User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi @Star Mississippi: Should that not be a keep? Four keeps, a convert to disamb page and merge. It seemed to be only the Afd author who was pushing back against the solid keep vote? scope_creepTalk 16:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Where I landed on N/C was the established editors making a case for the merge/DAB and Transient-understanding's comments, which while unbolded seemed to be making a case to keep the content, but not clearly under this title. Nom's badgering didn't merit weight beyond their nomination. I'm happy to re-close as keep if you feel strongly since the outcome is the same, but to me it reads as a n/c. Star Mississippi 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: Looking at it a second time, there is actually five keeps and disamb entry with a merge that was struck changed to disamb. It is solid keep. At every entry, there was pushback against the opening editor and there was never any doubt from the beginning that it was a valid article. SpinningSpark provided a url at the beginning that proved that it was established BBC Brand. I think it should be a keep. scope_creepTalk 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Messed up the ping, but assume you're watching anywhoo. I'm not entirely sure I see it as you do, but you make a good case and we end up in the same place preservation of content wise and so have re-closed as keep. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 15:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your analysis of the discussion amounts to "consensus not to delete", not "no consensus". These are not the same thing (but as you say, the same result). The former means there was consensus to keep the material in some form (which may require discussion outdside the AFD), the latter means the discussion couldn't decide whether to keep or delete. SpinningSpark 00:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to speak to the articles or be working on articles - I don't want to speak to a person until its a last resort but The BBC discussion including statements by scope_creepT illustrate and confirm what I feel/see is going on I feel that there is a belligerent tone including gaslighting and bullying on the part of the AFD author (in this thread and elsewhere) "
- I did not say that" is frequently a response observable when the afd author is pounding folks trying to discuss issues and content. - gaslighting
- - "congratulations (seriously!)," - personally demeaning statement
- - what you are saying "is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia," again multiple times "which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia." - judgemental, condemning, and demeaning
- - "No, I'm not interpreting." - gaslighting a person pushing back
- - "tarnished my nomination" - personalization to say my opinion is important but I won't consider yours
- - To you, the closer, "it implies your support for hoaxes on Wikipedia a type of vandalisim" - judgemental, condemning, demanding
- - " I have seen this comment but do not consider it to be in good faith or meriting of a response" - another editor having to defend themselves personally
- When you run into this kind of tone it's a very negative experience. It's not productive in any way. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I definitely see your point on that @Spinningspark. I think I personally am reading the merge/dab as this material is a fit, but this house might not be. There is a consensus to keep the material (i.e. definitely no BLAR or delete) but isn't necessarily the right house (article ) in which to keep it, hence not a clear consensus to Keep it. I don't see it as an n/c that gets revisited because most editors appeared to want to maintain it with only the nominator strongly disagreeing.
- @Flibbertigibbets sorry I'm not entirely following this, although I see some of the comments from a nominator who was bludgeoning the discussion regardless of merit to their comments. If this is a broader conduct issue, it should be addressed. This is my first interaction with the nom as far as I'm aware so don't have any background unfortunately. Star Mississippi 04:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry "I dropped this on your desk" without a solution;
- Yes there "was bludgeoning" of "discussions regardless of merit " but there is also a "bludgeoning of people as well," and when you read this and other afd discussions, involving this editor that is the case. For that reason I reached out to you and I would like to reach out to User:Liz as well.
- I picked out a few interactions (here) where folks are absolutely being pounded, and on a personal basis, to such an extent they were getting gaslighted which I consider a form of abuse.
- The conduct is not acceptable it is abusive, alienates people (personally or in terms of the project), hurts feelings, and it prevents articles from being discussed on the merits.
- I will remove myself from afd discussions as to not encounter this user - but I think this has to be studied and addressed.
- Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I'm about to log off for the next 12 hours or so. If this needs immediate resolution that @Liz can't provide, perhaps DRN or ANI can help in the interim. Otherwise I'll look into this tomorrow or Sunday. Star Mississippi 04:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer to take the smallest steps possible. The solution to me, for now, is to cool stuff down by avoiding this user; I would like to go back to afd... so I would just suggest thinking about rather than escalating it. Regards and have a great weekend. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Flibbertigibbets: The editor who opened the Afd @Modernponderer: I thought was confused between what could be used to verify the existance of the BBC Kids organsation and what references could be used to prove it was notable. SpinningSpark posted a URL that showed the organisation was opening in two countries South Africa and Taiwan that were thousands of miles apart, verifying it existed. That showed it was very large organisation, more so, proved the BBC Kids organisation exists but Modernponderer refused to take it on. 8 days later, still refusing to take it on, and beginning to bludgeon, I showed a references proving the division existed verifying it, and stating there was mountains of evidence that it was notable, there was reams of sources, but still refusing to take it on. There is a saying, you can take a horse to water, but it you can't make it drink and thats what happened here. Modernponderer refused right through the Afd to take idea on that it was very large organisation, it existed in least two countries and it finally proved notable, five people saying it. He said it was hoax, 8 days later.. The editor just refused to take in the light of conclusive evidence, so its not gaslighting. The editor is obstinate and obtuse. Folk get frustrated when the absolute evidence is there and the editor refuses to accept it. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was on the opposite side to Modernponderer in the AFD, but they are entitled to their opinion; this was not the obvious "keep" decision that some seem to think it was. Yes, there was a lot of bludgeoning going on, but this is not considered against policy – only poor behaviour (which more often than not backfires on the perpetrator). @Flibbertigibbets: I think accusations of gaslighting are a bit over the top and are unlikely to result in any action against the user, but like Star Mississippi I have no experience of the user's previous behaviour so I might be wrong. If you do decide to take it further, WP:ANB is the right place rather than ANI (because you are alleging long term behaviour, not a specific incident needing immediate attention) and you definitely need to learn how to post WP:DIFFs which you will need in numbers as evidence. SpinningSpark 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well said, a pattern of "poor behaviour will more often than not backfire on the perpetrator" so the concern raised will resolve itself.
- I would think that good editors speak to the merits by presenting ideas objectively; this very discussion even gravitated back to the merits of the work product. "Looking to improve articles for the reader " working with other people, seems to be the way to enjoy the platform/people as to provide benefit to the project. So thanks the concern is closed. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- thanks for the notice board correction @Spinningspark and both of your input. I'm unable to dig further into this at the moment @Flibbertigibbets but I'd say you're correct in finding the best path to productive editing, but ping me at any time if I can help Star Mississippi 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- As someone in the same interest area, MP has a history of WP:BLUDGEON within the AfD space in the past (and recently; see this, where they all but called the nom something unsavory just for the sake of insulting them, and here where they tried to restore a Daily Mail source that wasn't needed) which has proven them to be very unpleasant to communicate with, and trying to talk to them is like talking to a brick wall, as they delete any notices on their talk page ASAP without archiving. They're currently doing the same thing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialty channel to my vote!, so I've chosen to withdraw it and to ask them not communicate with me, as their "pro-tip" language against the nom reads as a personal attack and decided to attack my vote! in a manner that was hostile, so it's turning into a TRAINWRECK the same way this one did. They also inexplicably got angry because I removed one of their images from an article as duplicative and said I interpreted WP:GALLERY wrong.
- For this article I did feel like we had a good consensus going before MP's hoax allegations started and turned it into a self-TRAINWRECK where SM indeed have a tough call to make; I do feel the no-con was appropriate just to limit the damage of MP's allegations of hoaxing, so even if the result didn't go my way, I agreed with the close all the same. Nate • (chatter) 09:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was on the opposite side to Modernponderer in the AFD, but they are entitled to their opinion; this was not the obvious "keep" decision that some seem to think it was. Yes, there was a lot of bludgeoning going on, but this is not considered against policy – only poor behaviour (which more often than not backfires on the perpetrator). @Flibbertigibbets: I think accusations of gaslighting are a bit over the top and are unlikely to result in any action against the user, but like Star Mississippi I have no experience of the user's previous behaviour so I might be wrong. If you do decide to take it further, WP:ANB is the right place rather than ANI (because you are alleging long term behaviour, not a specific incident needing immediate attention) and you definitely need to learn how to post WP:DIFFs which you will need in numbers as evidence. SpinningSpark 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Flibbertigibbets: The editor who opened the Afd @Modernponderer: I thought was confused between what could be used to verify the existance of the BBC Kids organsation and what references could be used to prove it was notable. SpinningSpark posted a URL that showed the organisation was opening in two countries South Africa and Taiwan that were thousands of miles apart, verifying it existed. That showed it was very large organisation, more so, proved the BBC Kids organisation exists but Modernponderer refused to take it on. 8 days later, still refusing to take it on, and beginning to bludgeon, I showed a references proving the division existed verifying it, and stating there was mountains of evidence that it was notable, there was reams of sources, but still refusing to take it on. There is a saying, you can take a horse to water, but it you can't make it drink and thats what happened here. Modernponderer refused right through the Afd to take idea on that it was very large organisation, it existed in least two countries and it finally proved notable, five people saying it. He said it was hoax, 8 days later.. The editor just refused to take in the light of conclusive evidence, so its not gaslighting. The editor is obstinate and obtuse. Folk get frustrated when the absolute evidence is there and the editor refuses to accept it. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your analysis of the discussion amounts to "consensus not to delete", not "no consensus". These are not the same thing (but as you say, the same result). The former means there was consensus to keep the material in some form (which may require discussion outdside the AFD), the latter means the discussion couldn't decide whether to keep or delete. SpinningSpark 00:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Messed up the ping, but assume you're watching anywhoo. I'm not entirely sure I see it as you do, but you make a good case and we end up in the same place preservation of content wise and so have re-closed as keep. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 15:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: Looking at it a second time, there is actually five keeps and disamb entry with a merge that was struck changed to disamb. It is solid keep. At every entry, there was pushback against the opening editor and there was never any doubt from the beginning that it was a valid article. SpinningSpark provided a url at the beginning that proved that it was established BBC Brand. I think it should be a keep. scope_creepTalk 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I really wanted to stay out of this muck after User:Flibbertigibbets seemed to finally WP:DROPTHESTICK, but now that there are outright lies being spread about me by User:Mrschimpf, I feel I have little choice but to defend myself.
But first of all, shame on ALL the "participants" in this "discussion" (including multiple admins, who really should know better!). This isn't the first time that a "quiet" discussion about my supposed conduct has taken place on an administrator's talk page, without even pinging me (one editor here did so towards the end of the discussion, but almost certainly by mistake as they went on to launch their own volley of attacks against me). Does the huge red banner on pages like WP:AN and WP:ANI mean nothing to you? Or do you think it is fine to WP:GAME the system by being "clever enough" to simply discuss a user's conduct on a different page?
Now, to the heart of the matter: I am being attacked for my opinions, simply because they are unpopular. I go out of my way to ensure my edits are 100% compliant with Wikipedia policy (including citations when my stance is challenged, which almost nobody else uses even when relying on policy). I do NOT "personally attack" editors, but do criticize (sometimes very strongly) their opinions on content. That is literally what Wikipedia is about – discussion to resolve disagreement. The worst thing you could accuse me of in ALL those recently cited discussions is having "lost my cool" in a single edit towards the end of the BBC Kids discussion, when after a protracted attempt to explain fundamental Wikipedia policy such as WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG to the "keep" participants in that discussion (who seemed to think "BBC children's department" = "international channel brand with the specific name 'BBC Kids'") two editors joined in and literally invented a NEW term ("division") that was not used in ANY sources. Was my frustration not understandable? You be the judge...
But enough about me, because it's disturbing that everyone seems to be talking about my behaviour and yet nobody has bothered to look into the WP:HOUNDING of me that User:Flibbertigibbets has done across four different pages now, and relentless barrage of WP:PERSONALATTACKS on five pages – including their own talk page. Seriously, just have a look at this – I do think it speaks for itself as to who is whom in this "conduct issue", and who is actually talking about content policy: User talk:Flibbertigibbets#You fundamentally misunderstand AfD
As for User:Mrschimpf... oh boy. The irony is, their "discussion style" is perhaps the most similar to mine of any editor I've come across on Wikipedia, which means their attacks here are not only projection but also come across as an attempt to "eliminate a competitor" (so who is really treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND here?). But while they may argue similarly, their edits are anything but. I'm not sure I've ever come across another editor so brazenly WP:GUTTING article after article after article including on grounds that were rejected at AfD by community consensus (such as lists of programs on channel pages), fully convinced that they are THE arbiter of WP:NOT for the pages they choose. (Hear that User:Flibbertigibbets? Your accusation of "acting like an emperor" may have been directed at the wrong editor...)
Now let's play a game called "the lies (personal attacks against me) of User:Mrschimpf":
- Criticizing the nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsLeecher for nonsensical and self-serving arguments is not a "personal attack", but pointing out the extreme weakness of their position (and the nomination).
- Restoring a source (at The Upstairs Downstairs Bears) is an attack? Are you actually serious? Oh, and my explanation was and continues to be absolutely correct: the community consensus from the relevant RfC explicitly carved out exceptions, a number (more than one) of which apply to that source's use in that article. However, by that point I was so exhausted of debating with editors' personal interpretation of community consensus (a.k.a. policy) that I simply let the matter drop. Now that page has but a single citation in the Reception section, which makes it a target for deletionists such as User:Mrschimpf... convenient no?
- Blanking my PERSONAL talk page... first of all, that's a low blow. You know that editors are allowed wide latitude in userspace, and I've actually had the assistance of multiple administrators in the past in deleting old user talk page archives so it's not just me who thinks it's fine. I do not keep user talk archives anymore because (a) they are rarely if ever useful and (b) they make it too easy for someone to deliberately leave a bogus complaint and then "cite" it later in another discussion – obviously it's still possible from the history, but it's not searchable so the barrier to misuse is much higher. But all of that is nothing compared to your outright LIE that I delete user communication "ASAP" – it is extremely rare for me to remove discussion (not useless bot "notices") without addressing it. In fact I literally just had a lengthy back-and-forth with another editor with whom I initially disagreed (about a page multiple admins had mistreated in violation of policy, ironically enough). Even with the edits by User:Flibbertigibbets, which were completely unnecessary as they had already written that at the AfD, I reverted citing good faith and directed them to continue the discussion at AfD because it was about a specific article and other editors should be involved in that.
- I did not "attack" anyone at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialty channel. The nom literally dumped an entire list of CATEGORIES of sources, something I'm not sure I've ever seen in an AfD before, so I correctly pointed out that probably means there shouldn't have been an AfD in the first place. But the idea that I "attacked" User:Mrschimpf's arguments is even more ludicrous – my points there didn't mention any other editors at all (not even a group like "AfD noms"). So, User:Mrschimpf, are you saying that content disagreement is an attack? (Not that I would be too surprised at this point...) Oh, and by the way your suggestions at that AfD were so nonsensical that you were called out for it by an admin (User:Liz) multiple times for causing closer confusion.
- Your removal of the image was (a) a blatant misuse of policy, as I correctly pointed out: "removal of an image that was never in a gallery per WP:GALLERY"; and (b) wrong even per WP:NFCC as it was completely different from the normal channel logos (which you also regularly remove anyways) and therefore not duplicative. I would not have added it in the first place if it were duplicative, as I know someone is likely to remove it citing NFCC (but certainly not GALLERY).
- And last but not least considering the heading of this section, your point about the BBC Kids AfD is just completely wrong – the close would have been exactly the same with or without the hoax accusation (and yes, inventing a NEW term as two editors did towards the end of that discussion IS a hoax by definition). In fact, User:Star Mississippi has treated the two "convert to disambiguation page" !votes (including yours) as "keep" when in fact they are virtually the same as "redirect", which is considered a "delete"-type !vote because the article content is removed (although it is still available from the history). This left only the nomination, which stood no chance against so many "keep" and quasi-"keep" !votes regardless of whatever accusations you lob at me.
Speaking to the latter point, I strongly disagree with a "keep" result in a case of "4 keep:2 disambiguate:1 delete" as it is really "4 keep:3 delete", and I would ask User:Star Mississippi to please consider restoring the original close. (Note: there was no "merge" !vote by the end of the discussion.) Modernponderer (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm committed to being a responsive admin, you're not going to find the resolution (any of the three of) you are looking for at my Talk page as to the broader conduct issues at AfD. As I said to @Flibbertigibbets above, there are other venues better set up to discuss this. In fact having since seen you post on various admin's pages, FG, I'm going to more strongly endorse a centralized place of discussion such as AN if you believe there's a conduct issue that needs addressing. That is more likely to get resolution in some form then multiple posts without the background of the discussion. Note: not saying your conduct is right or wrong @Modernponderer as I said above, you're not a familiar editor to me and I have not read through the diffs you or @Mrschimpf have provided. I am going to repeat though what I said in the close, toning down the rhetoric would help. Screaming HOAX didn't add anything to that discussion and likely will not help reach further resolution to the broader issue.
- MP, with respect to the close, given multiple folks seeing it differently, I'm not going to unilaterally re-close it. Please feel free to bring it to DRV with my blessing. It clearly needs more eyes than just my own. While I generally think we don't need seven more days, we might just in this case. Courtesy heads up on this decision @Scope creep @Spinningspark if you're not following Star Mississippi 15:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was fully satisfied with your first close, Star, so I did consider it resolved at that point, and that you did close it as should be done, but that Scope's advocacy was just fine. I just felt the nom derailed things so there was no other real direction to take, and will accept whatever a deletion review deems appropriate, if it comes to that. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- oops @Mrschimpf I'd missed your response. To clarify, I meant @Modernponderer when I said if he was unhappy with it. With the relative similarity in your usernames I could see how that would be confusing with the abbreviation. Star Mississippi 17:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was fully satisfied with your first close, Star, so I did consider it resolved at that point, and that you did close it as should be done, but that Scope's advocacy was just fine. I just felt the nom derailed things so there was no other real direction to take, and will accept whatever a deletion review deems appropriate, if it comes to that. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you please reconsider the submission?
I personally do not think it is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia due to the existence of "List of fictional foxes." Do you insist in your decision? - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Admittedly the list of fictional foxes need more citations. But there are other lists too, as well as "Moon in science fiction." - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- You were also asked by @Blaze Wolf to stop submitting things that clearly weren't encyclopedia articles, and you didn't listen. You're wasting reviewers' time. You're welcome to create a proper draft under the title and submit it when it is finished. This title will not be reopened for submission. Star Mississippi 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
So
What happens if that AfD is closed as no consensus, does it stay a redirect or an article? Ironically, I think it should stay a redirect, because BLP. I predict a megabyte of discussion will be written about this question. Levivich (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh don't even offer that idea to the universe! Kidding.
- I imagine it's going to end up at DRV however it closes especially since the bulk of the participants are established editors making well reasoned arguments. You (collectively, not you personally) disagree which is unfortunately a possibility that there isn't consensus Star Mississippi 04:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Warren and Brown
Please may I have a copy of the deleted article Warren and Brown. I believe insufficient attention was paid to the company's pre-eminence in the design and manufacture of their dual-beam torque wrench, and an award they received from the Victorian government for later achievements. The water may have been muddied somewhat by one user's claim of continued ownership by Repco Pty Ltd, against my assertion that the company was the subject of a management buyout and current private ownership, for which there is a solid reference. Doug butler (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Here you go: Draft:Warren and Brown.
- Don't hesitate to ask if you need anything further once you've done research. If, when done, you feel it's different enough to avoid G4, there's no need from my POV to go through DRV to restore it unless you wish. Star Mississippi 04:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've posted the relevant links on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in the hopes of further input. Doug butler (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great solution. Have a great day Star Mississippi 14:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- ETA have to say, I was glad I forgot to unwatch for this edit summary. I'm familiar with the expression and its meaning, but had to giggle as I contemplate the breakfast item. Thanks for your work/the laugh @Doug butler Star Mississippi 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've posted the relevant links on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in the hopes of further input. Doug butler (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can you please reinstate the page so a redirect can be established? The reasoning that there was "divided" opinion on an ATD is not correct - you did not pay attention to the refutation of that comment. Deus et lex (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good morning. I did pay attention to the refutation, but that doesn't mean consensus was established for it as a viable AtD. There was disagreement on whether it was viable, but that doesn't mean it can't be created editorially.
- You're welcome to create the redirect. If, per @Doug butler's research he noted above, there's enough material to establish notability, the redirect can then be undone. The history and attribution are preserved in the draft regardless of whether it's subsequently spun out, so nothing is lost. If Doug finds there's no sourcing and wants to have the draft re deleted, the history could then go under the redirect. Does that help? Star Mississippi 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Request for Reinstatement
Hello @Star Mississippi, how are you? I hope all is well.
I am reaching out to you today because I'd like to request for reinstatement of a Wikipedia article named "Rewards For Justice Terror List" that was deleted on 12/17/2022. The Rewards For Justice Terror List was nominated for deletion due to "lack of website, article, and books sourced citations" for the significant person(s) of interest that was previously mentioned. Would you please consider restoring the deleted article? The first person mentioned was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who was sanctioned as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) by Hillary Clinton, being tied to world history events. Each and every person mentioned on the list is important.
Wikipedia should preserve lists such as Category:Fugitives_wanted_by_Ukraine, Category:Fugitives wanted by Russia and FBI Most Wanted Komorijuno (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Komorijuno. Because it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewards for Justice Terror List, I cannot restore it unilaterally. In this case even if I could, I wouldn't for BLP reasons. When it comes to living people, sourcing must be impeccable and it very much wasn't in this case. If you think the close was in error, you're welcome to take it to Deletion Review, however the reasons you mentioned here and at the discussion do not indicate it was wrong, just that you disagree, which is of course your prerogative. Let me know if you need more information. Star Mississippi 14:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reference. I understand where you're coming from. My favorite subjects are just related to history. Each and every person listed has over 100+ news articles and it was so unfinished I was really looking forward to adding some new content each day. I wanted to add a little chart too. I don't support terrorist organizations I think it's better that we keep the list up because mostly 90% of the people listed are known for kidnapping and holding Americans as hostage, so it's really for our own best interest honestly. I use to hear on the news about plane hijackings and it wasn't until last week , did I actually read the background of somebody who hijacked a flight. The best protection we can have from dangerous people is to keep a safe distance and knowledge of them. Komorijuno (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's possible you might convince someone to restore this in draft space for you to work on, but without the requisite sourcing I am not comfortable doing so. In the last version, there are entire sections that are unsourced and coupled with the fact that many on the list don't have articles, we have no no information on why they might be included. It might be different if there was sourcing with red links. You can also work on this offline and make a case for restoration when you've added the 100+ articles if that works for you. That's something you can ask for at WP:REFUND as some administrators will provide it. There will be some red flags though with such a new account, have you edited with another one before? That's not an issue if you're not using both concurrently, but folks will ask so you might want to mention that on your userpage if you have. Star Mississippi 15:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't expect myself to be this involved in Wikipedia honestly. Can we get rid of all the red links? I know it's strange there's not much sources on it but I saw on the news that it's related to the intelligence agency that took down Osama Bin Ladin and offered the $30 million. which I found fascinating. That's all. There is honestly though over an average of 100 articles link to each person. I remember reading on the list yesterday that were was a man who called the police station and said he was a servant of Basij and was his 'specially trained" suicide bomber. I had no idea that suicide bombing is a profession in Hezbollah supported nationsKomorijuno (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your two routes to getting the draft back are as follows: If you feel my close was wrong, you're welcome to open a Deletion Review. If you want the content for your own use off site you're welcome to request such at WP:REFUND. Fulfilling that or not is at the discretion of administrator's. I will note that useful/fascinating are not good arguments to make, especially when it comes to BLPs being associated with a crime which they may or may not be convicted of. Star Mississippi 19:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't expect myself to be this involved in Wikipedia honestly. Can we get rid of all the red links? I know it's strange there's not much sources on it but I saw on the news that it's related to the intelligence agency that took down Osama Bin Ladin and offered the $30 million. which I found fascinating. That's all. There is honestly though over an average of 100 articles link to each person. I remember reading on the list yesterday that were was a man who called the police station and said he was a servant of Basij and was his 'specially trained" suicide bomber. I had no idea that suicide bombing is a profession in Hezbollah supported nationsKomorijuno (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's possible you might convince someone to restore this in draft space for you to work on, but without the requisite sourcing I am not comfortable doing so. In the last version, there are entire sections that are unsourced and coupled with the fact that many on the list don't have articles, we have no no information on why they might be included. It might be different if there was sourcing with red links. You can also work on this offline and make a case for restoration when you've added the 100+ articles if that works for you. That's something you can ask for at WP:REFUND as some administrators will provide it. There will be some red flags though with such a new account, have you edited with another one before? That's not an issue if you're not using both concurrently, but folks will ask so you might want to mention that on your userpage if you have. Star Mississippi 15:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reference. I understand where you're coming from. My favorite subjects are just related to history. Each and every person listed has over 100+ news articles and it was so unfinished I was really looking forward to adding some new content each day. I wanted to add a little chart too. I don't support terrorist organizations I think it's better that we keep the list up because mostly 90% of the people listed are known for kidnapping and holding Americans as hostage, so it's really for our own best interest honestly. I use to hear on the news about plane hijackings and it wasn't until last week , did I actually read the background of somebody who hijacked a flight. The best protection we can have from dangerous people is to keep a safe distance and knowledge of them. Komorijuno (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Al Mashhad News
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Mashhad News. 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. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Until I clicked through I wondered how much I must have messed it up a close for you not to talk to me first! Will comment there to keep it all central Star Mississippi 14:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, my
Hello, Star Mississippi,
How do you feel about donut shops? I think that no matter how this discussion is closed, it will end up at Deletion review and I've made too many visits there. I've tried reading all the comments in the discussion and am still undecided. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hah! I'm regretting !voting there for my notifications' sake. Also the one I nominated several threads up at #So.
- But having voted also keeps me from the clerking that I feel needs to happen with the name calling and finger pointing. That discussion has gotten unnecessarily personal so I fear you're right re: DRV. I didn't expect a restaurant to inspire such heated debate. Star Mississippi 04:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, well, I wanted to ask. There's only about 4-5 admins I've seen authoritatively handle such divisive discussions without being dragged to DRV and most of them don't do daily patrols, looking for discussions to close. I'm not there yet but I've only been closing discussions for about 11 months now. I'm a better closer than I was in January so I hope to continue to improve over the coming year and start to handle more of the tougher, no-win, discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Poor @RL0919 took it on and it is predictably at DRV. I don't feel strongly enough about my !vote to weigh in, although I'm at DRV on the same day so my notifications already taking a hit. Can we all have holiday donuts or latke at least? Star Mississippi 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia, so of course the AfD about a doughnut shop is way more contentious than the one about a neo-Nazi.
Levivich (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm shocked the one about the Nazi monuments didn't end up at DRV to be honest. But yes, that donuts one is going to be a messy close, pun absolutely intended. Star Mississippi 15:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, well, I wanted to ask. There's only about 4-5 admins I've seen authoritatively handle such divisive discussions without being dragged to DRV and most of them don't do daily patrols, looking for discussions to close. I'm not there yet but I've only been closing discussions for about 11 months now. I'm a better closer than I was in January so I hope to continue to improve over the coming year and start to handle more of the tougher, no-win, discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays/ Draft:Benjamin Bocio
Hi Star Mississippi, I hope you are enjoying these special holidays. I am sending this message to inform you that I have submitted Draft:Benjamin Bocio, still I will work on minor details (Translating all Spanish references), but you can certainly compare and check that I again corrected the previous wiki page related to this living person, in a significant and I think this time I did it in the right way. I will wait for approval to start working on my next one.
Merry Christmas !! Librarian887 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Reverted Edits
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the LDS Church. This is an informal name that the church has asked not to use since it removes the most important part of who's church it is. It is Jesus Christ's church with the parishioners being Latter-day Saints. 108.200.220.71 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Please log in to your account and read MOS:LDS which addresses this. Wikipedia does not adhere to the wishes of any religious movement as far as their name. Star Mississippi 02:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Holiday wishes
Happy holidays!
,_Egrets_in_Snow,_1927.jpg) |
Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder. |
|
Hi Star Mississippi, Thank you for all your contributions during the year. Netherzone (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
|
- To you, your family and loved ones as well @Netherzone. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with you. While prints are always great for cards, I find it especially fitting given our collaborations. And fun fact? I used to live in Japan! So thanks for this. Be well and stay warm. Star Mississippi 22:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy holidays
 |
Seasons greetings! |
|
Wishing you joyous holiday spirits,  |
|
Beccaynr (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Have enjoyed working with you on some subjects and look forward to more. Star Mississippi 01:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas, Star Mississippi |
|
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! |
- Thank you, and the same to your loved ones. Always a pleasure to work with you. Star Mississippi 17:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023! |
|
Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the Draft:Benjamin BocioWikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. |
Happy Holidays
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC) |
Happy New Year, Star Mississippi!
Star Mississippi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
AfD closed 3 days early despite non-notable sourcing
Hello, I was curious about policy around closing AfDs early as this one[1], especially when it's demonstrated that the article still has severe sourcing issues with respect to presuming notability per WP:NBASIC. As noted[2], I planned to and was already putting together an analysis of each source added in which only 1 or 2 sources fit the non-trivial "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
criteria, excluding the book reviews which speak to the books themselves. The problem is, these sources are overwhelmingly non-independent and/or primary, tertiary, self-published, WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS violations, not demonstrating notability. This would be in addition to the comments already made in the AfD and policy about interviews, self-published sources, etc not providing notability for BLPs.
7 of the ~10 votes only came after sources were added to the article making non-arguments, evidently influenced by the ostensible "notability" of the subject added in the last couple days, and the few arguments before that were spurious as explained by admin DragonflySixtyseven. Given the blitz to add any random sources found on the internet unduly and misled most of the AfD participation and early-closed the AfD, what are your suggested next steps? Fix up the article which currently has blatant BLP vios, wait a long duration (1 year, 2 year range), determine if it's still not meeting notability guidelines, and if not then re-nom? Thanks. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Saucysalsa30. If you believe my close was in error (not just that you disagree), you're welcome to file a DRV for the community to weigh in. I could undo the close and might if an uninvolved editor asks, but there isn't a chance of that discussion closing with a different outcome, which is WP:SNOW. Before pursuing DRV, I suggest that you closely look at the ANI, the AfD and other areas where you're discussing the article. There is no consensus for your position at the moment, and it's not relevant in this case that @DragonflySixtyseven (courtesy ping since I'm mentioning, no action needed) is an admin as that doesn't provide either of us with standing in what is a content dispute. You don't believe she's notable, the community believes that she is. You disagree on the merit of the sources, which is within your right as an editor, but currently the community feels there is merit to the sources. I see many established editors weighing in, and no one is adding
any random sources found on the internet unduly
. Let me know if this is helpful? Star Mississippi 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)- @Star Mississippi Yes it is helpful. Quick clarification: the general understanding about AfDs and what Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion says is that it's about the cases and arguments made in terms of the policies and weight, which in this case were 7 "Keep per X" non-arguments (no weight) and a few refuted spurious claims directly contrary to policies. I've seen AfDs where the only person arguing "Delete" was the nominator, and it was closed as delete because the arguments contrary were spurious (though convincing on the surface) or no-substance. If DS does not provide us with standing, then it is the case that the other admin SouthernNights who was heavily involved in the AfD and non-notability source adding to the article would not either. By "random source", it's not inaccurate as these sources included trivial namedrops, BLP-violating sources, etc. As said, I looked through every source added and have already been removing cases of failed verification WP:OR.
- An observed issue is there's a WikiProject Women in Red whose objective is preventing red links and changing red to blue, which includes preventing deletions of women bios. Most (6) of the participants on the AfD were members of this project. I'm not saying with any certainty that canvassing was involved, but a WikiProject dedicated to on-site activism of this nature can be disruptive especially for standard procedures like AfDs.
"the community believes that she is"
: the community being the 2 non-admins who had more to say than "Keep per X", on the basis of opinion directly contradicting policy (eg. claiming primary sourcing demonstrates notability). It's unfortunate that policies get thrown away because 2 people make spurious cases. I'd have been just as shocked if they were deletes for equally spurious reasoning. I think we need to have the bar higher than Randy in Boise but perhaps my expectations are too high coming from an academia followed by industry background. Thanks for reading through and for your response. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)- WiR would only be canvassing if they said "Vote to keep this article" which, in my experience, they do not do. It's not dissimilar to any of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting topics where you're likely to get interested editors, but not necessarily ones given to !vote in a particular direction. I disagree with you that their activism can be disruptive, and I'd caution you against treading heavily in that direction as you will find many editors have been involved with WiR directly or indirectly during their tenures.
- None of us, not @SouthernNights, not @User:Black Kite, not DS67 nor I have "standing". What you're describing above and at ANI is a content dispute where no one's input has more weight simply because they are an admin. You believe the sources aren't sufficient, a critical mass of other editors believe are. As an uninvolved admin who did not vote in the AfD I read the input and formed my conclusion. While there may be cases where the nomination outweighs any participants, those are rare and is not what is happening here. Also, I'm not sure where you heard "Keep per X" as having no weight as that's not an accurate policy or practice. They might not have weight based on X, but it's not an absolute, and that's not even what is happening at this AfD where people are explaining why they feel she is notable.
- Note, after this evening I'm going to be offline for a few days so please don't think I'm not responding. I'll leave a similar note at the ANI Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
"You believe the sources aren't sufficient, a critical mass of other editors believe are."
Unfortunately, this is a well-known, if not handicapping, issue on Wikipedia which I assume you're not promoting: Voting without looking at what the sources are, which almost all of the votes were. This is a problem with laziness in other types of disputes and discussions too. Correctness, sourcing, policy usually don't matter, just the "votes". The couple actually making any sort of argument were spurious to a degree that DragonflySixtyseven had to respectfully point out how mistaken they were for demonstrating notability, so really, there was no argument being made."Also, I'm not sure where you heard "Keep per X" as having no weight as that's not an accurate policy or practice."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_pointing_at_a_policy_or_guideline The reason why it's rightfully an argument to avoid it's because it is lazy and adds no substance or argument. When the point is to have a discussion, it doesn't add to the discussion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)- Relevant diffs. [3][4][5]. On the whole, it appears that many Wikipedia editors can and should learn from DS. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi!
- You still seem to be misunderstanding that @DragonflySixtyseven's opinion doesn't carry any more weight then anyone else's. For example, I'd disagree with their comment here since
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
(emphasis mine) might disagree. But neither of us is objectively correct. If you feel my close is incorrect, as you seem to be indicating, you're welcome to file a Deletion Review. I would recommend you heed some of the advice given at ANI and avoid aspersions such as assuming folks haven't reviewed the sources as you don't know for a fact that they don't. Neither of those will fly well at DRV. Star Mississippi 00:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)- Hello! DS had refuted multiple spurious arguments contrary to policy, not only that, but I assume you referring to the subject's memoir? The argument made on the AfD was, paraphrasing, "two reviews exist, therefore notable author", not what you're mentioning. However I can see how a few non-routine reviews may be understood as "significant critical attention", although it'd be difficult arguing that a not-so-widely known memoir with none of the significance of say a famed, Pulitzer Prize-winning one like The Return (memoir) would be significant as far as memoirs or more broadly books go. Notable book? Sure, the Wikipedia bar is very low for that. Significant to the point of warranting an article for the author too? That's far more of a stretch. The Lord of the Rings is a good example of a significant work. For Bored of the Rings despite garnering more critical attention, significance, and well known than the AfD subject's memoir, would be hard to make an argument it is. PS: It's not only about DS either. The "notable work because a couple book reviews = significant author" claim has been shot down many times from what I've seen. Easy mistake to make.
- Regardless, I understand that change won't happen quickly, if ever, but the emphasis on tallies over discussion points, made in discussions at that, can be concerningly counter-productive. Not only regarding that AfD, or AfDs as a whole, but the general body of discussions on the site. It is very well how political elections work where there's typically no requirement but age and no discussion point is made to justify a vote, but academia (which as an encyclopedia and brainchild of a philosopher, Wikipedia intends to model on), and industry/business would become amateurish at best if decisions were left to tallies based on unsubstantiated or spurious statements. I'll consider DRV if worth the effort but at the same time I'd prefer to avoid more drama which I'm learning appears to always follow any such topic. Thanks for your kind responses. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry for the delay. I think the issue you're going to find at DRV is that your opinions are currently in the minority. That doesn't mean they're not valid, it's just that consensus isn't with you. Consensus can and does change. Parodies and alternate versions, such as Bored... and Spamilton show how that has changed over the years. When I'm acting as an editor, I've seen you and I agree in some AfDs so I don't think your opinions are out of line at all, I just don't think you'll find the support you hope yet for the changes. DS could have challenged my close and didn't, so possible they have some insight to share about why not. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 01:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Relevant diffs. [3][4][5]. On the whole, it appears that many Wikipedia editors can and should learn from DS. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Undeletion request Talk:AwardWallet
Kindly asking you to return Talk:AwardWallet, the talk page associated with AwardWallet which you undeleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Apologies for the oversight and thanks for flagging @Finnusertop Star Mississippi 17:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Star Mississippi,
I spend much of my day on Wikipedia reviewing and deleting expired drafts. Many of them are autobiographies by young people. So, that's what I'm used to seeing on a daily basis. But tonight, I came across one with this photo illustrating the subject, File:MUDASIRRASHIDBHAT.jpg. Since most of the autobiographies are by young softwear engineers and "entrepreneurs", I'm not used to seeeing one with this beefcake! Not your typical photo for an encyclopedia article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's certainly something else!
- While I have you, assume you saw but in case not - our "friend" Librarian887 was editing in exactly the good faith we suspected. At least a few G5s make our lives easier, although I'm sure they'll be back. Star Mississippi 14:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- and then I went to read the SPI. Of course you know, you filed it. Need more coffee. Star Mississippi 14:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, I filed that SPI a few weeks ago and someone just got to looking at it? Oh, well, the master account was stale. No vandalism so not really urgent. I have such a bad memory of different sockpuppets, I'm sure the only reason I picked up on that one was I was looking at the article page history and seeing blocked editors had also worked on the article. That's usually when I file an SPI, when I see consistent editing of a single article by multiple sockpuppets and then a new editor pops up to edit the same article or recreate one that was deleted. Otherwise, I really assume good faith with new editors, probably to a fault. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Librarian was working their way to a DE block at first but seemed to be trying to edit productively, which was why I was willing to help in draft. I wish there were a better way of saying "I"m sorry, your article subject isn't sufficiently notable. More people working on it won't fix this underlying issue unless it's a question of source access. Star Mississippi 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, I filed that SPI a few weeks ago and someone just got to looking at it? Oh, well, the master account was stale. No vandalism so not really urgent. I have such a bad memory of different sockpuppets, I'm sure the only reason I picked up on that one was I was looking at the article page history and seeing blocked editors had also worked on the article. That's usually when I file an SPI, when I see consistent editing of a single article by multiple sockpuppets and then a new editor pops up to edit the same article or recreate one that was deleted. Otherwise, I really assume good faith with new editors, probably to a fault. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- and then I went to read the SPI. Of course you know, you filed it. Need more coffee. Star Mississippi 14:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Susan Nigro
Noticing that you PRODded this just over a year ago. I'm going to undelete it tomorrow, I think - she's in The New Grove Dictionary of American Music (which I will add), so she is definitely notable.
Let me know if you have any concerns, but Grove should allay any fears about notability. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- No concerns and done to save you the step @Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Not sure why Grove... didn't show on my sourcing then.
- Courtesy heads up to @Liz if she sees it in her logs and wonders why it's back. Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Grove may not have shown up because their online presence is a little...less than thorough, I find, at least when it comes to doing Google searches. I only know she's in there because I own a print copy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Familiar with that issue with other publications so I feel you. Happy editing! Star Mississippi 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, you too! I've added a couple of citations from Grove - it still needs quite a lot of work, but that should be enough to establish notability. I'm out for the day, and will probably have forgotten by the time I get home - I have at least three more Grove articles I'd like to create from scratch, so... :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, that definitely solved the notability issue. De-tagged so it stays out of queues and isn't at immediate risk of action for the others.
- Also going to be offline. Enjoy your day if it's as beautiful a day as it is here. And happy to undelete anything if factors/source access changes. Star Mississippi 17:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. It ended up being a lovely day, until the evening, when it got very chilly very quickly. Good day for a beer, though...long as we stayed indoors. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, you too! I've added a couple of citations from Grove - it still needs quite a lot of work, but that should be enough to establish notability. I'm out for the day, and will probably have forgotten by the time I get home - I have at least three more Grove articles I'd like to create from scratch, so... :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Familiar with that issue with other publications so I feel you. Happy editing! Star Mississippi 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Grove may not have shown up because their online presence is a little...less than thorough, I find, at least when it comes to doing Google searches. I only know she's in there because I own a print copy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
User:King Gug
Hi Star Mississippi. I was going to add a {{welcome-coi}} template to King Gug's user talk page after reverting them at King Gug, even though I also thought there was probably socking going on. Anyway, I didn't add the template when I saw you had already WP:SOFTBLOCKed the user. Do you think an SPI is warranted here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Marchjuly! I'm not sure it's actually Gug, but that block was the most good faith I could summon as I have no doubt they're acting in concert after MaxAvery removed the AfD template and hasn't edited since being warned. I'm not sure there's enough for an SPI at this stage and have a feeling MA is headed for a disruptive editing block, but we'll see if a 3rd new account appears. If one does, one of us can file the paperwork. Star Mississippi 01:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I decided to try a "softer" approach on MaxAvery's user talk page to give them a chance to try and untangle themselves from any mess they might've created. Whether it works is something I guess everyone will eventually find out, more likely sooner than later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. Given Max's work on the albums and access to "insider information this is likely UPE but if the King Gug account is someone else they seem to be trying to edit in good faith. It's hard - everyone thinks their favorite band is notable but the barrier is higher than they realize. Star Mississippi 02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I hope it's not UPE because I think they've already stated in some post somewhere that they've got no connection to this artist. If it turns out they do, then things get a lot more difficult to untangle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but there's a lot of non public info on the Discord, partnerships. And he doesn't appear to be high profile enough that John Q. Public would find the tweets about the feud if they weren't already connected in some manner. Guess it could be fan club, but things like the label seem more business than fan club. I'm about to be offline for the evening so if anything pops up, feel free to flag it for active admin. Not at all partial to my actions if they need adjusting. Star Mississippi 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- It seems as if whomever it was is back as Shawn g2200. I’m away from my PC at the moment, but I’ll look into an SPI later if nobody beats me to it. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaxAvery1999 now exists. I'll also drop a note at the AfD. Star Mississippi 14:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I got your ping and would've commented at SPI but the discussion had already been archived. Unfortunately, it also seems as if Shawn g2200 didn't heed the warning that was left on their user talk page and ended up getting indefinitely blocked as a result. MaxAvery1999 also is claiming WP:LITTLEBROTHER as to why the CU showed a match. I left one last message on their user talk page, but they're on their own from here on. Anyway, thanks for trying to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm guessing based on the 5 years comment that Max is a younger editor. I hope they're eventually able to be productive. And yes, GirthSummit took care of the messes quickly. Star Mississippi 19:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I got your ping and would've commented at SPI but the discussion had already been archived. Unfortunately, it also seems as if Shawn g2200 didn't heed the warning that was left on their user talk page and ended up getting indefinitely blocked as a result. MaxAvery1999 also is claiming WP:LITTLEBROTHER as to why the CU showed a match. I left one last message on their user talk page, but they're on their own from here on. Anyway, thanks for trying to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaxAvery1999 now exists. I'll also drop a note at the AfD. Star Mississippi 14:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- It seems as if whomever it was is back as Shawn g2200. I’m away from my PC at the moment, but I’ll look into an SPI later if nobody beats me to it. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but there's a lot of non public info on the Discord, partnerships. And he doesn't appear to be high profile enough that John Q. Public would find the tweets about the feud if they weren't already connected in some manner. Guess it could be fan club, but things like the label seem more business than fan club. I'm about to be offline for the evening so if anything pops up, feel free to flag it for active admin. Not at all partial to my actions if they need adjusting. Star Mississippi 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I hope it's not UPE because I think they've already stated in some post somewhere that they've got no connection to this artist. If it turns out they do, then things get a lot more difficult to untangle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. Given Max's work on the albums and access to "insider information this is likely UPE but if the King Gug account is someone else they seem to be trying to edit in good faith. It's hard - everyone thinks their favorite band is notable but the barrier is higher than they realize. Star Mississippi 02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I decided to try a "softer" approach on MaxAvery's user talk page to give them a chance to try and untangle themselves from any mess they might've created. Whether it works is something I guess everyone will eventually find out, more likely sooner than later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Richard Mafundi Lake has a new comment
- Thanks so much for catching the pending G13 @Mattdaviesfsic. I certainly intend to maintain and hopefully submit it in due time. Star Mississippi 20:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, good to hear. Certainly could be a B or A with a little work!
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, good to hear. Certainly could be a B or A with a little work!
Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Mafundi Lake (January 11)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Mafundi Lake 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.
|
Hello, Star Mississippi!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
|
Hauser & Wirth updates
Hi Star Mississippi, I hope you are well. I recently put up a new edit request for a brief update to the Hauser & Wirth article and was hoping you might take a quick look. Thanks for your help! Maddy at H&W (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Question re: an AfD
Hi Star, what do you think of this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dholera Special Investment Region? It's a relatively new editor who both opened the pointy discussion and then did a non-admin closure. They seem very experienced for someone who has only been around exactly two months. I want to assume good faith, but it seems a bit procedurally strange. A penny for your thoughts? Netherzone (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! First, had to chuckle at your edit summary in your tweak because we've both been on a recent AfD where I re-read my nom or a comment and wondered if I was indeed a native speaker (I am) and what I was trying to say. And yes, sadly I agree that there's something up there. No one's tenth edit is a GA Nomination. Unfortunately, Indian cinema is a sock/meat/UPE mess and I'm not sure whose alternate account that is. THey're headed toward a disruptive editing block in the near term though, so we may not need an SPI. Is that helpful? Star Mississippi 22:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Glad you had a chuckle! Even tho creating articles is a fun hobby, I'm not a good writer - I'm a very insecure one...I'm totally a visual thinker. So I'm aways second-guessing myself and the upside of my doubt is that it helps me catch my own frequent errors. Ha ha! Yes, your reply was helpful and confirming that something is off. Thanks for the speedy response, and enjoy the rest of your day. Netherzone (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- YES all around. In real life, I am happy to do the research and hand that off to someone else to write it up.
- Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 04:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Glad you had a chuckle! Even tho creating articles is a fun hobby, I'm not a good writer - I'm a very insecure one...I'm totally a visual thinker. So I'm aways second-guessing myself and the upside of my doubt is that it helps me catch my own frequent errors. Ha ha! Yes, your reply was helpful and confirming that something is off. Thanks for the speedy response, and enjoy the rest of your day. Netherzone (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Anoymoususer43/sandbox
Hello Star Mississippi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Anoymoususer43/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not obviously U5. We do have an article on emoji. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ivanvector. While I have my doubts that an "article" of emojis and without content is of value, that's why I tagged it and didn't delete it myself. As this editor's contributions are otherwise stellar ;-) I suppose we'll wait for G13. Star Mississippi 21:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I had been thinking that since it's in a sandbox and they said it was ordered chronologically (I can't verify that) there was at least a very slim possibility they were going to use it in an article. I suppose with the editor indef-blocked that's pretty unlikely. G13 doesn't apply to user sandboxes, perhaps MFD for a snow close delete? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh interesting, I thought G13 did apply if they submitted it, which they had done in this case. I knew it didn't if they didn't submit it at all.
- I love your optimism, that was just straight vandalism. I'll go to MfD. Star Mississippi 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- and then I messed up the ping, MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anoymoususer43/sandbox Star Mississippi 21:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I had been thinking that since it's in a sandbox and they said it was ordered chronologically (I can't verify that) there was at least a very slim possibility they were going to use it in an article. I suppose with the editor indef-blocked that's pretty unlikely. G13 doesn't apply to user sandboxes, perhaps MFD for a snow close delete? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
New York, New York
Here's a musical that has no article yet, from the original 1977 film, New York, New York (1977 film) → this would be New York, New York (musical), with an official opening set for April 26 (not that you didn't already know that — old news for us, but maybe new for others). Hope your New Year's is going well. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for flagging and apologies for the delay, I was offline for a few days. I'll work on a stub this week. All is well here, and I hope the same is true for you. Star Mississippi 22:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah all is well here, too. I have been working on an article I've created, called Cool Rider, before that Grease prequel Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies premieres. I meant to get to this around the time that Grease Live! came out way back in 2016. What a delay! (I know, I'm super-slow — like about seven years!) Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Stub is done. There's surprisingly little about it, but I bet that will change with LMM involvement and as it gets closer to opening. Such a weird season so far. Oh Grease, my heart. But I have Thoughts about Pink Ladies. I hope it does well though. Star Mississippi 15:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah all is well here, too. I have been working on an article I've created, called Cool Rider, before that Grease prequel Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies premieres. I meant to get to this around the time that Grease Live! came out way back in 2016. What a delay! (I know, I'm super-slow — like about seven years!) Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Pink Ladies... bad thoughts? That's okay, my lips are sealed. I have bad thoughts all the time! Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Rewards_for_Justice_Terror_List
Can you please bring back the Reward For Justice Terror List page helped keep with who the most wanted terrorists in the world and update me when someone on the list has been killed or captured Clayweintraub (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Clayweintraub. Please file a deletion review. As an AfD I cannot restore it unilaterally
- I have discussed this at length above User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Request_for_Reinstatement
- You do not appear to have edited the article aside from the closed AfD. Can you please clarify how you came across it? Star Mississippi 15:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I would be happy to have help improving and submitting this draft so the subject gets included on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, as always, @FloridaArmy for flagging your drafts. Will get to this as soon as I'm able. I've been offline for a bit so may take longer than normal, but he looks interesting. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 20:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion
Hello, Star Mississippi! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look into this. Star Mississippi 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
"Soft Delete" text on AfD closings
When an AfD is closed with a "soft delete," I see the text that says something about "Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion")...." Where does that text come from? Is it part of the AFD-closer automated thingy? (Try not to be intimidated by my technical language there.) Or is it something that is pasted in from a source somewhere? Joyous! | Talk 09:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Joyous!. Yes, that's the script. I find it super helpful as it autopopulates information like that, and does all the steps needed. Inevitably I would forget one. The script is so easy to close and I highly recommend it if you close a lot of AfDs. Star Mississippi 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I asked because I DO use it, and "soft delete" isn't one of my options. Now I am really puzzled. Joyous! | Talk 17:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- oh wow. That's definitely odd. I don't use Chrome so am no help there unfortunately. Tested it in Safari and it works fine there as well as Firefox where I use it.
- I see you found the Talk page I was just going to scan for any other folks experiencing this and I'm following that thread to see what the answer is. I also get a "soft redirect", which I don't actually understand since from my POV, a soft redirect comes from BLAR and one at AfD establishes consensus. Star Mississippi 22:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- As expected, a "soft redirect" is weird: WP: Soft redirect Joyous! | Talk
- Well, I asked because I DO use it, and "soft delete" isn't one of my options. Now I am really puzzled. Joyous! | Talk 17:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Consensus was closed
In your summary when (correctly, imo) snow closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 12#Gajesh Naik you wrote (in part) consensus there and here was closed.
, but I'm struggling to parse what you mean by that? Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- LOL. That's what I get for editing while coming down off dental work. Edited for coherence. Thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 01:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ah that makes much more sense! Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Don't drink and drive or drool and edit! Star Mississippi 02:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ah that makes much more sense! Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Brad Jacobs
Gannymetis was someone who I was told is no longer with the company and I have no association with them.Freightguy1975 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Kevin G. Chapman
Star -- first, thank you for taking the time to create a page for me (hopefully this comment shows up as from Kevingchapman). I want to explain the issue about our location. I realize that there are sources on the internet that will come up in a search that identify me as a resident of West Windsor, New Jersey. I have since amended my current biographies to say "central New Jersey" due to security concerns. In my day job, I am sometimes involved in contentious issues as a lawyer that impact individuals who are angry with me personally. As a result, my phone number and address are unlisted and there is a potential threat to my own safety and the safety of my family if certain people find my address. I understand that my Wikipedia page is not the only source of such information, but giving someone a particularly easy source like Wikipedia is concerning and I would truly appreciate it if you would leave my location as Central New Jersey, which is good enough to let people know the general area, but not so specific that someone with ill intentions would be more easily able to track me down. I appreciate your consideration. You can feel free to correspond with me at <redacted>. Again, thank you for creating a page for me. I am flattered.]] KevinGChapman (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @KevinGChapman. I totally understand your concerns, although I work in a different industry. I'm copying @Discospinster here for their opinion on your request to central New Jersey, or even just New Jersey as I'm not sure the specific region is key to your bio. You'll note I removed your email address from public view. Editors who wish to be in touch but not via your talk page will use a feature that masks your email unless you reply. Thank you and your wife for communicating with us about your article. It makes it much easier. Star Mississippi 00:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Computer Museum of America
Hello, I received your note on my edits to Computer Museum of America. Thanks for the information out posting to Wikipedia. I am not employed by the museum. Almost all the information on the Wikipedia page on the museum was created by employees/other volunteers. I do though ensure information about the museum is accurate and complete, on their site (which I do, at no charge, maintain). As they are a non-profit, they do not have budget for people to maintain all the places information is kept on the museum.
I am in the computer and software space. And my wife is the museum's first executive director. However, I've been working with the museum before it opened and hired her to run it. I'm a volunteer who just wants to ensure information is out there, accurate and complete. And given it's only 3 years old, there aren't many people out there who know about it. There is no conflict of interest.
My user name (newbrew2) is my handle (well, newbrew is) everywhere. I first used it in the 80s on bulletin boards where I discussed brewing beer. I then bought the newbrew.com domain back in the early to mid 90s and used it to, in general, promote who I am, what I do, my family and more.
Thanks for the information on posting to Wikipedia. ~~~~ Newbrew2 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nice to meet you, @Newbrew2. That connection via your spouse is still considered a Conflict of Interest as defined here. That said, the edits you made were fine and we appreciate your help. You just should probably use the WP:Edit request system.A few of us are watching the Talk page and can help with the edits you'd like to make. Star Mississippi 15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Draft:The Teresian School
Hello!
You gave me some helpful tips back in November for my draft page - I edited as advised, but have not received any feedback from any other users to push the page beyond draft. I wonder if you would revisit? It would be great to get the page published! Smccoo (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Smccoo. There is a backlog, but the article is in the queue to be reviewed, so hopefully you'll hear something soon. Star Mississippi 19:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
AfD buy one get one free
Hi Star! Thanks for closing the AfD for Rashad Hashim - do you think the AfD for Zina Mahjoub also can be closed? I think there is consensus for deletion but I'm not sure how many opinions are necessary, if there's an unofficial cutoff of sorts. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! Apologies, I was offline. @Salvio giuliano got to it first, otherwise yes I'd have closed. thanks for flagging @Kazamzam! Star Mississippi 22:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for stealing your thunder
. Cheers. Salvio giuliano 22:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- always good to share the load! Star Mississippi 22:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for stealing your thunder
You might want to delete the comment that was added after the AfD was closed. HighKing++ 20:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging. I was offline and @Sergecross73 got to it first (thank you!) Star Mississippi 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Abhijit Iyer Mitra
Please can you move this to draft as Draft:Abhijit Iyer-Mitra-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see that there was a previous page at that name.
- 16:36, 9 October 2019 RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Draft:Abhijit Iyer-Mitra (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13).
- Please could you retrieve it and merge the histories. It may produce more information to improve the draft.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here you go Draft:Abhijit Iyer Mitra @Toddy1. There wasn't much of anything viable in the old draft, but in case there was something you wanted to review. Text of the latter is also under the redirect at Draft:Abhijit Iyer-Mitra (old draft) following the history merge. Let me know if you need anything else. Star Mississippi 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have left messages about this and the other article at User talk:Mixmon. He/she is the new user who created the articles on Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Anand Ranganathan that got deleted. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Great. Flagging for @Ohnoitsjamie who protected the latter. I'm not watching the draft, so please feel free to leave a note here or ping me if you need anything further. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 00:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Glad you made a request for the other move and @Silikonz completed it. That was way beyond my skillset, tech wise @Toddy1 Star Mississippi 16:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have left messages about this and the other article at User talk:Mixmon. He/she is the new user who created the articles on Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Anand Ranganathan that got deleted. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)