hope you have a pleasant weekend. You're a bright light, Star! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:So sorry to hear you haven't been feeling well @Liz, but glad you have a time of day where you're able to feel better or at least navigate the symptoms. The world is certainly not helping an anything. I wondered what was up leaving some discussions at the end of my day when I logged on. Hope Beebs is OK, but happy to step in as you two, @OwenX and Explicit have certainly carried the load for a very long time. I occasionally check in as I know you get a lot of requests, and sometimes I can take easy ones off your plate but please ping me on your Talk or elsewhere if there's something you'd like me to handle. Star Mississippi 14:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:I know exactly what you mean, {{u|Liz}}. My wife has a similar reaction to the news over the past two months, and I have to keep reminding her to focus on the part of her life that is within her control. These aren't normal times, but I hope you get back to normalcy, health and all. Don't worry about AFD; Star, Sandstein and Explicit handle most of it, leaving only a handful of the ugliest, most contentious ones for me to close on day 8 (with the inevitable ensuing fun at DRV...). I'm also trying to encourage some of the more experienced non-admins to handle more of the straightforward AFDs. Some of them are more than ready for the mop. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::So sorry your wife is struggling as well @OwenX. It's sad that news is somewhat literally unhealthy.

::I totally agree re: those admins in waiting, @OwenX. I've seen a fair few whose well-reasoned closes are as good as any of ours. While I understand the logic, and there are certainly editors who have shown they shouldn't be closing discussions, I'm not in favor of this current trend that NAC=bad, especially when there are so many that close with ATDs that anyone can implement. We have more experience, maybe, but we're not magically better.

::Sometimes especially with the run of relists I just did, I feel like a clerk which should be an option for those on the cusp of RfA/elections. Those with some weekday availability will certainly find a collection of ripe discussions. I wish every discussion had the passion that #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kalous above did as it would make closers' lives so much easier-I say even as I hate closing sports discussions because consensus is unsettled.

::Hang in there both of you, and thanks for all you do. Star Mississippi 19:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks so much for the advise and the link, which was really very useful. I have removed all the links from the body as advised but put internal links back in. Should I have left them out as well? Sachikosky (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Sachikosky. Nope you've done exactly as you should, and I removed some stray formatting that just happens. Thanks so much for following @Netherzone's and my suggestions. It's in better shape for review now. Star Mississippi 18:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much for your advice and taking time to communicate with me. I appreciate it greatly. Sachikosky (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Star Mississippi. I have completed a draft of this page and would appreciate feedback on whether it's heading in the right direction. I have carefully inserted citations from the linked documents to demonstrate that they do more than just mention the subject in passing—they actively discuss the works. Would you have the time and the care to take a look at this page? Sachikosky (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::You've done well @Sachikosky. I just added some sub sections to make the main one easier to read. Someone will review it when they can, there's currently a large backlog. You're welcome to continue editing it if you wish while awaiting review. Star Mississippi 15:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you so much @Star Mississippi Sachikosky (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! What do Draft:Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre and Draft:Murder of Jesse Baird and Luke Davies and Draft:Morphy v Land Rover look like? If these are also almost done then they might be worth rescuing. Polygnotus (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! I've restored Draft:Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre as it's certainly viable. Murder of... is literally just a period. I think maybe @MaxnaCarta forgot about it or decided they didn't have time. I didn't bother restoring as I don't think we even need it for attribution. Thanks to you as well @Polygnotus for teaching me the refideas template. Super helpful especially as it alerts editors where a Talk page note doesn't. Always happy to restore drafts, so ping me any time I'm online. Star Mississippi 02:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks again, I'll take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::oops, we edit conflicted. Morphy is now restored as well @Polygnotus. Not sure about that one's viability, but no reason not to restore. Star Mississippi 02:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks! I think Malmsbury is certainly worth rescuing. Not sure about Morphy yet; I'll have to do some Googling. Polygnotus (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yay! I'm not watching any of these and think they're simple once ready, but if you run into any mainspace redirects or other barriers to straight restoration, just ping me. Star Mississippi 14:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks all I have been off grid on holiday for few months (just got back from Antarctica!). Morphy is well dead and I’m not seeing a WP:REFUND, I never found enough sources to justify a full article beyond a draft. Really appreciate you describing Malmsbury. Thanks both. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@MaxnaCarta Maybe we can convince you to upload some photos on Mediawiki Commons? Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WHOA. If you do take @Polygnotus on their suggestion @MaxnaCarta please do link them here as I'd love to see your photos. No formal REFUND needed. You're both always welcome to ask for a PROD/G13 restoration as I have no hesitation in providing them for experienced editors. Star Mississippi 00:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Star, I was doing a little work at Articles for Creation, and accepted the draft for this article: Conor McNally, but it seems like either I or the AFCH tool created a duplicate of the draft, so now we have an exact copy Draft:Conor McNally. I'm not sure what I did wrong or if something went buggy with the tool, but the draft copy needs to be deleted. I'm not sure how to do this myself without affecting the article in main space, I didn't see a speedy deletion option for this in Twinkle. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Netherzone. I just saw that reported somewhere, unfortunately I can't find it. @Novem Linguae, @Primefac any chance you recall that? I feel like it was that there is an edit conflict, but some action means it doesn't and therefore duplicates. In the mean time, I just G6ed it since that's close enough and there's no history to preserve. Star Mississippi 02:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::Howdy! I went ahead and WP:BLAR'd it, which is what the script normally does when accepting drafts. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::That does tend to happen from time to time, not frequently enough to really debug, but the advice to just redirect to the new article is sound (since that's what would be done anyway). Primefac (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! You nominated Four Golden Princess article for deletion in 2021. This might not be the appropriate place to discuss a deletion review, but I'm here to tell you as the discussion starter on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 14#Four Golden Princess – RagnaParadise – has been inactive since October 2024 and is unlikely to respond. I'm also not sure if at least two deletion reviews are accepted.

First, I want to apologize for my wrong vote I added as a 19-year-old teenager, which ended up being redirect to M-Girls. Those two girl groups were unrelated (not a sub-unit or former name) but formed through the same company. There were no enough discussion before I came in except the evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC; even if the subject does so, all Wikipedia articles must meet WP:GNG for the best and most important. Four Golden Princess was a Chinese-Malaysian children's music group during the pre-internet era, thus searching requires some efforts. Yes, modernday news websites are limited to routine marriage and childbirth announcements. Someone might translate Chinese-Malaysian archived sources of the 1990s (e.g. Magazine and newspapers).

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Clariniie

:Not to worry, we all make mistakes and what's important is you learned from it. I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here. It's unlikely that DRV is going to overturn a three year old discussion especially since the DRV you referenced endorsed it. I agree with @Extraordinary Writ that recreation is an option, and it doesn't require DRV since the redirect isn't protected. You can undo it and work from there, or you can work in draft space and move it to mainspace. Someone may nominate it again, and there can be a discussion at that time about their notability. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you? Courtesy ping @Sandstein as closer. Star Mississippi 15:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

hello🙏

i am approaching you for an advice. What to do if I find an editor who has created draft on a subject ( BLP) and its was declined by 3 reviewers including me. He , then writes same (new one ) article and makes it live in mains pace. Isn’t it against our policy? If the editor does it knowingly, won’t it make a circumstances to take action against him/her. Plz clarify. Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Rahmatula786 contact an admin to get the title WP:Salted Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Rahmatula786 & @Rejoy2003. There's no need for SALTing here, which won't solve the issue anyway. AfC is optional. If the editor is being disruptive, you can raise it at AN/I. But @RangersRus' suggestion of AfD is how you handle the article if you don't believe the subject is notable. You can also get help at WP:AFCHD or the Talk page from other reviewers Star Mississippi 16:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)