User talk:ASTRO Clifford

February 2022

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of countries by population in 1913 has been accepted

List of countries by population in 1913, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– 333 -blue at 07:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of countries by population in 1945 (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of countries by population in 1945 instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There is also an article on List of countries by population in 1945. Some of the numbers in this draft and in the article are significantly different, which makes me question the reliability of both the draft and the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of countries by population in 1945 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of countries by population in 1945, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the title of the other article is a mistake, it has population figures for 1950. I changed its name, though that article is not quite complete. I should be able to complete it by Friday, though I can't work on it for most of Tuesday and Wednesday. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also drafted the 1950 article, since I had not yet finished it and it's only about halfway complete. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ASTRO Clifford! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of countries by population in 1850 has been accepted

List of countries by population in 1850, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 11:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Almoravid dynasty, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fatimid Caliphate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dacia. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GDP Data

Where are you getting this GDP Data from? If you cannot proovide a source, it's reasonable to assume that you are either making it up, or that the numbers are the result of your own personal research, which is banned by WP:OR. Either way, you're likely to be blocked fromo editing if you contonue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my other response I have 4 sources which use Maddison Project data ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

Stop adding GDP data to articles, and go here and explain your editing behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't talk there, but I will send you my sources here:

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/8920462/

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/8748870/

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/8593686/

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/8490126/

All of these visualizations get their data from the Maddison Project, which I can send a link to or explain in more detail if you want. However I cannot reply on the page that you linked because I am currently blocked. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spencer^T•C 03:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I blocked at a time when I stopped making additions and had already been blocked? ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GDP Data in the German Empire

Hi ! I saw you have bad movements in the Wikipedia, and been warned several times, but your contribution is very interesting, (German Empire's GDP), Would you like to give me or re-add that information with a source? I know that add References in the Infobox is kind hard, and I understand, that's why i tell you to give me the source, i check it and if it is valid I re-add it, or if you want to stay as the contributor, If you do not know how to add sources or references in the Infobox i personally invite you to learn more here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Introduction. Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have references for all of my GDP data additions, I just don't know how to add them in the infoboxes. Thanks for the help. This is the link specifically for the source of German Empire GDP in 1918

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/8490126/

Which uses data from the Maddison Project ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That web page isn't even remotely a reliable source for anything. And much the same can be said for almost all the sources you have been using. As is noted below, if you carry on editing in such a manner you are liable to be blocked again - quite possibly indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my other reply ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to this - "While we wait for R Prazeres to respond to the above, perhaps you can explain this edit of yours [1], and in particular (ignoring the obvious arithmetical impossibility of the overall figures) how you arrived at the ludicrously precise figure of 34,182,989 for the population of China in 500 BCE, while citing a source [2] that gives no such number, and as far as I can see cites no numbers at all between 680 BCE and 2 CE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)"[reply]

The population data for China in 500 BCE was determined using interpolation based on the figure of 11,841,923 for 680 BCE and the figure of 59,594,978 for 2 CE. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is clear and unambiguous original research, expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. It is also so monumentally fucking stupid that I'm quite willing to risk being hauled up for breaching Wikipedia policy on civility by telling you so, and further suggesting that you not only stay away from Wikipedia, but stay away from the internet entirely, lest you inflict further imbecility elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can sit here and call me stupid without providing a reason, but the previous data for China was simply an arbitrary figure of 17.7 million with no source, and the entire article had no sources before I cleaned it up. I don't know why you are suggesting to go back to a worse version of an article that makes uncited claims ASTRO Clifford (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the article had no sources before, and should undoubtedly have been deleted. Adding nonsense with a fake citation didn't make it better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh, how is that a ""fake citation""? ASTRO Clifford (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number you gave wasn't in the source. Are you really incapable of understanding that sources are cited for what they say, not for whatever junk 'interpolated' data you can invent yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number provided was the most accurate citable data based on the resources I had available to me at the time. It was not an invented number, which you continue to misconstrue it as, it was entirely based on data in the cited source ASTRO Clifford (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Based' on the cited source, while ignoring what the source has to say on the lack of reliability of the data, and while making utterly facile assumptions about being able to 'interpolate' data over 680 years or so and come up with an exact number. That isn't 'citable data', it is bullshit, clearly coming from someone utterly unsuited to contributing to any useful discussion of demographics. Or for that matter, arithmetic, given the stupidity demonstrated elsewhere in the edit concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source says, in reference to the 680 BCE data, that the statistics are "somewhat in doubt," so I don't know if that's what you're referring to? Somewhat in doubt, does not mean that they are unusable however, there is no point of recording statistics if they are not to be used. Also, interpolation is a very common and a necessary step when you do not have a continuous string of data points available. If you want to object to which type of interpolation I am using, that is fine, but interpolation is standard procedure when you have 2 data points and are trying to find data for a point in between 2 data points :

"In engineering and science, one often has a number of data points, obtained by sampling or experimentation, which represent the values of a function for a limited number of values of the independent variable. It is often required to interpolate; that is, estimate the value of that function for an intermediate value of the independent variable.

A closely related problem is the approximation of a complicated function by a simple function. Suppose the formula for some given function is known, but too complicated to evaluate efficiently. A few data points from the original function can be interpolated to produce a simpler function which is still fairly close to the original. The resulting gain in simplicity may outweigh the loss from interpolation error and give better performance in calculation process." ASTRO Clifford (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given your clear inability to understand Wikipedia policy on original research, I shall be posting on the ANI thread [1], asking that your editing block be extended indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to ignore what I'm saying in favor of attempting to censor me to prevent a reasonable dialogue, that is entirely your choice. I have afforded you plenty of goodwill in this conversation, despite you attempting to subvert our ability to come to a reasonable consensus on the nature of the issue. However, I am unable to extend an olive branch if you are simply going to try to ban me for posting figures which you dislike ASTRO Clifford (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have called for you to be blocked indefinitely in the WP:ANI thread - I shall not be responding further here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that :) ASTRO Clifford (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evading block and future editing

Hi ASTRO Clifford, if you have been editing through this IP, which has just been blocked, you should be aware that this means you're evading the block currently on your account and it could result in the block on your account being extended further; see WP:BLOCKEVASION. Do not attempt to edit Wikipedia articles again while your account is blocked. You may resume editing after your block has expired, but it is very important that you read and understand the feedback and warnings given to you above. I strongly recommend you explain what sources you are using here first, as editors have requested above. I see that a source was mentioned at the IP talk page here; if that is the source you are using, then it is NOT sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia, but you should explain yourself here either way using your regular account. If you ignore these issues again, you will likely be blocked again, for much longer. R Prazeres (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what are the standards for a reliable source then? I will tell you personally that I know that source gets its data from the Maddison project which I have seen used for articles such as this one, this one, this one, and articles of this category. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know where the data is coming from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I compiled the data from the Maddison project sources. However, Angus Maddison already provides data on a country-by-country basis (modern borders), so for historical countries, it is generally as simple as adding up their constituent countries' GDP data to determine the data of the country as a whole. For instance to find the GDP of Sweden-Norway in 1914, one would add up Angus Maddison's GDP data for Sweden to his data for Norway. This is the best way to estimate the historical GDP with the data available. I can explain in further detail tomorrow but I have to go to bed now ASTRO Clifford (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:No original research first. Your own 'compilations' and 'estimates' are totally unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump basically said it. The source you linked is some kind of self-publishing or online sharing platform, which is explicitly a questionable source per WP:RSSELF. On top of that you've just explained that you're actually pushing your own original research and it's not actually directly taken from the Maddison Project, which explains why the information made no sense. If you know anything about the history and historiography of the topics you edited (e.g. ancient polities like Fatimid Caliphate, Dacia, etc), you should have the common sense to know that you cannot credibly claim to have precise GDP estimates, in US dollars, for defunct states hundreds or thousands of years ago. There's a reason no credible published source would claim to have such data. Even if there was, it would likely be a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL in the context of many articles. So to reiterate again: this source is totally unacceptable for Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make my own estimates, I just explained that those visualizations use estimates entirely sourced from Angus Maddison. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also none of my estimates were for states thousands of years old that is too far back the Maddison Project only attempts to go back to 1 AD ASTRO Clifford (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you misquoting me - I never said I pushed my own reseach and clarified exactly the opposite. All of the information in those visualizations is taken from an external source (Angus Maddison's estimates of population + GDP per capita). ASTRO Clifford (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make my own estimates, I just explained that those visualizations use estimates entirely sourced from Angus Maddison. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your own visualisations, regardless of where they are sourced from, cannot be cited as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what if I cited Angus Maddison's data for those figures, since that is where I got the figures from ASTRO Clifford (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Maddison does not provide the data you added to Wikipedia (I've checked), and you just explained to us above how you were calculating new numbers based on the limited data that Maddison does have. Any other experienced editors on Wikipedia will agree that you are using original research (WP:OR). If you want to keep editing on Wikipedia, please review the policies that have already been pointed out to you and make sure you understand them. R Prazeres (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I just explained that Angus Maddison provides data for individual countries but you can add up the data for individual countries to determine the GDP of larger empires. However this is not a new creation of data independent of Maddison's work, it is simply organizing data from Angus Maddison in such a way that it applies to historical pollities rather than modern day borders. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be directly re-confirming what we explained yet again. Let me try to clarify again with this question: can you show me the exact place where the Maddison project provides the GDP figure for the Almohad Caliphate (as you added here)? Not the data from which you calculated the number yourself; an actual published source where these independent researchers spell out this exact number explicitly. R Prazeres (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what I can give you as an example - the Caliphate of Cordoba which comprises modern-day Spain and Portugal. Angus Maddison provides GDP data for Spain in the year 1000, and GDP data for Portugal in the year 1000. If you add up those numbers, you can determine the GDP of the Caliphate of Cordoba. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No". So in other words you've confirmed yet again that it's your own original research: those numbers don't exist anywhere in reliable published sources and you're coming to your own conclusions about how to calculate them. As we're trying to tell you, this is not admissible on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what arguments you muster or how well-justified you think it is, it doesn't belong here. You can promote and discuss this stuff elsewhere on the web, but not here. The "no original research" policy is a core content policy. Please pay attention to all the feedback you've already been given. R Prazeres (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Russia and Belarus were to unify into one country, and we had figures for the population of Russia and figures for the population of Belarus, from the same source, would it be innapropriate to add those populations together when determining the population of the new country? ASTRO Clifford (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find you plenty of other articles whose entire basis is adding up figures Maddison gave for individual countries to determine the GDP or population of a historical entity - like this one. ASTRO Clifford (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait for R Prazeres to respond to the above, perhaps you can explain this edit of yours [2], and in particular (ignoring the obvious arithmetical impossibility of the overall figures) how you arrived at the ludicrously precise figure of 34,182,989 for the population of China in 500 BCE, while citing a source [3] that gives no such number, and as far as I can see cites no numbers at all between 680 BCE and 2 CE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but I will respond to it on another thread I do not want this discussion to get derailed with other stuff ASTRO Clifford (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the topic is this thread is where you are getting your data from, and whether it is compatible with Wikipedia policies, it isn't 'other stuff'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already replied on the other thread. I will not respond to any unrelated greviances you have related to edits other than the GDP data on this thread until the discussion on GDP data has been concluded between myself and R Prazeres. Also the thread topic is "Evading block and future editing". I already responded on the other thread so there is no reason to discuss this here ASTRO Clifford (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ASTRO Clifford's latest replies on the GDP question, I don't see any point in further engaging on that particular question. The point has been made over and over again. If they refuse to understand what WP:OR is, then it doesn't bode well for their future edits. If there are other articles resorting to this, then that's more original research that needs to be removed. I'll tag the article mentioned above accordingly, which indeed looks like unsourced OR. Any mistakes made by other editors on Wikipedia (which is not uncommon) is not a justification for ignoring Wikipedia policies even further. If you repeat this behaviour in the future, you will almost certainly be blocked again, as I already explained, so it is really in your interest to absorb the meaning of Wikipedia policies rather than try to convince other editors to accept inadmissible content. Like every other editor on Wikipedia, my time here is volunteer time, and for me this discussion is concluded.

Also: if you don't want to answer AndyTheGrump's question here, you can make a separate thread for it (and refer to this thread for context), but simply refusing to answer other editors' questions will only make it more likely that your edits will be undone. R Prazeres (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to his question on another thread? ASTRO Clifford (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of countries by population in 1925

The article List of countries by population in 1925 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Total SYNTHESIS at best, totally made up at worst, untrustworthy despite the plethora of supposed citations. See here

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Specifically, same issues that culminated in a block a couple of weeks ago. At this point, there's little confidence of seeing these problems meaningfully addressed.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 17:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of countries by population in 1950 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of countries by population in 1950 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by population in 1950 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

– dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as a blocked contributor, ASTRO Clifford will not be permitted to participate in the discussion, as the above standard notice incorrectly suggests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like noone actually read the articles or the sources. Just deleted all of the ones with my name on them, many of which used the exact same sources as other articles in that category. Despite this, the article was deleted without at all being looked through, with some guy claiming that it was fictional data despite the fact that it provides sources that give the data used in the article. Smh ASTRO Clifford (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained (above), manipulating data, like adding figures together to get a total not cited by a reliable source, on Wikipedia is considered original research and is not allowed. It might seem like straight-forward math to you but it is what got you blocked twice. Every data point has to be cited to a reliable sources with no extra additions, subtractions, multiplications, extrapolations, etc. done by editors here. If you ever want to appeal your block and try to edit here again, you must acknowledge that what you did, and what you were repeatedly warned about, won't happen again.

I don't agree with the rough language that was used to get the point across to you but the general argument was sound, original research (coming to your own conclusions) is not permitted on Wikipedia. If it does exist in an article here, it's because no one who is knowledgeable about article deletion has seen it yet and tagged those articles for deletion. As for all of these articles tagged for deletion, I think the inference that can be made is that an editor thought if you came to your own conclusions about data in one article, it's safe to assume you used that same process in other articles you created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, articles in the same category as mine that used same sources, same methods, etc, were left untouched while mine were wiped without being looked at. Plus mine got approved in the first place ASTRO Clifford (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now they're unapproved. Mistakes happen, and mistakes sometimes get corrected. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am currently looking into the best way to deal with the remaining pre-1950 country/population lists. All of them seem to suffer from the same problems (mostly WP:OR, unclear or unreliable sourcing and/or a complete lack of any source at all), and should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't a platform for cobbling-together cherry-picked estimates from multiple sources and pretending it is data. We leave estimation and compilation to recognised experts - who know better than to present their estimates as more than they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also where can I find an archive of my deleted articles ASTRO Clifford (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles aren't archived. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ASTRO Clifford (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't belong on Wikipedia. Or at least, not anywhere the general public might mistake them for actual articles. Admins have access to the edit history of deleted content, and can sometimes be persuaded to forward a copy of a deleted article to someone who requests it, but I very much doubt you'd find one willing to do so for an indefinitely-blocked contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you delete my work and don't give me access to it seems stupid ASTRO Clifford (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to persuade you to have access to my own work ASTRO Clifford (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to persuade me. You have to persuade an admin. Though first, you'll almost certainly have to persuade them to unblock you. By convincing them that you can usefully contribute, in accordance with policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why ASTRO Clifford (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to cut off user talk page editing. E Eng 00:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why ASTRO Clifford (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of countries by population in 1973

Hello, ASTRO Clifford. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of countries by population in 1973, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of countries by population in 1973

Hello, ASTRO Clifford. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of countries by population in 1973".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of countries by population in 1750

Hello, ASTRO Clifford. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of countries by population in 1750".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]