User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

A sympathetic (I think?) ear and/or shoulder to cry on

Is it just me, or has ANI semi-recently become almost a pure Vote for Banning? It's always been bad, but now it feels insufferably mean-spirited and full of drive-by hatred. Has it always been this way? One admittedly very anti-Wikipedian thing I wish we could try: no drive-by comments from anyone who has been here less than, say, 2 years. They're welcome to start threads or comment on threads that affect them, but no kibitzing. I hope your talk page is backwater enough that I can say this without getting in trouble. Anyway, mostly just saying thanks for the agreement, and saying hi. Used to run into you more when Keeper was around, haven't said anything to you I think in years. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay @Floquenbeam, I was away for a few days and have never really figured out mobile editing. Yes, I'm a long way from ANK. I miss those days! But I wholly agree with you. I briefly saw the threads the big threads spun off including to Commons and it's just so ugly regardless of whether there's underlying merit. The amount of energy wasted picking apart editors could be so much better spent elsewhere. No drive-by comments and honestly I think a more liberal use of project space blocks (wholly pie in the sky territory here). You can make a TP request similar to that of a blocked editor and if someone sees merit, it's carried over and you can participate. I wish it were possible to block folks from AN/I because you can make a case for needing to edit the help fora, but no one needs to be on the drama boards. Used to think that name was overblown, but they're earning their names more. It's too hot in most areas to say go outside, but go edit an article people! When it's a name brand person, it's even worse because people recognize their names and they're lightning rods.Always vent away here. Star Mississippi 01:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biden crisis

Hi! While I agree that the recent events made the discussion especially complicated, and that it wasn't the best of circumstances to have an AfD, I am curious as to why it didn't run for the whole seven-day period. From what I understand (although I might be wrong), "no consensus" closes are usually for discussions that had had time to settle down, rather than highly fluid discussions like this one? From one perspective, it feels like closing the discussion before a consensus had time to actually form. I might be missing something here, so please tell me! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! That was a speedy keep meets N/C. Basically my assessment was there was absolutely no chance of a consensus forming to do anything with that article and seven days was just going to be a huge mess of opinions and ideas, some of which were moot due to changing events, such as proposed redirect targets. It had been moved (twice?) already and the project isn't really set up for fast moving news items, especially not ones reflecting "live" political events. We (not pointing fingers at anyone, it's true of the community) rush to create articles and sub articles without fully thinking about whether we need that article to document a thing, or if it's a live blog which ultimately is merged somewhere once the moment has passed. Is that helpful @Chaotic Enby?

That said, if you think it should run longer, I'm giving my explicit OK for another admin to reopen it as I'm about to log off and may not be online for another 12 hours or so and don't want to leave this unsettled. Let me know. Star Mississippi 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, your explanation makes sense! It's also a good way to let the dust settle, after all. (For what it's worth, I was on the "keep" side, just curious about the process and how closing complicated discussions works) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an exact process to be honest. It's more like "this won't resolve in any manner, so please spend time and energy on something that might" to avoid wasting time. Will this historic withdrawal be discussed somewhere? Absolutely. After November 5 or January 21, will that be its own article? We don't know (my personal opinion as an editor is that it's unlikely) Star Mississippi 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Mark Francis (arts administrator)

Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mark Francis (arts administrator), 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) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

List of archaeological sites by continent and age

I noticed that your recently deleted an entry titled "List of archaeological sites by continent and age." Can you explain your rationale for declining the creation of what could be an extremely useful guide to articles on Wikipedia? Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoopes. Consensus was against retaining this article as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeological sites by continent and age. If you believe my close was in error - not that you simply disagree - you may file a deletion review. Unfortunately it being potentially useful is not sufficient for it to remain at this stage. Star Mississippi 02:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French people killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hello, Star Mississippi,

What do you think should happen with this AFD? Discussion participants have added other articles to this discussion mid-way through it. Editors have already commented who weren't aware of these additions and they weren't added by the nominator. What do you think?

Also, have you noticed that there are a lot fewer AFD discussions these days? A few months ago, it wasn't unusual to have 80-100 discussions listed on the daily log and now it's like 50-60. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz! I think the situations around all are likely different making it hard to assess as a group, even if they'd all been nominated at the outset. If I saw it in the closing day I'd relist to be sure all knew about the additions and if they wanted to amend their vote. All the forums seem quieter. Summer holidays maybe? Certainly not better outdoor weather, at least not here. Hope you had a nice weekend! Star Mississippi 12:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Hello,

Past few months ago, you blocked me from editing Wikipedia. I apologize for my mistake. Currently i am editing the draft page Draft:2024 Myanmar Women's League and Draft:2024 MNL League Cup final to unblock me. Please check my article and unblocked me. Thanks. User talk:Vilnae867 03:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I will not unblock you, but if you show an understanding of the issues raised, someone will act on the request on your Talk. However Draft:2024 MNL League Cup final uses sourcing that still shows you don't understand the issues leading to your block. Star Mississippi 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tariq Chauhan

111.92.81.56 has asked for a deletion review of Tariq Chauhan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 14:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Tariq Chauhan Deletion

Hi Sir, Feel the page Tariq Chauhan has been wrongly deleted.

I feel it was an unjust deletion process as the article was blanked out just before deletion. All the content and sources were removed. This was before an editor stepped in and added the before deleted view on the review page. By then already 3 deletion votes had already come.

(111.92.81.56 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC))

Hi IP 111. Please note, you do not need to use honorifcs with other editors as we're all equal here and the person you're speaking to may not be a man. I'll respond at the DRV to keep it all central. Star Mississippi 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Architect David Carnivale

Dear Star Mississippi, I have had to get a new computer which led to several weeks of making adjustments, and only today,July 25th, was I able to notice you've restored my page - something I was pleased at having for 15 or 16 years or so and was very sad had been deleted. Had it not been for changing computers and the interruptions that entails, I would have thanked you sooner for restoring it (albeit in a truncated form but which maybe someday might be broadened again). Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:206A:5F25:6651:CCCD (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My mistake; in switching to a new computer it appeared, momentarily, that you had restored my 15-year-pld article -but it seems I remain, arbitrarily, in oblivion. I ask that it be restored please; I was asked for citations and sources and provided them in great number- only to be told by an editor that editors don't read or check sources; it all seems very subjective, not very academic and has resulted in a valuable little article having to do with the very beginnings of the internet being made, after 15 years, invisible. Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E969:B61F:76E8:6DE3 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! As we discussed previously, the article about you is in draft: Draft:David Carnivale per the decision reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale. If you believe the community consensus or my close was in error, you're welcome to file a deletion review. Without that, or improvement of the draft by other editors, it cannot be restored. Courtesy heads up to @Drmies as nominator. Star Mississippi 01:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to restore List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll to draft

Per the comment by User:Dege31 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll, as an ATD I would like to request that List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll be restored as a draft. I agree that the substantial content there can be reworked into something beneficial to include in the encyclopedia. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BD2412. Unfortunately with 9K+ edits, it cannot be easily restored. My on wiki time remains limited and I cannot process the 500 revisions at a time deletion without my computer hiccuping. Please consider this my blessing for it to happen via Refund. I'm pinging @UtherSRG and @Graeme Bartlett who I know to be active there here to save you from filing there since this is a tech impediment not a willingness one. If folks think it should be handled in another way, I'm fine with that. Star Mississippi 01:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the uniqueness of the situation, I think that it would not be unreasonable to restore the latest version/last 500 edits to draft with a note saying that the remaining edit history is deleted at the mainspace title. If nothing ever comes of the draft it will all end up deleted again; if something does, we can worry about the remaining 9,000 edits in history at that time. The GFDL can bend a bit towards the accommodation of reality. BD2412 T 01:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Error %error_body_content%

Anyone speak template?

Sorry @BD2412 I seem unable to complete this although your proposed plan makes complete sense. I'll try again but in the mean time, green light to any tech minded admins acting in my stead. Star Mississippi 02:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be that the problem there is not the enormity of the edit history, but that of the page itself. BD2412 T 02:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cryptic for the shift tip and always helping. I might be getting somewhere with the revisions. There was also a black listed site in there that I had to remove to remove the AfD. I'll get as far as I can tonight @BD2412 Star Mississippi 02:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Restoring that many revisions shouldn't be difficult - you just need to do it piecemeal, a couple hundred at a time. (Shift-clicking checkboxes in the interface lets you select a range of revisions, instead of having to click every individual box.) Redeleting it would need a steward. Generating a list of users who've edited the page, to be pasted onto the draft's talk page, is easy, and sufficient per WP:CWW even if you just paste the wikitext of the last deleted revision into draft instead of actually restoring anything. —Cryptic 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely something with this page and / or servers as I got through 1000 and now it's erroring out on every attempt. I'm about to log off for the evening but @BD2412 you have 1K revisions which should be enough to work from. I put a note on the Talk about the split history and pointed to your results @Cryptic as well as this discussion. Star Mississippi 02:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that is definitely enough to work from. BD2412 T 02:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It gets more complicated since the page was moved, and I'd advise against restoring any further revisions at this point. We'll also have to take some care if this is to be moved to mainspace - it would have to go first to the original title, the remaining revisions restored, and then moved to its final destination if different. (I still have scars from a similar situation, on a much smaller scale, at List of numbers in various languages.) I'll make some notes on talk. —Cryptic 02:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cryptic (and that one wasn't even mine! There was a messy one that was for sure, although I think that was more page moves than number of revisions) I think I'm done with large page histories for a good long while. <g> Happy to help at any time @BD2412... with anything less complex. Have a good evening both! Star Mississippi 02:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Tan Yinglan (3rd nomination)

Hi Star, not a complaint but just curious why you opted for AfD rather than G5. Also,I looked at the previous AfD and noted the IP that voted keep geolocated to Pakistan which is likely where this sock farm is operating from and they of course also use proxies. I will try to keep a look out for that and editors with low edit counts and note it there. S0091 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I think I see now. It's a maze to follow the history. S0091 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess @S0091 as you saw when you reverted your G4. Once @Nyttend declined the G4 I felt a speedy of any flavor would be inappropriate. My being AfD1 closer doesn't help either. I'm glad the current discussion is getting more input which should balance out the sock/meats (which I'm pretty sure Paujoqs97 would be too if they weren't stale. Star Mississippi 01:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French films of 2026

Hello, you deleted these two articles before the seven day waiting period of its relisting, not giving me the chance to reply to the additional comments that were made.

Editors calling for deletion evoked WP:TOOSOON which did not and still doesn't apply to those articles as they contained numerous "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources". The second regular comment, the presence of red-linked items, is not a valid reason for deletion.

Please restore the articles. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! There is no seven day waiting period following a relist and it may be closed at any time consensus is clear. You were the only person arguing for retention. I'm willing to consider a restoration to draft, but if you restore them to mainspace they will be re-deleted. Will you take it through AfC? If not, you're welcome to file a DRV If you believe my close was in error. Star Mississippi 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft categories

In this edit of Draft:Huolin L Xin, why did you bracket {{Draft categories}} with another {{Draft categories}}? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Anomalocaris. THanks for flagging. I'm honestly not sure what happened. I spot checked a couple others and it doesn't appear to have happened. I'll keep an eye out but I'm guessing script glitched. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Star Mississippi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Answered with apologies for the delay @Marchjuly Star Mississippi 23:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you yank his talk page access please?

I hate bothering you about this editor again (and I hope this is the last time I have to), but he is still trying to influence editorial decisions which he has no standing to do, while the rest of us volunteers are trying to clean up the encyclopedia (including his messes) in relative peace, and move on to other things around the project and in real life. Left guide (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

And if it matters, I did check the sources on the articles; it's similar sets of low-quality sources being spammed en masse. AfDs on all of them would be a colossal timesink for me and others in the community since they'd all get redirected or deleted anyway. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide I left a gentle advisory note on that talk page element. I think we had all foreseen this eventuality. I hope the gentle note will bear sufficient fruit that removing TPA is not required, and I am not sure that the 'request' is an egregious entreaty, but I have been disappointed before by this editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: And on what grounds is there any benefit to the encyclopedia from him keeping talk page access? Since his block, almost everything coming out of his mouth on that talk page has been irrelevant drama, attempts to appeal his block which he is not allowed to do for one year, and attempts to influence content which he is not allowed to do. I'm sorry, but you are being far too nice to an editor who has mercilessly taken the community for a ride for years. Left guide (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide I am almost invariably nice, even when delivering bad news. I do not believe that they have yet crossed the threshold for revocation of TPA. I am sure they are likely to, but I do not agree on removal of access based upon likelihood, whether an editor a net befit to Wikipedia or not 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: You still haven't answered my question about what tangible benefit there is towards the encyclopedia in him keeping talk page access, let alone that outweighs the disruption being caused. I rest my case. Left guide (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide An editor doesn't need to be a net benefit to have access. They have to be a net negative benefit in order to have it revoked. I believe the point for measuring that starts at the point of block. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Yes precisely, I'm glad we agree, since my point is that the editor has been a net negative on his talk page since the block was imposed. Left guide (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Left guide @Timtrent I just left a note on the Talk but I'm not sure he gets that his edits are not welcome. As the person who opened both ANI reports, I can't yank TPA but flagging for @Just Step Sideways to be sure they're aware. I think this is part of why @Netherzone et al had suggested no notifications. Otherwise we'll have these discussions for a year. Star Mississippi 01:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is that it will not be long before, by his choice of continuing to show bewildering behaviour on his talk page, he will achieve removal of access there. I think it will be cumulative, and will not be long. However, I also believe that our duty to Wikipedia includes encouraging him to behave well until the point of no return on TPA. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Backgammon

C'mon, Star Mississippi, you must know what backgammon is! We played for hours when I was growing up. It seems like a simple, straight-forward board game but my little sister used to beat the pants off of everyone in the family. It's a family game, like checkers or Monopoly. And, apparently, they have tournaments as well if our blocked friend is telling the truth. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz. We're a board game family too and somehow I never knew of it even though we played some older ones like parcheesi. Will have to remedy that. Hope you're well my friend Star Mississippi 18:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Closing EEng discussion at ANI

If you think a discussion at ANI should be closed because it is "going absolutely nowhere helpful", that would encompass a great many discussions. I'm all for it, but then my tolerance of protracted ANI discussions is very low. Still, how about we make it a new rule?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That was a complete and total IAR, but it really needs to be one. Parts of the community is tired of EEng's behavior, parts think it's hysterical, parts think it's problematic and needs addressing in some manner. Neither 1 nor 3 were going to be accomplished in that thread. I don't think there's a a clear process, but someone should be able to bring about a complaint and have it discussed without it turning into a circus. And I feel you, especially in the summer heat. Is it AN:Fix the Problem or AN:Entertainment? Star Mississippi 00:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel you, especially in the summer heat – Better cut that out before you're #METOOed. EEng 03:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@EEng if I can give you a piece of advice, just take a break from ANtics. It may be that the conduct won't lead to a block (and I ' m not saying you should or shouldn't be, you're a productive content editor) but I think it's pretty clear the community doesn't find the reopens nearly as entertaining as you do. Not admin advice, just a fellow editor. Star Mississippi 18:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's good advice of course, and I'll follow it. To be clear, however, I did not open that subthread for entertainment. I really wanted to see where people fell on the are-we-adults spectrum. EEng 18:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Does your username mean you live in Mississippi? I live in northwest Washington, and we're having a refreshingly unusual cool August.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi, I was just reading some of the material at Draft talk: Lewis Josselyn and I noted your comment "That's not going anywhere, unfortunately as there's no teeth at COI/N." I follow the discussions at COIN quite regularly and it seems to be a common thing that no matter how obvious the COI, UPE or disruption, all that seems to result is the occasional block for e.g. username violations.

I've tried to circumvent some of the issues by occasionally requesting increased page protection, which often does the trick for SPA IP activity.

So, my question is, should some COIN topics actually have been started at ANI (or redirected to ANI) where admins are more likely to dispense blocks for PROMO, topic bans etc? Is it basically a vain hope to anticipate such measures being dispensed at COIN?

Any clarification on this point would be very gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Axad12. This is my POV as an editor, definitely not site policy or admin guidance.

COI/N can be helpful for guidance toward new editors or those trying to make sense of how we guide conflicted editors. In that sense it functions like one of the help desks. So you could raise it if you found it on an article with a new editor who isn't sure how to edit or would like some broad guidance or even who is making problematic edits but willing to stop once they're made aware. But with Greg who has been to COI/N and ANI on multiple occasions, or other editors who want to edit their company/family/etc. it isn't going to be enough if they're not willing to play well with others. Greg is not going to change because he has been doing the same thing over and over for the last decade or more which is unfortunately why we're at ANI for a site ban. COI/N seems best suited for guidance. As for whether it should be at AN or ANI, I'm not sure. I'd say grab a passing admin for blatant disruption (and happen to be that person if you see I'm online) and for protracted conduct issues, take it to AIV or ANI. Note: I'm not sure where DRN falls within this spectrum as I'm not active there. Is that helpful? Star Mississippi 12:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's very helpful indeed. Thank you.

I had been reluctant to approach admins directly on cases because I thought it might be seen as canvassing, especially if I had already been involved in a discussion. But I will do so from now on with genuinely disruptive cases who don't give up after being brought to COIN.

Most users who get taken to COIN, I think, didn't realise they were doing anything wrong (seeing Wikipedia as an extension of social media). This seems to be evident from the 'above ground' usernames they often adopt. As soon as they realise they're operating outside of policy they tend to fade away and the issue disappears. Or they declare the COI and work within the policy.

And yes, indeed, not COIN for Greg. It was just that your 'no teeth' comment struck a chord with me due to how things often work at COIN. The Greg side of it was coincidental...

Thanks again for your wisdom and your time, very much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:, Regardless of one's experience level, I believe COI/N can be very useful in sometimes discovering further COI. The regular there are really good at digging things up. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep vote that needs to be added to AFD

Someone left you a message about a keep vote on the talkpage of Murder of Otávio Jordão da Silva that needs to be to added to it's AFD. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Davidgoodheart, I left a note for the closer so they see that vote and take it into account. There's nothing new on the article Talk? Thanks though! Star Mississippi 00:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

COIN thread

Hello Star Mississippi,

When you get an opportunity I wondered if you might have a look at the following COIN thread [1] (and the tagged-on counter-thread started by the subject of the initial post).

It looks to me as though the history shows that there is some pretty transparent UPE going on, probably originating from a single individual operating from the close vicinity of the company headquarters, repeatedly arguing along similar lines under different accounts after promotional material was deleted. The activity started with an account which used the same name as the company itself, and then everything else flows from there.

If you could take some action or let me know your thoughts then it would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I just skimmed it as my on wiki time is limited. There's a new queue for paid/COI editing, which you can reach via paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. But I think an SPI may be helpful in tandem. Apologies that I can't dig into this right now Star Mississippi 14:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem, probably best if we discuss further at some point in the future when you have more time. I don't see the issue as particularly urgent, maybe towards the end of the month? In the meantime I'll ask for someone to start an SPI. Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Remind me in early September please if I forget. I just partially blocked the main account from the article as a stopgap. Star Mississippi 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to keep an eye out

Hi Star, if you can please keep an eye out for WP:BLUDGEONING by the article's creator at WP:Articles for deletion/Afsheen (musician). They have have left numerous requests for various editors to review the draft, which was declined several times, along with other messages to those that declined it including 23 edits to SafariScribe's TP alone. After @Timtrent declined it again with extensive reasoning, they immediately resubmitted it so TT accepted it then nom'd it. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I anticipate bludgeoning, S0091, and am minded to watch and wait. YMMV, of course. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, thus my request to keep an eye out. It might end up ok or be excessive to the point it is inhibiting healthy discussion. S0091 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 @Timtrent apologies for the delay and thanks for flagging, I was offline. I have p-blocked the creator. I'm not sure that will solve the issue, but I'm not sure the edits are full block worthy unless they escalate again. If they do, please ping an active admin as my on wiki time is still scattered. Star Mississippi 01:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This editor shows challenging behaviour when things go against them, as you can see any the three warnable personal attacks. With luck and a following wind your p-block of them will bear fruit. They cannot complain (too much) about it because they have made their case for retention, and your block was made with that logic in mind 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

well that didn't end well. I'm not going to expand the block,but perhaps the reviewing admin will since they've moved their bludgeoning to the Talk. I Star Mississippi 12:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No apology necessary. When I left the message TT had just opened the AfD and did not think you would be back online until today or tomorrow but also did not think the bludgeoning would be that severe that quickly. At any rate, I'd prefer they bludgeon their own talk page rather than other editor's tps or the AfD so the p-block is serving its purpose. S0091 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't read the 20 edits to Safari's Talk but clearly should have before wading into the mess on the article Talk as it clarified it significantly. No action needed on the pings to you & @Timtrent, @S0091 was just acknowledging that you both were among those trying to help then help themselves. Alas they don't seem interested Star Mississippi 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sending you an email. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Star Mississippi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Rejoy2003. Apologies for the delay as I have been and am still mostly offline. I can't look into this right now but will do so next week or sooner if I'm able. Star Mississippi 02:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

User:TDot74

Hi. Did you mean to block this user instead of someone else? It looks like they were removing BLP-violating content. Spicy (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Major mea culpa. Thanks so much for flagging @Spicy and I'm not even sure what happened. Will also leave a longer note on their Talk. Thanks and apologies again. Star Mississippi 19:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Now a LOUT sock...oh good grief!

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

Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolved, no need to reply. Enjoy the weekend! Netherzone (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Itzler reversion about Sumnicht

I think maybe you reverted Talk:Jason Itzler by mistake? My edit included four reliable sources: Miami New Times / CBS News / New York Post / Miami Herald.

Also no claims were made other than why don't we cite these sources and this situation - I didn't even interpret them or what to include. JotsBank (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! No, it wasn't by mistake. Please explain how you found this article in your first day of editing. Thanks! Star Mississippi 12:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I found it by hearing the name and googling it, isn't that how biographies are generally encountered? Is it common to revert talk page additions which cite newspapers? JotsBank (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

When it's a new account where the article has been undergoing recent disruption leading to protection, yes. You didn't just google and decide to edit his article. Please log into your primary account and, if necessary, request an unblock. Star Mississippi 12:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Lubell Itzler Infobox

Hi Star Mississippi,

I created the infobox for Jason Itzler's wikipedia page not too long ago.

I saw that you locked it due to vandals targeting the page (which was a good decision, considering the individual's recent activities).

Would you be open to restoring the infobox? I feel as if it adds more visual substance and accessibility to the page, let me know if this could be possible. It would be more helpful for the newer traffic to the page as it's currently formatted (somewhat) poorly.

Thank you in advance, Robert Francis Clarke (Robertclarke32) Robertclarke32 (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the delay as I have been and am still mostly offline. You're welcome to reinstate the infobox. Star Mississippi 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Since my account is not Extended Confirmed, I don’t have access to reinstate it as the article is protected against vandalism. Robertclarke32 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Please then follow the steps at WP:Edit requests on the talk page and someone will be by to assess and implement the requested edit. Star Mississippi 13:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft been hanging for over a months Draft:Jordan Ward (musician)

hello @Star Mississippi

"Could you please take a look at this draft Jordan Ward (musician)? It was previously declined due to some promotional language, which has since been removed. The writing has been revised, and I'd appreciate it if you could review the draft again."

Thanks Afro 📢Talk! 09:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Afrowriter, I'm not Star Mississippi but what I will say is your draft is no more important than the other 2,500 other drafts that are waiting for review. You resubmitted it a couple weeks ago and as the submission notice states it may take up to four months so be patient. S0091 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

ok @S0091 thanks i have no issue with waiting Afro 📢Talk! 06:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Afrowriter and thanks @S0091 for stepping in while I was offline. Afrowriter, I unfortunately don't have the on wiki time to look into this but will do so when I'm back if no one else has. Star Mississippi 02:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @SafariScribe stepped in. Please let me know if more action is needed.Thanks all! Star Mississippi 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Very odd

This is very odd AusLondonder (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

All sorted now. AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies for the delay @AusLondonder. I have made a friend in an LTA when I was AfD patrolling this weekend. They'll burn themselves out eventually. Thanks so much for flagging. Star Mississippi 01:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, some people have too much time on their hands for their own good! AusLondonder (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

and belated now thanks to @Yamla, for this. When @AusLondonder flagged it, I thought it was the usual IP shenanigans. I really wish BCD would find a new hobby. Star Mississippi 12:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Question: moving an article at AfD be moved to draft while the AfD is still active?

Question: can an article at AfD be moved back to draft by the creator while the AfD is still active? This happened at this AfD for Prue Bishop Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prue Bishop before it was closed. See here: Draft:Prue Bishop. I tried reverting it by undoing the move that was made, but it did not change it back to the original main space title, so I don't think I did the process correctly. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

All taken care of now. I'm curious, tho, if I run into this situation again in the future, what is the best way to resolve it. In this case, simply undoing the move did not change the name of the article, nor remove the error template. What is the proper procedure...doing a second move back to main space? Netherzone (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for again being MIA.

I ran into this issue this weekend when the LTA AusLondoner referenced above was moving things all over. I think the correct sequence is for you to tag the mainspace redirect for G6 and when an admin sees it, then move the draft back. When you tag it, there's a way to signal to the admin that there's a page needing moved and we can do it simultaneously. I see that in AfC but not sure if it would work here (@DoubleGrazing, @Timtrent do you know?) BUt you're correct, it shouldn't have been moved even if it's a tacit acceptance of I acknowledge it's not ready. I wish there were a way to move protect all discussions at AfD because really there's no reason for anyone to move an article while it's at AfD. Is that helpful? Star Mississippi 01:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert, but AFAIK that special flavour of G6, {{Db-afc-move}}, is only for AfC acceptances, and won't even come up in Twinkle's CSD dialog box outside the Draft: space. But another G6, {{Db-move}}, should be okay; likewise, {{Db-r2}}. Whichever variant you (us mere mortals, that is) use, involves a wait for one of our lovely admins to come along to do the deed, so it's not like one Db works quicker or smoother than the others.

@Netherzone: I don't think I've ever managed to successfully undo a move (by clicking 'undo' as one would with a normal edit, that is), either, so I don't even try that any more. I don't know if it's not even meant to work, or I'm just not doing it right. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Same. The undo shows, but it doesn't actually work even with extra admin buttons. Thanks all as always! Star Mississippi 12:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur. NO special template, and it would probably be too many mental backflips if it were there.

I r=tried to undo a move once. Got myself into no end of cycle of bother. Even being a page mover didn't really help much. I think the redirect had history, and thus I was prevented 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I'll make a note of this if it's encountered in the future. And especially thanks because the question heading is written in word salad, and it was still understood, and you kind folks answered anyways. In the future, I will try to remember to proofread! Ha ha! Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to Change Superblue (Art Gallery) Page Title

Hi Star Mississippi,

Please consider changing Superblue (art gallery) title to "Superblue (Art)."

From vocabulary research, I've found galleries are within installations at an art company. The primary distinction from galleries to art companies is the selling of art pieces - Galleries must sell art pieces to be considered as such.

Superblue rotates installations featuring galleries displaying themed art pieces from the artists. They also do not sell the art they display.

The correct categorization here would either best fit under "Art" or "Art Company," not gallery.

Many thanks,

Swampcowboy (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Swampcowboy. I'm not sure your distinction applies here or in general. Galleries can sell, but don't always. For example China Institute or the National Gallery of Art. Please allow the discussion you opened on the Talk page to reach a consensus. I'll leave a pointer to this discussion therem but all discussions about articles should take place on the talk page. Star Mississippi 18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

S6_(software)

Hello, I wrote this and when intending to upload as a new article found that an earlier effort was declined for copyright violation. User:PeterEasthope/sandbox Is it less objectionable or acceptable? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! There is no issue compared with the one @Primefac deleted as a copyright nor the version that was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S6 (software). I'm not super familiar with software notability. If you are, and feel it's notable, feel free to move it to mainspace, otherwise I'd reccomend AfC @PeterEasthope Star Mississippi 23:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksi Ojala closing

Hi Star, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksi Ojala. I was wondering if you could hear me out to change the closing comment from no consensus to keep? The reason is that there were no strong delete views (only two "weak delete") ever since @Ljleppan found the highest quality sources. On the other hand there were 3 keep views (plus one weak keep) in that time. I think the closing comment might be important to establish precedent should someone nominate the article again. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Habst. Thanks for flagging. I'm happy to review and reasses if my POV changes and/or fleshing out close, but I can't look at this for a couple of hours as I'm about to go offline. If you prefer sooner resolution, I have no objection to DRV. Let me know your thoughts and happy to proceed however you wish. Star Mississippi 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I've re-reviewed this and unfortunately I still land with a N/C. As I said before, I'll support a DRV if you think I've closed this wrong but can't see another outcome. Let me know your thoughts? Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Star, thanks for reviewing. I am new to DRV so not sure if I can articulate a case there well, and ultimately it seems like a long process that will admittedly have no material effect except for precedent in this case. I'll let you know if my opinion changes or I have more time, though. --Habst (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do let me know if you change your mind. Happy to weigh in there.

I think what will help with precedent is getting the interview issue settled. It has come up more and more often and I think it's unsettled. My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there. This is different of course to John Q Public being interviewed as a witness, bystander, etc. Athletes fall somewhere in the middle. Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive?. Until that's solved, it's messy Star Mississippi 23:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Star

Hello Star, Can you help this editor in a proper AFD on my article Ada-George Road which was accepted. I have given him some word of advice on his talk page but I see he has taken Wikipedia as a war zone. All I see is frustration about his article but I believe with time he or she will understand because I was once there years ago but not in the sense of fighting back by nominating there article. Like I mean those years I argue with people who seem to be right instead of learning from them. Not anymore. Gabriel (……?) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gabriel601. I see you left them a note on their Talk. If that doesn't move forward productively, you might want to bring more eyes to the situation. I unfortunately do not have the on wiki time to moderate this, which was why I wasn't able to participate in the ANI. Pinging @Timtrent who participated in the AfD so there's no canvas issue for their thoughts. Star Mississippi 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't even assessed the article I'm afraid. I just can't see a deletion rationale, nor a policy based argument to delete. I think it needs a procedural close with no action taken. I almost did a non admin closure on it saying so, but felt other eyes were required. Thank you for the ping Star Mississippi. I wonder if Reading Beans has a comment on the AfD itself as presented, ignoring the fact that they accepted the AfC draft.

I see no obstacle to a rationale based future AfD (at which I will !vote, and likely to retain it), but this one is pointless in my view. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight, as always, @Timtrent. I think it's a tit for tat, but unaware of background between Cfaso2000 and @Gabriel601 prior to the last couple of weeks. I see a poor nom but not a SK one like the editor at ANI I was cleaning up after.But no objection to someone else doing so as that's opinion not rule. Star Mississippi 02:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping Timtrent. FWIW, I think that the nomination was made in bad faith and should be closed SK. Having accepted the article, I think that would make me involved, otherwise I’d have close it myself with my prejudice to a renomination. I honestly think that the background between Cfaso2000 and Gabriel are now generating more heat than light at this time. Best, Reading Beans 04:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Closed, as a procedural speedy keep, with no prejudice against an immediate nomination with a policy based rationale. Probably, this is an IAR closure. Obviously this is a non admin closure.

@Star Mississippi I think that satisfies your "poor nom but not a SK one"

@Reading Beans I think I am not involved because I have simply repeated my comment there (and expanded it a little), and I think that satisfies your "should be closed SK"

@Gabriel601 If they will not walk away from you, you should walk away from them. Ideally both of you should walk away from each other. However, do not walk twelve paces, turn and fire. No-one wishes to become tainted by a grudge fight, whoever started it. I choose not to determine that currently. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have also left a similar mildly worded but serious warning on the other editor's user talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Etienne Uzac

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Etienne Uzac. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Two COIN threads

Hello Star Mississippi,

When you have the opportunity I wondered if you might take a look at a couple of COIN threads and take any action you think may be necessary. Alternatively, if no action is necessary I’d genuinely be very grateful for input on that. There's no particular hurry incidentally, just whenever you should have the time…

Thread 1: [2]. User EastThermopolis is either involved in UPE or they are some kind of dyed-in-the-wool promo editor. Perhaps 12 or more editors have found issue with their larger edits over a long period of time (for details see thread), but they have a sideline in large numbers of very similar minor edits which obscure the broader pattern on their contribution history. Their larger edits are almost always reverted, part deleted, or brought to COIN, etc. Also, user Lullaby09! is an obvious in-house UPE account.

Thread 2: [3]. This thread relates to the widespread COI editing of Indian Army unit articles that came to light at ANI earlier this year. The three accounts originally raised in this thread were blocked. I located a further 10, but there seems to have been no appetite to dispense the same sanctions.

As I say, any input would be gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Forgot about these until a COI thread came up at ANI. On it now and apologies for the delay. Star Mississippi 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alibi's (September 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was: 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:Alibi's and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

All good @Johannes Maximilian as I knew it was thin, which is why I put it through AfC vs. creating it. It's closed so this will die a G13 unless I G7 it. Haven't decided if I'll look for better sourcing. While I disagree with your perception of OR, that's neither here nor there. I'd suggest you not use the phrase call a spade in AFC review as it can be unintentionally offensive. Star Mississippi 01:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Good morning! I don't mean to be offensive; maybe, the WP:♠ essay needs amending? Honestly, I hope you don't interpret this as me putting forward allegations, but please understand that – as I have described in last night's comment – that making a conclusion such as "Alibi's is the city's most diverse neighborhood bar", which is not stated by the cited source, but instead based on an analysis of that source, is included in the definition of WP:OR. I also found it very important to demonstrate how that OR works – the source describes the city's residents as diverse, it doesn't make that claim about the bar; by interpreting the source and presuming that, if the residents are diverse, and if they go the bar, the bar must become diverse too, the OR is made. However, the bar doesn't inherit the "diversity property" from its guests. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I know you didn't and don't want to know, which is why I flagged it @Johannes Maximilian. Your English is 1000% better than any of my second languages, but changing language and idioms are tricky even in one's native language. And yes, the essay probably also needs updating so others don't fall into that issue unknowingly.

I totally respect your decision to decline and am not second guessing that. At one point I wanted to create articles for the Lesbian Bar Project but independent of this assessment, I realized it wasn't going to be possible for all of them to meet N:ORG. As it's unlikely a closed bar will generate more coverage, this one will fall off and that's absolutely fine.

It may be subjective since it's quoting the owner but the source in its own voice says "Alibis, in Oklahoma City, calls itself “OKC’s most diverse neighborhood bar.” (Angela Jones)" That's what doesn't make it OR or my interpretation of the source. That's where I disagree on your assessment as OR. But all editors-especially both of us who have seen lots of drafts over our tenures, will disagree and that's OK. I know it's not the sole or even primary reason you declined. Star Mississippi 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding! I know, it can be difficult when you realise that the subject or topic you want to write an article about isn't well covered by any good sources. That experience can be quite frustrating; I've been there before. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, all good. It's why I use AFC when I'm not sure. Extra eyes/opinion are never a bad thing. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 17:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Your approach is honourable. The day has come to an end, but I trust your remaining sunday will be as sunny as mine. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

ip

Ism at it at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎ now. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging. Just took care of it. Star Mississippi 15:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't even remember which LTA this is. If you or @JoJo Anthrax want to do SPI paperwork, I have not. Just easier than whack a sock that was happening at FTN. Star Mississippi 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

AFD

Hello, Star Mississippi,

You just closed an AFD on Women in the Bangladesh Army and a new one opened up again today. It's the third AFD! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I just semi'ed it which will hopefully help. @Nthep, since you blocked Yunus MIAH, any idea on the master so I can file? Thanks @Liz for flagging as always. Star Mississippi 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

never mind, found it. It's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/জঙ্গলবাসী/Archive. I'll go do some paperwork. Star Mississippi 13:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern about paid editor behavior

Hey Star Mississippi, sorry to bother, but would you mind taking a look at this user's behavior pertaining to Darnell Edge and its talk page? The user has been paid by the article subject and initially wrote about 90% of the article. After they were asked about COI, they declared the paid status, and have since been instructed to not directly make sourcing or content changes, yet completely ignored that with a major content addition in the face of talk page objections about the sourcing. They seem to be bypassing consensus and proper editorial process. I'm thinking a page block from the article may be necessary as a minimum stopgap measure. Any assistance would help, thanks. Left guide (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks so much for flagging @Left guide. Looking into this right now Star Mississippi 23:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. There seems to be a misunderstanding and I apologize for the trouble. I am completely new to the Wikipedia content creation process as this is my first time creating one. I’m really proud of the work I’ve done on this page but have struggled to comply with the various requirements as it is a bit confusing. I did initially request changes prior to including them back on the page, but I thought if I just updated the sources then it would be okay. But I apologize for The misunderstanding and mistakes. Will I still be able to request information be at least added to the page, and another admin will have to input them if approved? Will I be blocked forever? And will I be able to create other wiki pages in the future now that I know all of the different requirements and regulations? Thank you in advance for your help. InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @InfinitiBowie97. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but you'll have to show a good history of your edit requests meeting all policies and guidelines before someone will consider allowing you access to edit directly. While you have made the disclosures (thank you!), it's good practice not to edit an article where you have a WP:COI directly even if you're allowed. Article creation is hard. I recommend making edits to learn more about the project before you decide to start trying to write more articles. You are only blocked from that one article, so you're allowed to edit anywhere else. Just be mindful of what you've learned so far. Star Mississippi 00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight @Star Mississippi! Okay understood. As I did disclose that I am a paid editor for this page and its creation, it is important that I can still add new information. So if I am to remain blocked on the page for direct edit access, should I continue to request through you and the talk page? InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read the instructions on WP:Edit requests and propose them on the Talk. I will not be overseeing any inclusion as I don't edit in sports articles but editors watching or patrolling requests will respond. Happy to answer any other questions though @InfinitiBowie97 Star Mississippi 00:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiversuite pages

You closed this discussion as delete, but it doesn't look like you deleted any of the pages.

If you were using a script to close this nomination, it's possible that it got confused by the "and subpages" links I included in the list of nominated pages. When you do close this nomination, please make sure that those subpages are all deleted as well. Omphalographer (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging and apologies for my error/not checking @Omphalographer. Thanks too to @Explicit who took care of this while I was offline. Star Mississippi 00:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Bondage tape II

Hi! Just pointing out that the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondage tape (2nd nomination) suggested an WP:ATD of redirecting to List of BDSM equipment and I think this is fair in order to preserve the history. Was there a reason this wasn't done, and if not, could you possibly restore the article so it can be done? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I read that as something @Piotrus would have been OK with, not that they preferred it which is why I didn't close it as such. But since we're treating this as a contested PROD, I've done so. If someone feels it's not a good solution it can be sorted out down the line at RfD. Thanks for flagging @GhostOfDanGurney Star Mississippi 00:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally, I do prefer preserving history of articles as best practice in such cases. Thanks, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, would you please clarify your comment on my note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aina Asif (2nd nomination)? Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You know what I mean, but since you'd like me to clarify: WP:DTTR. Voters disagree, that doesn't mean they're doing it wrong or need to be told about ATA. It comes across really disingenuous, which I know you don't mean. Star Mississippi 22:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply but I REALLY do not know what you mean and honestly, I am not pleased by the fact that you assert that I do. Why would I waste my time asking you, if I did understand?.ATA? Mentioning ATA, is that it???? PLEASE..... look at the page history...who mentioned ATA in the first place? Not me..... I don't mind, and it was certainly done in good faith, I am sure, but I think I should at least be allowed to comment. I am really puzzled by your comment, to tell you the truth. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

AND DTTR? I had missed that part. I did not template any regular. Where? When? Who?.... What are you talking about? I never template anyone, even the most blatantly vandal IPs!! Are you sure you are talking about me at that AFD? There must be some misunderstanding or something I missed because I have no idea of what you're talking about. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You said, The essay WP:ATA is indeed rather interesting to read...Can also apply to certain delete !votes, btw,

Comes across as expecting editors aren't familiar with it, when we all (including you) are veterans. It's the same logic as DTTR. You don't mean it, but it's how it comes across. This is not about whether the article is kept or not, it's far too early to tell, but I don't think you want to come across talking to other editors that way. Star Mississippi 02:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying but again .....I am just commenting on what is obviously a comment on my vote, citing ATA (and erroneously, on top of that); that is why I felt I had to explain what ATA says and not. Indeed, I am seriously just indicating that ATA does not apply to "WP:XXX because YYY"-type !votes but only to "WP:XXX"-type !votes! Why did I do it? Because that is what is clearly stated by another user (who happens to !vote in a "WP:XXX'-fashion on top of it, in their !vote, which is ironic). Now, if you prefer explaining that yourself as admin/relister (as nominator, in fact), feel free to strike out that comment of mine and make the clarification about what the essay really says yourself, the way you think best, if you think that's more appropriate. I honestly won't mind. But I still don't understand why you focus on my mention on ATA. When I quote essays (I rarely quote essays) or guidelines erroneously, if someone corrects me, I stand corrected. Thank you all the same. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to strike it, even if I weren't nominator. I understand what you're saying here, but that's not how it comes across which is telling us to read ATA. I know that's not what you want to do, which is why I flagged it. Star Mississippi 02:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Quack!

Hello, and quack a doodle doo! A duck has flown in and landed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menotti Lerro (2nd nomination). Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the giggle @Netherzone. Blocked and semi'ed to avoid future friends. Do you know if there's an SPI open? Star Mississippi 00:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, I believe it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gingeksace. Left guide (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

and thanks @Left guide for the template cleanup. Semi'ing is easier than whack a sock, but I hate the template syntax. Star Mississippi 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess this wasn't the only instance, must be a glitch in the protection tool haha. Left guide (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's specific to A/MFDs. Something with the header. I'll flag it for @Novem Linguae if I can reproduce it because right now we're firmly in I broke something again but can't explain it territory. Thanks for flagging & fixing @Left guide Star Mississippi 01:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

A question about speedy deletion

Hello, a quick Q regarding your closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flirtini (app). My understanding was that a speedy deletion could happen at any time at an admin's discretion if the situation meets one of the criteria. Your comment about mootness made me wonder whether I am correct. Is "speedy delete" disallowed as an option in a relisted AfD? Thanks for clarifying! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! My understanding with AfD, which may well be wrong, is that speedy is the OK to close it in fewer than the initial 7 days because while it wasn't CSDed, it meets one of the criteria or it's snowing. Since an AfD can be closed at any time following the relist, we don't need the speedy. Your !vote and BD2412's gave the consensus that the outcome was delete. There was nothing wrong with your note-it's not not disallowed but not necessary, if that makes sense? While I have you, thanks for weighing in on all those arena event AfDs so we could have some consensus instead of another silent relist. Star Mississippi 13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to do it and thanks for clarifying about speedy deletion! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Lauren Fagan

Hi @Star Mississippi, I'm super confused about the "no consensus" decision. 4 policy-based keeps, and the nominator's concern was addressed... There was no one, including the nominator, claiming that the subject is not notable. Source analysis showed 2 strong GNG compliant sources. And a super detailed analysis showing that NACTOR is satisfied. How come it is not closed as keep? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker and thanks for your note. I also weighed @Oaktree b & @GMH Melbourne (no action needed, courtesy ping on mention)'s input as weighing in on sourcing but not strongly enough to advocate for a keep (nor argue foe deletion) which is how I landed on NC. I've re-read my close and assessment and I don't see a keep here. It's a distinction without a difference given the outcome is for retention of the article, but if you believe I'm wrong I have no objection to a DRV being filed. About to step offline for a few hours so pardon any delay in response. Star Mississippi 19:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have no issues with the final decision to close the AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 5. —Cryptic 00:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD/Dead Romance

Star Mississippi I see that you have closed this AfD; with the comment "merge‎ to Virgin New Adventures. which was not seconded, however nor was it refuted.", but I had commented just below the suggestion that it should be merged to Bernice Summerfield instead. There is no section for Dead Romance to be merged to in VNA's, that section itself links to an anchor inside Bernice Summerfield. Can you change the merge destination? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll make a note in the close, but the merger destination is actually an editorial one and not admin. @DoctorWhoFan91 I'd suggest that you, @Cunard and any other interested editors discuss on which you think is the best fit. Let me know if that's helpful? Star Mississippi 13:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)