This is an archive of past discussions with User:Star Mississippi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. WP:NOTAFORUM violations have resumed on this talk page since its protection expired. I would like you to implement an edit notice saying that the talk page is not a chatbot (what people think it is) or protect it again. Thank you. ZoeTrentFan🎤💍18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging. I have protected it for a year so that only confirmed editors can edit it. If that needs changing to extended confirmed, feel free to file at WP:RFPP as I'd like more eyes on a decision for a page with which I'm not as familiar. StarMississippi18:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Tajamul Islam
Hi @Star Mississippi, That article had been totally rebuilt since nominated and I was about to comment on the AfD to ask for reassessment, I just missed the deadline. How do we get it back? thank you Lewolka (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Lewolka. The consensus was pretty clear, but I have restored it to draft space here Draft:Tajamul Islam. I would recommend putting it through AfC for that reassessment to avoid G4, although you're of course by no means obliged to. Let me know if I can be of further help. StarMississippi20:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Happened to see your post about the AFD at Liz's talkpage and looked up the AFDs and deleted article. Agree with the outcome on the whole (most of the sources were pretty poor quality; essentially a bunch of lightly edited press-releases) but with a slight tweak. Since the subject's primary claim to fame is co-founding of the infotech giant HCLTechand he is mentioned in that article, I think it would make sense to convert Arjun Malhotra into a (protected) redirect to that article. Is this common-sensical enough for me to just do it?Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Abecedare. That certainly makes sense. From a very light scan at sourcing beyond those presented over time, it appears-absent significant developments that could eventually establish notability-that it's Malhotra's likely notability and where it makes sense to discuss him. Feel free to set it up. StarMississippi17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Done. Hoping that NPPs will take care of categorization etc since I couldn't pick the appropriate one from the index.
Btw per recent browsing. it seems that Malhotra did play a significant role in the foundation and early years of HCLTech (though secondary to Shiv Nadar) but left in 1996 to explore entrepreneurship on his own. Wonder if he regrets that since the HCLTech has grown roughly 50-fold since them while his subsequent ventures haven't been successful on that scale. Probably has an interesting life story that would eventually make for a reasonable wikipedia biography. But before we can (re)create one, we probably need some serious business journalist/academic to put in the work to publish a comprehensive bio or at least a business history of HCLTech. For the moment we don't have high-quality secondary sources; so a redirect should do. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That's part of why I agreed to draftification if someone wanted to actively work on it. It isn't a never notable, it's more of a "not quite yet, but possibly by the right editor, eventually" which is why I think extended confirmed was more helpful protection wise. Unlikely a new editor would be able to overcome the reasons why a standalone isn't the best solution, but someone could.
I'm sure @Pppery or one of the other reviewers will sort out the categories or let us know if we need to do anything else. I have yet to master those either. StarMississippi23:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm not exactly sure about what to do with the user in question. Their contributions show that they only edit their user talk page and ramble about stuff that doesn't seem to relate to contributing to the encyclopedia. I think this would fall under "Editing only in user space" in WP:NOTHERE. Let me know what you think. Thanks again. ZoeTrentFan🎤💍12:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're ready to be a full AfC reviewer. I think more time would be helpful to you to learn different policies, which is why I commented as I did. I'm not sure personally that AfD was ANI worthy, but @Fram (courtesy ping, no action needed) is an experienced editor and must have had their reasons for taking it there vs. AfC Talk for processing. StarMississippi15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't take it to ANI, an IP brought it to ANI mainly because of the retaliation Twinkle1990 did against another commenter in that AfD. I then chimed in at ANI as well, but I didn't start it. Fram (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
yes, I misread and my clarification and your response came in at the same time. Apologies for misstating. Am striking now StarMississippi15:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
ETA, now I properly read the AfD and understand why and how it went to ANI. Apologies for misunderstaning it originally.
We've got a problem at Cumulative density function on which I'd appreciate your advice, as the closer of the recent AfD. Trovatore has pointed out that all unsourced material must by policy be removed, and therefore takes great objection to the material that we added (largely material added by me and by Michael Hardy during the AfD). Trovatore is in favour of converting it to a simple redirect or disambig, and feels that without references, the article is trivial and should not be there. The difficulty is this:
(1) The AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cumulative_density_function) specifically discussed the options of redirect, and was relisted by CycloneYoris specifically to discuss the additional text. Therefore, if we reduce it to a redirect or simple disambig, we are blatantly ignoring your closure and the consensus.
(2) We can't take this to Deletion review because the problem is basically that Trovatore doesn't like the outcome, not that you closed it wrongly or further evidence has come to light.
(3) We can't re-open a new AfD straight after the old, for the same reason.
(4) Redirect is absolutely not an option because several experienced editors rejected it at AfD, on the grounds that readers might be aiming at several different articles, this article's title being an incorrect portmanteau of several different names.
(5) But if we make it a disambig with no text, how on earth do we write the wretched thing? We can't start "Cumulative density function may refer to..." because the mathematicians will all point out, quite correctly, that it cannot refer to any of those things because it doesn't exist (mathematicians are like that: very precise), and by writing "might refer to" we are expressing an incorrect view that the term is used by reliable sources to refer to those other concepts (which it isn't).
(6) In fact worse still, Trovatore is quite reasonably insisting on reliable references stating that this is a common misunderstanding, which means we are doomed by the AfD to having a disambig about something that doesn't exist without being able to say it doesn't exist, because no one outside Wikipedia has said so (I can't find any evidence that the term actually exists except in the minds of confused students and the frustrations of their lecturers, neither of whom are not reliable sources).
Basically this is an AfD whose consensus outcome simply cannot be implemented. I don't know what to do. Is there an option to start over? Or do we just blank the wretched thing and reduce it to a redirect and hope no one objects? Any advice would be appreciated. Elemimele (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi! It looks right by me. As Abecedare and I were discussing above, I too am a little rusty on the exact tagging of redirects. One of the NPPers will advise if we've done it wrong and we can learn from it. Thanks for the additional step, I'd missed that one. StarMississippi19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, great, thanks. I assume they use plugins and such for that work, but I have no idea what. Perhaps I was supposed to edit the talk page of the merge target as well (and not just leave a wikilink in an edit summary), but someone can correct me. Suriname0 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you're fine. Or at any rate you did what I would have. One of the many upsides here is we're all forever learning. StarMississippi21:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Query
Hey, Star Mississippi,
I hope you are well as we start out the summer. I was making a rare visit to ANI to read the discussion on Twinkle1990 and noticed a comment you made about this being a hard time of the year for AFD participation. I had earlier been pinged to a discussion on relisting AFDs a third time because I've been an active relister, frequently due to a low level of participation in deletion discussions. I had never seen anyone connect it to a time of the year so I was hoping you could say a little more. I know our numbers on CSD G13s are extremely down at this time of the year because six months ago, at least in the Western world, folks were busy with Christmas-related activities, not editing drafts. But is there a summertime lull in AFD Land? Thanks. LizRead!Talk!04:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Liz. Maybe you or Explicit were "off" for a few days, but I feel like I saw more long overdue closures, and in the ones I actioned, there was decidedly less participation and not just the ones where language was an issue, or controversial ones folks want to avoid. Where I live this is the end of the school year so people are headed off for travel, camp, etc. depending on their family or job status. It's also beautiful weather and currently a long weekend so I feel like folks are spending more time offline. I'm not sure if it's a lull or a post-COVID "back to normal" after folks were "extremely online" the prior two summers. StarMississippi18:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you redirect that deleted article to Haile Quarry site. I did some research and typed up my reasoning. When I hit submit, I was edit-conflicted by your close. I added my post to the AfD talk page instead:
Strong delete and redirect to Haile Quarry site. The quarry is located where the town supposedly exists or existed. The quarry is notable because of the significant fossil finds made there.[1][2]. Using thecoordinatesfrom the article, Google Earth put the location of the town at the quarry's main entrance. There is nothing else there - no homes, stores, etc. I suspect that the Haile railroad stop was for the quarry. The only reference ishometownlocator.comwhich looks very low quality - probably a machine-created page based on scraping some database. The article was created in 2008 by User:Averette, a talented, prolific Florida content-creator and Florida man who was sadly later indeff'd following a fight over a Cuban sandwich in 2019.
None of the above surfaced earlier in the conversation.
Good morning! Given that yours adds a third possible target, I'm going to reopen the discussion to see if folks can decide on Newberry, the Quarry or the Plantation. Will leave a note there and then you can move your !vote to the main discussion. StarMississippi13:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you deleted Raimondo Inconis following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raimondo Inconis. I should have mentioned this in my AfD nomination, but I didn't; there is a high likelihood that the article will be recreated. It was previously created and deleted under G14 (see logs), and there is a concern with regards to spam. Could you add creation protection to prevent this? This also seems reasonable given that nothing indicates the subject will meet the notability guidelines in the foreseeable future. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging that. There was also a G11 speedy in the history here that I hadn't originally noticed. I've required extended confirmed, but if an experienced editor games it, I'll fully SALT. StarMississippi19:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, i have some updates about article ‘Ashish kansara’ is possible to move to draft, because i edit and updates. And submit for review. Thank you આસ્ક (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Eh, thanks for holding up my comments to the fellow as something to read. I dropped a long screed on his talk page, for the good it will likely do. Can't help but try, anyway. Ravenswing 06:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Reminded me of Charlie Brown cartoons, where the adults would be blathering some incomprehensible "WahWahWah" over the kids' heads. Ravenswing 20:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Ugh. But unfortunately not surprised. I also think they're a sock given the four days/one month discrepancy here. cc @Primefac who was trying to help them as well. StarMississippi18:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Seems plausable, they tripped Special:AbuseFilter/963 multiple times according to their abuse log. I was hoping to help them find a way back by directing them to edit Simple English Wikipedia, but oh well, look what happened now. Hopefully Primefac might be able to sort the "socking" side of this as they are a CU. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs (she/her) 18:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it might be time to revoke their talk page access really more so for their own good. See recent edits like this, and this one which I reverted with an edit summary letting them know it is not helpful and may result in their TPA being removed. At this point they just need to move on but appears incapable of doing so and perhaps just trolling at this point. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh goodness. What a circus. I've revoked TPA, with apologies in advance to @Deepfriedokra for the UTRS flood.
Sigh, yes indeed. Even as an editor on the younger side myself, I do have to say that their behavior clearly lacked maturity and competence to edit Wikipedia. I tried to direct them to Simple English Wikipedia so they can make some constructive contributions there before returning to enwiki, but then again, they unfortunately lacked the WP:COMPETENCE to edit. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs (she/her) 02:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. You can be mature while still being chronologically young, or immature yet of older age. They clearly didn't have the skillset to be a productive editor, williness wise. StarMississippi00:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Close at AfD
Hi - thanks for your good close at Tax Prof Blog. In the ensuing period since you closed it, 2 of the 5 Delete !votes, including the nom, have been identified at SPI as adjacent to the ExpertWikiGuy paid sock farm. (The master, MartinPic, has been attempting to massage the article John Anthony Castro, in part by removing references originating from TaxProf Blog. Deleting the article appears to be part of their effort to establish a rhetorical reason to argue it's not-RS.) Given that, in absence of paid socks, there would have been 3 Delete !votes and 2 Keep !votes, I was wondering if you would reconsider your close to No Consensus? Chetsford (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Chetsford and thanks for flagging that. What I think might be more helpful (to editors, readers alike) is reopening it to let it run a week for sock free disruption especially if there's a chance for sourcing to be sufficient for a keep as you alluded to in your initial response? If you don't think that's helpful, I'm happy to restore with a pointer here to the sock disruption and note though that an established editor is welcome to revisit it. My hesitation there is someone could bring it right back to AfD. Let me know your thoughts. StarMississippi00:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll relist it momentarily. I think it deserves sock free days for a firmer consensus, wherever that lands. I'm generally awful at pinging in edit summaries so apologies in advance when I break that ping to you. StarMississippi01:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Ravenswing has given you a cup of tea, for all the hard and largely thankless work you do as an admin. He is himself a teetotaler, but has no objections if you want a tot of something much stronger to put in your tea. Ravenswing 07:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and you as well with the wilds of AN/I. Why do we do this again? :-) Hope you're hanging in as well, and faring OK if you're impacted by the fire smoke. I'm just looking at that chaotic discussion again and wondering why I ever closed that original AfD way back. Would have been much more peaceful. StarMississippi12:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It's simple: because we see that there's a mess out there, and we know there's no chance the mess will go away on its own, and someone has to grab shovels and mops and get to work, and it might as well be us. (What can I say, I grew up across the street from the high school with the JFK quote about what you can do for your country on a plaque forty feet tall.) And who knows, maybe one or the other of us are Tzadikim Nistarim! Ravenswing 18:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Didn't know about that one, but familiar with Christa McCauliffe's legacy in another MA town where some family now lives. State definitely has a legacy of giving back, some might say to the extreme. About to leave the chaos in someone else's hands for a day or two. Hope it doesn't land in your lap. My turn for clean up next time if it does. Sorry for some of the ugly that got sent your way in that thread. StarMississippi22:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I created this, but it's since been edited by others so I won't G7 it. I find no evidence it actually opened, or garnered coverage beyond the initial burst. Did not mean GNG.
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.
Hi there. You closed this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Holy Rosary Parish (Padre Garcia) with rationale The result was no consensus. Two silent relists, no indication further input is forthcoming. Yet the second relist had only just happened, less than an hour earlier. Are you able to vacate the closure to let the second relist run its course? The result might be the same, but it would give editors more chance to express a view. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused, this AFD is still going on but the AFD tag has been removed from the article. Did you mean to revert your edit? LizRead!Talk!22:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
got all the information from their research (a phrase that should normally be understood as meaning "I spent a long time using Google to find sources for the article", not "I am engaging in SELFCITE"), and
that they don't understand what we mean when we say that it's promotional (which has nothing to do with COI).
Thanks for flagging @WhatamIdoing. The one I linked to was the one I meant in that they said
For me, i think i should be referencing the thirdparty, in whose favor i am writing. which I took to mean the third party who asked them to write thism but maybe you're right in that they meant their research and not a human party. I'd missed the racism allegation in " your" link. StarMississippi17:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Getting fair evaluations based on sources that aren't well known in the UK and the US is difficult, but I think the key bit for COI purposes was "i and the team...are appointed by the National Security Adviser Himself to create a digital presence". It's unclear whether this is relevant the current edits, but it suggests that the person is some sort of marketing professional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
That too. My decline was less on the content and more the disruptive re-submission half an hour after @Chris troutman declined it and without improving it in any way.While I may have been too harsh in my response at the Teahouse, I think this is less Nigerian sources aren't accepted and more UPE. I don't see there's anyway this passes N:BIO personally, but if you want to accept I'm not going to contest it. StarMississippi18:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that re-submitting without changes is necessarily a bad thing. (What if the declining editor got it wrong? Reviewers do make mistakes.) But I don't think it sounds like an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's helpful to resubmit without discussing why you (not you, personally, of course-generic "you") think the reviewer was mistaken, personally. It's basically just edit warring. I think even stripped, which @David notMD has done extensively, it's not an encyclopedia article primarily because someone who is known as a philanthropist is probably not notable in 90% of the cases. Those who are were likely notable for how they made their money. If they resubmit, happy for someone else to evaluate thought. StarMississippi19:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree that most people known for being philanthropists aren't notable, since if you're "known for" anything, you're known, which is a step in the direction of notability. This person is "known for" belonging to a royal family as well (which probably explains where the money came from) and for being a recently elected politician. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
...since we blocked him for editing "topics in which you have a financial stake" minutes after he explicitly said that he was not paid for editing. We might need a little less boilerplate around here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of their claim, but they stated that they have a press team and own the copyright to the now-removed image which was professionally taken. I find it very difficult to believe that they do all that for free. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Why? A lot of people who found non-profit organizations or serve on the board work for free (e.g., Jimmy Wales). I'd still consider it a potential COI, but I wouldn't assume that when someone says "i am not paid" that they're lying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
User talk:Raymarcbadz
Why do you keep restoring this silly repetition that the blocked user kept adding/reinstating? You did it a few days ago, and I removed it, but I figure if you did it again, I should point it out - and let you remove it. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
so weird. Thanks for flagging. No idea why just replying to JzG did that. I don't think I did anything different, but we all know I'm good at breaking things. Cleaning up my mess now! Thanks again StarMississippi16:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marathon Training Academy, 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.
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.
It's definitely not in good faith. Since @Novem Linguae declined the G4, I'm going to take it to AfD. I don't know if there's enough for an SPI, but enough folks more experienced there will likely be at the AfD if that becomes a factor. StarMississippi12:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It might still qualify under G11 so I left that tag active. I am still calibrating my G11's so I would like a different admin to take a look :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This was my nom before @Bbb23 handled it (thank you!)
"Here because the speedy has been declined as the most recent recreation today is longer, which makes sense. However, it does not appear that the factors from the prior AfD have changed. Avin does not appear to be notable. As an aside: The original creator has been blocked for UPE and COI concerns have been raised with Kiava (@SamX and TheManInTheBlackHat:) and this reads like paid for promotion "This milestone not only brought Avin the recognition he deserved but also paved the way for future projects" so it's possible further steps need to be taken should this close as delete."
I'm sure it will be back, unfortunately. That dif from TMITBH is almost enough to block Kiava, but I'm going to do a final warning. StarMississippi13:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I just yanked email after they sent another after my warning. Given that they were pestering for a review, I'm sure they're not the only one. Disclosing here in case folks think it's too involved but given their response to your warning @Bbb23, I think they're en route to losing TPA as well. StarMississippi19:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Mostly they're just making a mess of things. There's a fairly high level of incompetence, at least with the English language. They can't seem to leave things alone. They should just wait for an admin to review their unblock request, but they're obviously impatient and waiting doesn't seem to be one of their virtues.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
That's so weird, they didn't care about the drafts until now and why now. It's like it it should impact their ability to get paid work since I think most were just G13 so "no fault".
Hi, you recently closed a few AfDs similar to the one under discussion here, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to give feedback? Thanks JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. Just want to let you know that within the last 24 hours, our old friend Big Towel has returned -- still editing on the same IP 98.186.55.18 after their block expired. This time, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It does not look promising however: they have already submitted at least three drafts to WP:AFC -- and to no surprise they were all rejected on WP:TOOSOON grounds. If it comes to it, I'll let you make the call if you want to act sooner than I would. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up @Zzyzx11 and apologies for the delayed response as I've been offline. Please let me know if you still need my eyes - but if the disruption turns time sensitive in the coming days, you may need to grab an active admin for quick action. StarMississippi02:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Morning @Star Mississippi: How are you? I was planing to promote this to mainspace but I see it is "create protected". It seems to be have been Afd'dthree times I think, but now due to nature of OpenAI and ChatGPT, I think it is more than borderline notable. Can you please remove the protection bit on it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk09:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
All set! At a quick glance, I agree with your assessment but either way, the issues that led to protection are long stale and there's no reason not to mainspace it. Hope you're safe from fire smoke and other issues. StarMississippi13:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Your opinion sought
Hello, Star Mississippi,
I was hoping to get your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Salyan. It's a bundled nomination that is mainly based on the fact that the page creator wasn't extended confirmed when they created the articles which is required for this subject area. The problem is that the nomination keeps changing with some articles being struck out or the nominator seeking a Merge rather than article deletion. It's a lot for participants to evaluate and changes have been made to the nomination after editors have already voiced their opinions. I'm unsure of what to do but I'm considering a procedural close. Sockpuppets aside, I haven't run into an AFD where deletion is sought because of the status of the editor who created the page not on the quality of the article. What do you think?
Any way, I hope you are having a good weekend, we are baking here in the Northwest but at least it's not as bad as Arizona. LizRead!Talk!03:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Morning @Liz. Oh no on the heat. Hope you have a means of staying cool. I am OVER summer.
Yep. Trainwreck. I'd probably have closed it on those grounds. I'm not certain whether creation in violation of GS is an auto delete ala G5, but assuming it isn't, or one of the passing admins such as @Rosguill would have speedied, I'd have kicked it back for a proper nomination that separated out what needed merging v. deletion and conduct v. content. I can't find it now, but there were at least two I closed as "nope, try again". One was a bundled sports discussion that had no hope of consensus and another was sock creator, sock nom. There's definitely a difference between "admins are charged with determining consensus" and "throw spaghetti at a wall and make them sort it out" StarMississippi13:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
My understanding of GS interaction with G5 is that it's a gray area. Admins are allowed to delete articles created in violation of GS and similar sanctions, but we're encouraged to use our discretion as to whether that is necessary. Once the article has been brought to AfD, it's not clear whether admins still have that level of unilateral discretion, particularly once uninvolved editors vouch for keep. The advice I gave to Kevo is that CTOPS/GS enforcement should either be unilaterally handled with a BLAR, or brought to AE; I would also review and consider actioning an actual G5 tag placed on such an article. signed, Rosguilltalk15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan says “ Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.” So if we’re at AFD, I’d be inclined to just let the community decide, after ECPing the articles and the AFD. That said, these sanctions seem spectacularly unused and forgotten about. And that AFD is a train wreck. I think I’d procedurally close that and create separate nominations for each article, maybe? Unless you want to delete everything citing the GS that seems the only useful way forward. Courcelles (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both @Courcelles @Rosguill. Definitely helpful in terms of navigating sanction areas.
I wish there were a technical way to implement these ECP restrictions (and other topic bans) for two reasons: the wasted community time and general drama when someone violates a topic ban and scenarios where a new editor is technically allowed to create something but procedurally disallowed from doing so. Are there new editors caught in this, or just new accounts? In this specific instance, I have no idea as I'm not super familiar with the problem editors in that area.
Aside from new accounts created to relitigate old fights, I'd guess that in AA and Israel/Palestine there's way too much nuance for a new editor to successfully create an article, or one would exist. (Possibly true too of American politics, but I feel like there it's more likely that there are tangentially related red links who might not be as fraught)
I tried to add guidance for these areas to the NPP tutorial in an effort to get them more widely applied but got voted down fairly decisively. I agree that it's a landmine for newer editors, and more experienced editors' outside the topic areas are often frustratingly unfamiliar with the regimes (c.f. the AfD keep !votes). All that having been said, there really isn't a way to implement a technical block given how we define topics on Wikipedia--the most we could do would be to add an edit filter that checks for "Israel", "Palestine", "Armenia" etc. and displays a warning a la deprecated sources if you aren't EC. Realistically this would only keep out well-behaved and diligent new editors, but maybe that's a worthwhile drama-avoiding intervention.
To my recollection, I've unilaterally deleted an article for violating ECP only once, an article titled something ridiculous like Battle of Baghdad (1953) about a purported Mossad operation in Iraq with sources that didn't support most of the claims in the article, and where even if true would certainly not be called the named title. signed, Rosguilltalk16:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I vaguely remember some discussion once about category blocks being shouted down as letting anyone expand the block. And, of course, non-existent pages can’t be added to categories. And country names are going to appear on pages well outside the conflict. Courcelles (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yikes. That certainly went pear shaped. I can't tell whether Movaigonel truly didn't know they weren't eligible or whether they were just interested in finger pointing and arguing.
I made the edit to the page for Festival Fatale, adding detail to Tara Clark (Actor and Playwright). This addition was cited with multiple sources. I don't understand why you then made the following revision, restoring the previous version.
17:26, 20 July 2023 Star Mississippi talk contribs 3,192 bytes −253 Restored revision 1163266798 by Star Mississippi (talk): -promotion, likely sock undo Tags: Twinkle Undo
Hi IP 84. Community consensus was that Clark could be mentioned, which she is, but we don't need four references promoting her work.
Especially for a living person, we need high quality sourcing which the ones you provided were not.
Are you new, or are you editing logged out because multiple accounts have been adding that same information and seeking to promote Clark's work. StarMississippi18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! When you get a moment, would you mind looking over this AFD I closed a few days ago? There's a short discussion at my talk page asking about it. I don't really have any strong feelings about it one way or the other, and I could see a close going either way. Do you think I handled that one poorly? If so, what's the best next step? Joyous!Noise!21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi! you caught me just as I'm about to hop offline for a few hours. I'll look at it and the discussion this evening or early tomorrow morning. StarMississippi21:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If you are actually in the steamy southeastern US, then I'm amazed you found a day in July to be outside. Congratulations! (I'm in coastal WA, where flannel is a year-round choice.) Joyous!Noise!02:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh that would be delicious! A year ago this week I was packing for Alaska and I spent a few weeks this May at altitude in Wyoming. Summer definitely makes me question my east coast life choices! Hope you've been spared the fire smoke. StarMississippi02:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Sigh.... So, would it be ridiculous to bring this to DRV myself, as the closer? A deletion re-discussion is playing itself out on my talk page, and while everyone is being excruciatingly polite, I don't want this drawn out forever. Joyous!Noise!20:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi! You can do that, or if you're comfortable with more input, you can relist it directly.
With such a weak consensus, I imagine DRV might kick it back to AfD anyway so this way you could save seven DRV days and just have the AfD ones.
Glad everyone is being polite-you did nothing "wrong", we just have a difference of opinions on the outcome so glad to see manners in place. That's thankfully always been my experience with CNM. StarMississippi01:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
How does relisting a closed discussion work? Do I just re-tag the article? Or revert the old close? PS Thank you so much for your help: I rarely close contentious discussions, so this aspect is rather new. Joyous!Noise!04:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi! You can just revert your close, which will restore the tag and relist it so it gets on today's log. When I do so I generally leave a second comment under the relist note to fully explain/link to the discussion. Happy to do on your behalf if you prefer? StarMississippi00:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the article to put the AFD tag back and reverted the talk page AFD tag as well. So, back as it was before the closure. LizRead!Talk!04:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This book has some good info and photographs. I think it's in the public domain now? Do you know anyone who would be interested in scanning the image so we can better work up the political leaders and other from the era? Thanks for your help. I know there is a Mississippi wikiproject (I have no idea if it's active) but if you want to steer me somewhere that's fine. I figured you might be aboe to point me in the right direction. I'm not sure what's in the other volumes of the book.. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I've tried again an I keep running into a hiccup. It's probably human error but I also wonder if there's a step I'm missing with respect to the redirect. I was very lucky to never deal much with these when Anthony Appleyard was around as he was a magician at these. @Primefac is there anything obvious you see? Otherwise I'll list it at requests. Thanks both! StarMississippi14:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for closing the above-linked AfD. As you suggested, I‘d be great if I could see the article to take whatever’s worth salvaging if I do go on to write a new article on the topic. How is that usually handled? Actualcpscm (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
When I offer on close as I did here it's to save you, me and REFUND patrollers that step so here you go Draft:Genetics and educational attainment. Normally I'd say an editor of your standing doesn't need to go through AfC-and you don't have to - but in this case I'd suggest it given the unanimity of the deletion opinion and the complex subject. I'm not watching the page, so ping me if you need anything further on it. Happy editing! StarMississippi15:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I've written a draft at Draft:Genetics and educational attainment (2); I would submit it to AFC, but I'm considering letting the participants at the AFD know about this to get their feedback first. I think it might be more useful to have the editors who know the context of the original version take a look. The context and history of this subject matters, but I'd be pinging a total of 13 editors, and I'd prefer not to select any subset of them to avoid any appearance of WP:CANVASS, no matter how unintended. If a fresh set of eyes is needed, I don't mind AFC, though. What do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Actualcpscm. I think your plan makes sense. You can also simultaneously submit it to AfC with a note (I think submitter can do that? If not, I'm happy to as reviewer) to see Talk for the discussion between you & interested editors. I think this will also be helpful context for when the article returns to mainspace whether now or if folks think it needs continued work. StarMississippi14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Y u mad at Frank Morano
Why’d you delete a page with several people who wrote that it was worthy of being on Wikipedia? Who left a mess in your breakfast bowl? Why you mad bro? RobotUSA (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Writing he was worthy doesn't mean he meets the guidelines for the project. If you believe my close was wrong, please file a deletion review. And please don't call people "bro" StarMississippi12:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In case Robot USA brings it up on their talk page, in an appeal against their ban or even in an email to you, I will have to point out here that I am Spud on RationalWiki. I am the one who deleted the badly copied and pasted article on Frank Morano on RationalWiki. @Robot USA: I am not the same person as Star Mississippi. The same person is not pursuing a vendetta against you or Frank Morano across multiple wikis. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
When you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Object show you salted the title, but the draft has been recreated again, this time under the title Draft:Object shows. Personally, I'm not a great fan of salting titles, because the effect is often just to cause future re-creations to come under different titles, and it's possible to watch the existing title, but not to watch every conceivable new variation of the title which may be used. JBW (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, I really wish the BFDI fanatics would find a new hobby. I see by Draft:Object Shows I'd moved on to just blocking by the time that version wandered across my radar. I'm happy to unprotect the singular draft if you think it would be helpful. Let me know, and thanks for flagging! StarMississippi23:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It might not make much difference, since the creations are already taking place under several different titles anyway. On the other hand, having one more obvious title available might reduce the pressure on them to come up with different titles, and therefore slightly likelihood of their finding one we haven't seen before. My own feeling is that protection isn't actually achieving anything, as it doesn't deter re-creation, so I would be inclined to leave it unprotected, but I don't feel very strongly about it. JBW (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Makes all the sense. Unprotecting momentarily.
I wish we had a filter that caught the nonsense, maybe one day.
It might be my advanced age or the number of hours I spend on this freakin' project but no page is coming to mind here. I look at probably hundreds of pages every day. Can you provide a link to whatever I handled that called me to mind? Thanks. LizRead!Talk!04:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of protecting pages, I do so pretty liberally but I find it works best when you protect an article on a person or organizations name, when you have persistent editors wanting to create autobiographies or paid editing rings. For something like BFDI, there are lots of different possible article titles but if your name is Hank Williams, there are not that many different varieties to create an article with that person's name.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that we already have an edit filter for BFDI. Don't ask me to find it for you but I believe I've come across it when looking at edit filter results in the past. LizRead!Talk!04:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see that I deleted either one of these draft articles. I thought you pinged me because I deleted a related article. But maybe you just wanted me to share my fascinating thoughts about page protection. ;- ) LizRead!Talk!00:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
That's because I'm a capitalization menance and it was Draft:Object Shows, but I always like your thoughts. Anyway, never mind. The protection seems to have solved it for the moment/they got bored. StarMississippi01:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
It's one of our perennial socks who's been hitting admin talkpages. An edit filter would probably take care of it. They've done that on half a dozen. Acroterion(talk)01:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again @Knitsey. If I were barnstar proficient, I'd award you one for patrolling the nonsense here. I have no idea why I am that editor's target but hopefully @ToBeFree's block ends the nonsense. Thanks both! StarMississippi01:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
What's interesting is that the first two IPs that hit your page geolocated to the Netherlands, and the one who hit Acroterion's talk page, whereas this one is in the UK. Copy cat troll? Pathetic. Netherzone (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Another one was from the Philippines. Sometimes the proxy edit nodes bunch up and you get a series from the same area, or they use a service that lets you choose. I wold treat them all as proxies. Acroterion(talk)03:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again for the overnight cleanup. I'm offline the bullk of today and re-semi'ed it so you three (and any other helpers) don't have to deal. My only ongoing conversation with a new ish user is below and they're confirmed so we're good. StarMississippi12:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Jawaker Article
Hello, you published an article about Stillfront, our mother company and we would like to publish one for jawaker, we had a page on wikipedia but it was removed for some reason, can you help with this? Jojoarticles (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this place seem very empty this week? I mean, we've had a shortage of editors and admins working AFD for a few months now but this week, things have been extremely quiet. It's like everyone is vacation without their phones or something. Folks I used to see on a daily basis are just gone! I hope this is temporary. I saw you relisted a discussion so I knew you were here. LizRead!Talk!03:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
It's very quiet. Even my watchlist.
Personally here between two trips, happy to help as I can, although I'm about to log off for bed..
I know Cullen does it a lot, but I never have figured out how to edit from my phone. Caveat, I haven't tried too hard. Do you frequently admin from your phone? StarMississippi03:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I have deleted pages from my phone because I use Twinkle and you can check off boxes or use the Page tab with its drop down menu. But it's terrible for discussing things on a talk page because you can't cut and paste links and the like which I do a lot when discussing Wikipedia with other editors. So, I don't find it useful for responding to talk page queries unless it is only a text response. I now see that you have a banner saying you are on vacation! Sweet dreams! I'm on the other side of the country. LizRead!Talk!04:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I'm here. I just didn't take it off as I'm not as fully here as I would otherwise be, but there's probably a better template I should be using.
Yes, totally agree re: discussions. I tried once to make a note in an active discussion while I was offline and gave up quickly.
Hello, Star Mississippi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Karen Hauser".
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.
You closed this AfD as a Redirect today, an action not suggested by any of the editors involved in the AfD discussion, and there seemed to me that there was not a consensus. As a result of the closing, all the references and source material are deleted; is there a way to recover it? I spent quite a while researching the article subject and adding sources to it, which I thought I would have time to add to the father's page if the consensus were leaning towards delete. But now I would have to re-do all that research I did. Please tell me there is an easy workaround. BBQboffin (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi! With the redirect, nothing is lost. You can access it here and use that to merge if a consensus develops. At the moment, there was more of one to delete the information, but a redirect helps the reader, which is why I created it. The issue with this, and why I didn't relist, is we have someone who presumably died in the pre internet era, so even without the language issue, sourcing is going to be an issue. Covering him within the article on his father is more useful than a page simply because he existed. Does that help? StarMississippi16:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks very much! I thought everything was lost but I see I was mistaken and the sources are indeed preserved at the link you provided. I can use that to add the material to the father's article and so it looks like you made a wise decision as a closer on this. Cheers! BBQboffin (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Star_Mississippi. We worked well together (at least I think this!) a couple years ago to create the page for Susan Vogel. I'm creating another page, something I do pretty rarely, and would appreciate having some good smart people look it over before I take it live. Could I ask you to? I'd just paste the link here but see you are on vacation - enjoy. Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Sullidav and great to hear from you again. Hope you're doing well. Happy to work with you, although I admit my on wiki time these coming weeks will be limited. But drop the link here and I, or one of my WP:Talk Page Stalkers will be happy to help. StarMississippi23:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Going to be offline for a couple of weeks from this afternoon (all good). I think the disruption that led to #Thanks is all resolved but any admin TPS are welcome to protect if needed/whack a sock gets old. Similarly, if consensus/an unblock request, etc. renders any other recent blocks or admin actions moot, please unblock without waiting for me. I'm going to live in a pollyanna world where all conduct improves and no one needs a longer block ;-) See you when I get back. StarMississippi16:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, Paul The Trombonist, the deletion discussion that won't die. These kinds of queries are part of the process of closing AFDs. I haven't heard from this editor yet but I'll look at the AFD I was involved with so I can respond if they come to my User talk page. LizRead!Talk!20:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, drat, it looks like I just missed you. Oh, well, I'll still post my message. Since you blocked what might be the sockmaster, I thought I'd let you know about my filing of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RuddyKurniawan11 because I thought you might be more familiar with their editing behavior than I am. I don't see any suspicions about sockpuppetry in their block notice but they might have returned to rescue several of their articles from Draft space.
Glad this was resolved. Even if I'd been online, it was unfortunately too far back to recall the specifics. And thank you @Liz. I was on vacation and it was lovely. And to your one above, yeah. He's certainly of broad interest. Sadly not in RS it seems StarMississippi12:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:9th Avenue Saloon, 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.
Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marathon Training Academy, 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.
