User talk:Star Mississippi

This page is automagically archived by a botservant. For old threads check the archive.

American Embassy School

Hi! I notice that American Embassy School closed as delete.

I wanted to see if there were some reliable sources on the school from an EBSCOHost database. From the AFD deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Embassy School) I see that the NYT article was already quoted but that some users wanted more sources.

There are two articles I found on EBSCOHost that could help with notability:

• "American School in Delhi not run by Embassy: US". Economic Times. 2014-01-17. - The Indian government had accused the school of violating Indian law, and so the US Embassy clarified that despite the school's name, the US Embassy does not directly operate the school. I count a source as notable when a key aspect of the school is the main topic.
• Kehe, Alan (2013-12-03). "Take Your Seat for the Puja". The International Educator. - It talks about the opening of a new library on the campus. While some of the article is dedicated to the ceremony, other parts talk about the new library itself. When I write articles about schools I typically consider a change in the school's building plant (building a new building, renovation, demolition, etc) as a non-routine source that builds notability. (the periodical does not have its own article, but it appears in EBSCOHost's database)

Additionally there could be sourced information about the school's pollution mitigation efforts:

• Roy, Shubajit (2015-04-02). "Embassy schools only place where alarm bells heard". Indian Express. - Not all of the article is about AES, but several paragraphs discuss how the school's PE classes deal with pollution.
• "Reduction of particulate matter concentrations by local removal in a building courtyard: Case study for the Delhi American Embassy School". doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.154. - As science is not my field, I'm not entirely certain how to handle this source

I would hope that there are archives of Indian newspapers about this school, but I am not sure how accessible they are. I would like to see what publications like The Hindu wrote about this school when it opened. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Would you like me to restore it to draft to see what you can find in The Hindu and whether someone science based could help flesh it out? I'm happy to, and I'd gather that would be best procedure a few weeks after the AfD closed. Let me know. Star Mississippi 01:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a great plan! I'll check with the Indian noticeboard to see if editors in India can find some key articles about the school WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Great. It's at Draft:American Embassy School for your work. You'll see I'm still in the process of restoring all of the history. Needed to be done in batches since the article goes back to 2005. Let me know if you need anything else on this or any other article. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 13:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ETA: I made a mess that I can't seem to fix. The current version you should work from is Draft:American Embassy School/temp. The rest is at Draft:American Embassy School/temp2. Putting in a request for a history merge, so maybe wait a few hours. Apologies. Star Mississippi 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks Primefac Star Mississippi 15:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I added some of the sources I knew. In the meantime I found the school was used as a case study for this PHD thesis from the University of Minnesota. There was also a master's degree thesis using this school as a case study, but AFAIK those usually are not used for notability unless they had a scholarly impact (for example if a published book uses the master's degree thesis as a source) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Any time. Is there an active education wikiproject? It's not an area I frequently edit in so I'm not sure, but I feel like they might have some ideas as to how to show why the school mattered to those writing theses, etc which could help bolster notability. Star Mississippi 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools may help on that matter. I can check the thesis, which describes itself as a "case study", to see why the author chose the school and put the comments in the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and asked about notability here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Question_on_American_Embassy_School_notability, asking if the PhD thesis needed to have a specific statement on why the school was chosen as a case study WhisperToMe (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Since I didn't get a response from the schools project, I re-asked at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Notability_from_a_Phd_thesis?_Is_it_necessary_for_the_thesis_author_to_say_why_he_chose_the_school_in_a_case_study? Anyway it seems somebody tried to get the draft published and it got deleted. The situation seems like a complete mess and I wish that didn't happen... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I can follow what happened. I see @Liz deleted the redirect, which is fine. But I can't see the actual reason why the article you were actively working on was deleted. Liz, @Rusalkii, would you mind weighing in here? I think I'm just missing something. I had undeleted this for @WhisperToMe to me to work on in draftspace, and he was actively improving it. If it's eventually restored to draft space, the history is here American Embassy School, New Delhi so your work isn't lost. Thanks all! Star Mississippi 15:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the draft got deleted again after I accepted it? I can't see why someone would do that without notifying the creator; is there an explanation somewhere? When I reviewed I remember looking over the AfD, which closed with what I interpreted to be consensus that if a couple more sources were found that weren't about the visa scandal, it would probably be notable. The draft as it stood when I looked at it had a couple sources about the air filtration work on the school, plus the visa scandal, plus more routine coverage which gave the general impression that this was very prominent school in the area. Rusalkii (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears so @Rusalkii. Don't want to speak for @WhisperToMe but I believe that was their train of thought as well, which was why they were working on it and pinging relevant sources of info (see above). Because this has been moved so often (and no issue with that, precision is good), I can't find the most recent content deletion. I think @Liz can probably clarify it for all of us and maybe? restore it to draft space. Last notifications I can see are on User_talk:Kappa#Nomination_of_American_Embassy_School_for_deletion ahead of the AfD that brought Whisper to my Talk originally. Star Mississippi 16:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This article has quite a convoluted history, being moved in and out of Draft space to a number of different page names before ending up at American Embassy School, New Delhi. The editor who tagged the page for deletion had a link to the AFD which makes no mention of Draftification. As far as I could see the AFD was closed just a month ago with a decision to "Delete" and this justified an CSD G4 deletion. If I was wrong here, the page can be restored, I have no issues with that.

But I'd question the decision to move an article that was just judged to be "Deleted" so quickly out of Draft space back into the main space of the project. That move was bound to result in the article being tagged CSD G4 by our New Page patrollers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I did look at the deletion discussion and it seemed sufficiently improved (on the axes mentioned in the discussion) that G4 didn't seem relevant. Is there a general principle that we shouldn't move articles back into mainspace that have been deleted recently even if in our judgment the issues that led to its deletion have been resolved? We could run it through AfC again and see if another reviewer agrees with me, I know that I lean somewhat more lenient than the average reviewer, though my best guess is that it will be accepted again. Rusalkii (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz. I must have missed the CSD tag in the convoluted history. Does anyone have an objection to draft restoration so @WhisperToMe and @Rusalkii can work on it? I'll stay out of the restoration as the admin who closed the AfD but would have no issue with the decision in either direction of an AfC reviewer. Star Mississippi 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still trying to see if I can find users who have access to libraries in India which may have newspaper articles. Additionally I found info about the Bombay school on the Wikipedia Library, so at some point if/when you're ready I can show those sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That makes total sense. @Liz would you have anny issue with a restoration to draft so Whisper, @Rusalkii can continue to work on sourcing. G4 shouldn't be an issue in draftspace. Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 16:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Since there seemed to be no issue, and an interest in working on this: Draft:American Embassy School, New Delhi has been restored. Liz, I'll leave it to your call whether you want this to go through AfC, DRV on completion. I'm personally fine with established editors main spacing it without either. @WhisperToMe and Rusalikii:, let me know if you need anything else on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star_Mississippi (talk • contribs) with a dif for the archive bot eventually. Star Mississippi 22:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Aloosenecktie saw you're move of this article, which I'm fine with. Just looping you in on this larger conversation in the event it's deleted again. And I just realized I never signed the above so @WhisperToMe, Rusalikii, and Liz: on my comment above and Necktie's move back to mainspace. Star Mississippi 22:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh my I'm a menace today with pings. CC @A loose necktie Star Mississippi 22:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helping restore the Delhi school! Now I found some sources for the Mumbai school, so if it would be alright I would like to try adding to that draft too WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Got the ping, had a look at the article and said, "This looks like it's notable to me," saw every reason to put it in the mainspace. Might get a deletion nomination again, who knows? But I kind of doubt it. Seems like it's a notable school to me. A loose necktie (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. Is that one I need to restore @WhisperToMe? Feel free to drop the link and I'm happy to provide it for draft or mainspace incubation. With established editors such as you, @Rusalkii & @A loose necktie involved I'm not worried about quality. @A loose necktie I hope it isn't nominated. The poor article has whiplash! Star Mississippi 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! American School of Bombay should be the title. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Here you go: Draft:American School of Bombay. It definitely needs some love before returning. I left the AfC header since it was there, but it doesn't need to go through AfC/DRV to go back. Star Mississippi 13:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I found two Times of India articles that talk about the ASB and its programs in detail: one about a tax exemption the school maintained, and another about the Indian government using the ASB's online learning content during the COVID-19 pandemic. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see it in mainspace finally! I have nothing to add to Whisper's great work, and good luck with this next one. Rusalkii (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

BeWelcome

Thank you for being an active administrator on Wikipedia, voluntarily contributing to greater knowledge for the greater good!

The BeWelcome community is also a volunteer organisation of over 350,000 members.

There was an active discussion about deleting the page due to it not being sufficiently "notable". The same has happened to Trustroots, a partnering platform, yet not member-paid services such as Servas, Warmshowers, and CouchSurfing.

In the discussion within the BeWelcome forums

the following link was proposed to consolidate the media coverage about BeWelcome.

https://www.bewelcome.org/wiki/Media_Coverage

Please may I request for undeletion of the BeWelcome page, at least to continue the Talk discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterburk (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Peterburk. Nice to meet you It looks like BeWelcome has been merged into Homestay. Pinging @Geysirhead and @Subaculture who appear to be working on that. I think the best place to continue the discussion would be on Talk:Homestay as to when BeWelcome might reach the level of coverage required. I cannot access your link as I am not a BeWelcome member, but the issue isn't that coverage doesn't exist, but that it's not at the level/depth required. Let me know if that helps. Star Mississippi 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Star_Mississippi, I suppose the sudden rush for deletion of Bewelcome after 14 years of quite existence arose from escalation against me. Here is the story. After a dispute about a dog-related category for Jezebel, Unbh started to stalk/harass me by making unreasonable deletions on Warmshowers, the first page made by me. I looked into their contributions and talk page. I was not the only one "victim" of unreasonable deletions by Unbh. Unfortunetely, I could not stay calm. After EW, we both were blocked for 3 days. This attracted attention of deletion focused editors like AlexEng (almost only red on pages and green on talk pages). I pointed out their lack at showing deep, professional and constructive research and investigation of sources. After this, AlexEng falsely accused me of "insulting" Unbh, which is a criminal offense in some countries. Later, HighKing joined the party by copy-pasting boilerplate about WP:CORPDEPTH. Actually, unlike others, HighKing showed their high ability at dealing with sources. But, I fear HighKing misunderstands WP:CORPDEPTH, by writing that a peer-reviewed paper or a Gardian article by independent authors become dependent, once they use data from the subject or interview members of the subject. Expecially, private messaging data can only originate from the subject. There is no way for independent authors to report on subject without dealing with the subject in any way. HighKing also called Bewelcome a "company" and its members "customers". This is like calling Wikipedia a "company" and its editors "customers". Bewelcome and Wikipedia are both volunteer powered non-profit organizations. Sorry if somebody feels insulted.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Unfortunately this larger dispute is not something I'm available to handle, nor do I think DRV is the right venue for something so complex. If you feel it was a problematic nomination or conduct, I recommend WP:DRN before going to one of the admin noticeboards. Hope you're able to get some insight on how to resolve this. Star Mississippi 15:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to be respectful of Star Mississippi's talk page, so I'll not use this as a forum to re-litigate the issues with the two hospitality exchange platforms or their sourcing and notability. Since I was pinged by Geysirhead in connection with some allegations, I'll respond only to those. Geysirhead, on three separate occasions you assailed a user's competence, citing WP:CIR in response to an argument made in a deletion discussion. One of those three occasions was directed at me, on my talk page, after I had asked you to remain civil at AfD and comment on content, not contributors. Your follow up response then bizarrely implied that I do not possess enough mastery of the English language to understand the discussion. However, since you then struck your insinuations about editors' competence, I chose not to respond and entangle myself in this any further. It's disheartening to see this brought up again on somebody else's talk page; I'll again urge you to drop the stick and edit constructively. Somebody, at some point, may take even more offense to your rhetoric than I did and drag you to a drama board to complain about it. Sorry for polluting your talk page, Star Mississippi. Please feel free to delete without any objections on my part. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @AlexEng. Always helpful to have a fuller picture and endorses my thoughts that this is too complex an issue for further discussion in deletion-related venues beyond the completed nomination. While I think everyone would prefer to avoid the drama boards, Talk:Homestay could be a great venue for content while Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard seems active and can help with broader issues, if they remain present. @Geysirhead I have not researched the issue beyond the diffs present here, but I suggest you heed AlexEng's advice. Star Mississippi 21:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Star Mississippi, you are very polite. Thank you for your advice, but I do not need a separate page any more, I am perfectly fine with a Bewelcome-redirect which I created per WP:NNC. Like everybody else, I am not competent enough and I learn.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Always happy to help, and we're all always learning. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 19:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

User:NeverTry4Me

Hi. Was going to add something at the AfD, but it's getting kind of long. Not only has their editing been a bit tendentious, but they are also most likely a UPE, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib Baruah. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I flagged that at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single_purpose_account_of_User:GeezGod but luckily NeverTry4Me flamed out in the thread below since it didn't seem anyone was going to take action based on the various threads opened. I wouldn't be surprised if Geez is someone's sock, and I don't necessarily advocate POINT editing, but unfortunately sometimes it has to happen. Star Mississippi 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bless you for putting that AfD out of its misery. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Any time. The ratio of useful feedback to nonsense was ridiculous. We were spending more time clerking than anyone was !voting. There may be a case to be made for notability, but it wasn't going to come out of that discussion. Star Mississippi 23:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. AfD would go a great deal more smoothly in general if people would argue on the basis of the notability criteria that exist, rather than on the ones they wish existed. For my part, thanks for the ping, but I've no interest in dratifying that one myself; too many articles I'd want to improve that lay within my interests/areas of expertise to touch ones that don't. Ravenswing 23:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Same. Plus I have no pressing need/interest in taking up the mantle of paid editors' work. I feel no need to be paid for my contributions, but I'll be damned if someone else is collecting on my work. I think this editor was in over their head, and it was a true CIR v. malice situation. And oh my yes, I made the mistake of getting back into some school debates and they're as bad as they ever were. When Sports finishes eating the VP, I think schools may follow (again). I knew you and Necrothesp were coming at it from a place of having looked into it, so I was happy to provide it if you wanted it. Star Mississippi 01:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Help Request

Dear User:Star Mississippi Please review this List of awards and nominations received by Isyana Sarasvati article, so that it will be better and not removed by naughty editors. I hope my article dont remove to deleting noninations 🙏 Yemimas29 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately this is not a content area with which I'm familiar so don't feel comfortable reviewing. But I'm sure someone will be along to help you soon enough. If not, you can try the Help Desk Have a great day. Star Mississippi 20:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Sphilbrick, Primefac, and The Blade of the Northern Lights: you're in the deletion logs. Anything to be concerned with in this creation? I'm honestly not sure how this landed on my Talk as we don't appear to have interacted at all recently. Star Mississippi 20:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, I really know nothing about this. I only deleted the page because one of the previous versions was the work of a sockpuppet, it certainly wasn't a comment on notability or a reflection on the current article. If there are problems with vandalism I can semiprotect the page as necessary, but I'd need evidence of a recurring problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! No evidence and no action needed, I guess I was just a little overly suspicious of a random creation landing at my Talk. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 00:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  No problem. If something does come out of this give me a shout, I'll help however I can. Wouldn't be the first time I ended up doing something on Wikipedia that I'd never imagined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Will do! Thanks again. Star Mississippi 00:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I'm in the same boat - I just nuked a bunch of sock-created pages. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Shūkan bunshun smoking scandal

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Here's another random creation that landed on your talk page. I was wondering what you thought of this extensively and lovingly detailed article about some incident that seems totally insignificant to me. I'm just becoming acquainted with working at AFD so I don't know how this would fare there and I thought that you could advise me as you have more experience there as a participant and admin. This article really should probably be merged into the article on the musical group, Onyanko Club but I'm also not an expert with bold moves in content creation.

So, just asking for your opinion here. This article is the page creator's only contribution so far here on Wikipedia. Thanks and I hope you are having a pleasant weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL. Established editor/admins are very much exempt from "random creation" territory. I know who you are and you've clearly explained why you're here. It's funny, you, Explicit and I are ususally "on duty" when the AfD clock strikes overdue. You've gotten to some hairballs first, which is much appreciated.

I think the issues here are multi-fold. Should be merged, as you said, but it needs significant trimming before that is done. I'd have had the same concerns @Hoary raised in AfC reivew. I don't want to edit war with @ArsenalGhanaPartey, but I don't believe this is remotely ready for mainspace. It could either go back to Draft space and trimmed there, which should probably happen as a tabloid scandal for BLPs, or it could be extremely selectively merged into the band's article, which also needs attention for encyclopedic tone, or lack thereof. Given that the main article barely mentions the scandal gives me pause as to whether it was a tempest in a teacup rehashed years later for buzz, or an actual scandal. I can try to look at this in the next few days as far as what could be cut. Hope that helps some? Star Mississippi 01:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. Note the additions since I commented on it; e.g. "When Tomoda was about 30 years old, she started working on handmade bags. Eventually, she became a popular designer with Chieko Kuroda, a popular fashion model, as a client." (With three references!) Carefully edited, this might add up to a mildly interesting and even thought-provoking chapter in a middlebrow book about the pathologies of the aidoru industry; as an [English] Wikipedia article, it's grotesque. (As a Japanese Wikipedia article -- well, perhaps I'd better not comment.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your assessments. Reading (the whole thing), I was just struck by how detailed and referenced it was about a nonevent that happened 35 years ago to a teen band that only existed for a few years! I mean, so much care and effort put into an article about an incident that only mattered to those who policed teenage girls purity in 1980s Japan. If we could only channel people's devotion to pop culture to subjects that actually are consequential, we'd have more articles on scientists and fewer on Pokemon characters. </EndOfRant> Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you're a little harsh, Liz. As I skimread it, I thought that the significance of this brouhaha was not only to the morals/indignation police, but about the morals/indignation police. The careers that the latter squelched don't happen to be of interest to me; but it's not for me to judge people's [non-toxic] career choices. The career-squelching is perhaps predictable from the weekly-magazine (shūkanshi) indignation industry of the time (cf Britain's Daily Mail) and the major Japanese commercialization of infantilism and so on in the aidoru industry, but ... er, sorry, I digress. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. I gave it a slight haircut last night but don't have the bandwidth for more at the moment. I still think draftsspace is best, personally. I tend to agree with Hoary that the scandal was notable, but also do agree with you, Liz. Pop culture isn't my avenue either, but I'd love all the museums. Star Mississippi 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Amazing, Star Mississippi: I looked at it half an hour ago and found it impossibly wordy -- and then realized that this was after you'd done an excellent job of chopping away almost half of it. I removed a bit more -- and surprise surprise the result is still impossibly wordy. ¶ Incidentally, I have considerable sympathy for Liz's rant above. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely needs more time/interest than I had this weekend. Ditto the band's article. The amount of overlap in content (and I imagine the show!) proves how interrelated they are, going back to @Liz's initial query. I'll try to find the head space for it later this week. Star Mississippi 00:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Poul Nielson AFD

Unfortunately, draftification is not an amenable solution. As such, would you consider separate AFD's to be appropriate? BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello SM - hope you are well. Lets gets some background here. The OP seems to be following me around - I don't know why. Have a look at my talkpage, and do a CTRL+F to see how many times their name appears in the last month alone. On 4th Feb, an univolved user posted this on their talkpage. I've asked the OP on multiple occasisons to stop following me around (example 1, example 2). There are other examples like this, including more requests not to ping me, notify me, or post on my talkpage. However, that is ignored too. WP:IDHT or WP:STICK? Well look at the thee three discussions starting here on another article's talkpage. For transparency, I've never edited this page or the article in question.

The Poul Nielson AfD goes back to a similar AfD the OP started, which ended in Keep. Note how they are badgering the closer about that, and look at the number of times the OP has insisted on restoring tags to that article, all against consensus.

Now if this was me doing all this, IE moving an article to draft after a no-consensus AfD, continuing to add tags to an article after it had been kept, starting multiple AfDs against one user and continuing to ping + post on a user's talkpage after being told not to do that, how long before I'd be at ANI with editors calling a net-negative and a time sink? A few minutes? Maybe an hour? And I'm pretty sure I'd be looking at further restrictions (at best), if not a ban.

I've moved away from all the "bad" things that have gotten me into trouble of late, but I feel this would boomerang right back at me. Thoughts welcome. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I am not following you around, as explained in that talk page discussion you linked. In regards to your request to not ping me, notify me, or post on my talkpage, I have for the most part followed it, with the exception of when you have reverted an edit I have made as discussion is required when there is an editing dispute, and when I believe warnings are appropriate. If you wish me to stop doing the second and instead go straight to ANI in the future, please say so.

The example you linked where you say that I ignored your request by notifying you of the AFD is due to me forgetting to check who created the article. When I realized it was you, after Twinkle had posted the automatic notification, I undid it with an apology. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Good morning both and apologies for the delay if we're in different time zones. I have to admit, these sports/Olympics AfDs are a special kind of complicated with the guidelines in the middle of a contentious discussion. I don't feel like I close many sports AfDs but a few have come here and I'm always happy to discuss.

Here's my suggestion for this particular group: @Lugnuts you said I've moved away from all the "bad" things that have gotten me into trouble of late which is great, thank you. And I've personally seen you accept consensus when AfDs for these athletes who are redirected to the relevant Olympic team/games. I know these were created before you understood that these mass entries were not what the community wanted I'd love it if you could accept draftification of some of these without needing to go through seven days per athlete. What harm is there in taking the time to see if sources can be found? If they can, wonderful and they go back to mainspace. If they can't, maybe they can be covered in a list similar to how we handle rosters for contemporary teams where the athletes don't yet mean GNG. I feel like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aage Høy-Petersen, we learned that digitized Danish sources are a challenge, which is likely true for the Nielson "batch" (used in collective sense, not in batched creation) and I (personally, not admin hat) feel a collective list of info is better for the reader who want to understand Danish athletes of a given time (or cricketers, or whichever sport).

If you're dead against it, that's within your right and I'm not going to object to you moving them back to mainspace, however I also have no objection to @BilledMammal, JPL (a few threads up in #I feel you have closed many AfDs in error) or JoelleJay (User_talk:JoelleJay#Amanda_Dennis) creating AfDs for athletes that do not currently meet notability guidelines as the vast majority of the discussions I've seen are completely within policy.

Thoughts? Star Mississippi 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. What about the other issues I've raised here? Is the continued stalking, hounding, pinging, etc, OK? Even AFTER I've posted this here, they [Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#c-BilledMammal-2022-02-20T15%3A05%3A00.000Z-Nigej-2022-02-20T06%3A22%3A00.000Z continue] to ping me! BilledMammal - STOP IT. I'm not interested in anything you have to ping me for. If I miss a conversation, then that's my lookout. You don't need to notify me of anything. Ever. Star Mississippi - Again, if I was continuing with this tenacious editing, I'd be blocked. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. As I had modified the RFC, I needed to ping all participants, which included you - while I considered omitting you, I didn't feel it would be appropriate in circumstances such as this, where doing so might cause procedural issues with the RFC - another would be where leaving you out could raise canvassing concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts @BilledMammal I'm not 100% certain about RFC notification rules, are they like AN/I where it's mandatory, or just suggested mandatory? I got pinged to one where I was involved in the surrounding issue, but hadn't directly contributed and the person who did so was criticized for it, so I'm not sure there's an easy answer. In the interim @BilledMammal I'd suggest you not ping @Lugnuts and note when you leave the note for others that you're explicitly not per their request here or wherever else Lugnuts has mentioned it. As they said, they're taking ownership of missing a conversation. I'd back you there if you got blowback. Lugnuts, I unfortunately think Twinkle is a challenge you may need to navigate regardless of this dispute. I've accidentally templated an other admin even though I unticked the box saying don't notify them (because I wanted to leave a custom note). Let me know if this helps. Star Mississippi 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding RFC's I generally see it as mandatory if I'm pinging a group and they meet the criteria of the group, though I am not aware of whether it is "mandatory" or "suggested mandatory", particularly in cases where concerns such as canvassing might be raised, but what you suggest sounds reasonable - thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to return the conversation here Star Mississippi, but it seems to be the most suitable location: Lugnuts, you can't have it both ways; you can't both want to avoid me, and directly address me as you did here. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure given the volume of sports AfDs whether it's possible for you two to entirely avoid one another, and an interaction ban wouldn't be fair to either of you so not advocating for one. @Lugnuts please don't directly respond to @BilledMammal if you don't want them to ping you. I'm not saying you can't respond to Billed's noms, but I don't think you two need to engage with one another in the discussion. Your opinions as to whether to keep the article or not are well established. Would that work? Star Mississippi 14:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; I'm not certain what issue Lugnuts has with me, but I understand that they have some issue, and comments like the linked make it very confusing as to when they consider it acceptable to talk to then. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we're collectively in a window of time where everything is best described as complex. AfDs over topics we thought were previously established, interactions. I don't think there are any easy answers, unfortunately. From what I've seen in the AfDs where I've been involved (per the normal world, not Wiki speak usage of the word), you two disagree on content which happens. It's a high volume area by virtue of how many athletes exist so seems larger than if it were a topic with fewer open discussions. I don't think there's anything to worry about, hopefully. Note, I will be offline for a few days so if anything does percolate, you may need to ping another admin. I'll have a break template up so you'll know when I go. Star Mississippi 03:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Break

I understand that you are away, and there is no rush, but when you return could you take a look at Three Friends history (Talk) and Jean Couturier history (Talk). I am not sure what to do at this point; they revert dozens of my edits and refuse to discuss, under the apparent belief that I am hounding them. I'm not, but they don't appear to believe that, and it's not practical for me to avoid articles edited by them giving the current overlap of our interests. It's not even possible to avoid articles created by them, given how many of those exist.

At this point, I am wondering if I need to take it to ANI myself, given the disruptive nature of reverting edits while refusing to discuss? BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As always, there's two sides to this, and BM isn't telling the whole story. At 02:49 on the 4th March, Canadian Paul posts this on his user page where he pings me about a list he's created. FOUR MINUTES later BM starts to work through said list, tagging each and every article, knowing full well that most/all will be stubs I started, and on my watchlist. Star M - you said in one of your most recent replies "I'm not sure given the volume of sports AfDs whether it's possible for you two to entirely avoid one another" OK, fine. But to actively seek out these articles, knowing full well the history here just beggars belief. I'll ask you straight out, as you've not answered it here (that I can see) - but is this pattern of behaviour from BM stalking, hounding, or following another editor around? Ignore the AfD issue - this relates specifically to their conduct here. With the Jean Couturier article - they continued to ping me, despite multiple times being told not to ping me! They obviously can't hear this and refuse to listen. To put it another way - If I was doing this, would you think that was acceptable? Funny that I don't want to discuss anything with this individual with their modus operandi on WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought most of that was explained at the linked Jean Couturier talk page. The rest, you are putting far more thought into this than I did. I've been reviewing the articles of Olympians for notability, and a useful resource came up on my watchlist (I note I didn't tag every article I checked; a couple didn't have clear notability issues). I don't even consider your involvement until it comes time to nominate them for deletion, when I try to remember to check who created the page so I can tell Twinkle not to notify the creator if it is you.

Further, this issue isn't limited to that list. Regardless of how I find the article, you react in the same way, as can be seen at Three Friends, Kyohei Ushio, Jan Jarzembowski, and many others.

If the issue is pinging, then I am willing to commit to not pinging you when you revert my edit, if you are willing to commit to discussing with me when you do so. Is that an acceptable compromise? BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in the arguments between Lugnuts and BilledMammal, but I must say that I really do not like how the latter is mass tagging olympic medalists (aren't they passes of NOLY?) for notability, without doing any research on the people being tagged at all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally, I avoid medallists; the exception is when all participants win a medal, per the recent change to NOLYMPICS which removes their presumption of notability.

However, the issue with Lugnuts reverting without discussion has continued. I've been reviewing the 1900 Olympics, as while a higher ratio of individuals in that Olympics demonstrate notability there than on the list, I had hoped it would cause less drama, but despite that they've still been silently reverting dozens of my edits; I requested, without pinging them, on a few of the articles that they explain why they consider the athletes notable, but they just continued reverting without explanation. At this point, I believe this may amount to WP:STONEWALLING. BilledMammal (talk)

• Comment I'm not sure I understand the issues here. However, I would suggest that both parties take a bit of time out. Although consensus has been reached that non-medalling Olympians are not automatically notable, it does not follow that all articles on non-medalling Olympians should be deleted as A7. I would hope that BilledMammal is checking extensively for references to these individuals, many of whom could be notable in other walks of life or have other sporting achievements that were initially overlooked when Lugnuts (or whoever) created the stub. Tagging en masse as non-notable without doing such a check is a waste of everyone's time. I would ask BM and Lugnuts both to keep a distance from one another for at least a few weeks in order to take the heat out of the situation. Please both indicate that you are willing to do that; after a while you may feel better able to interact productively. Deb (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Deb. Yes, fine with me. I've been actively avoiding any interaction with this user for some time now. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Deb: I don't fully understand the issues either; my only issue with Lugnuts is that they are reverting me without discussing. I will note that I'm not tagging these for CSD under A7. Instead, I'm tagging them as "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline", to inform other editors of the issue, and that I will be considering nominating them for deletion in the future. I also don't think it is reasonable to expect me to spend significantly more time reviewing each of these articles than the creator did writing them just to add a notability tag - which is what you would be asking for if you ask me to check extensively for references to these individuals.

I'm willing to continue distancing myself from Lugnuts, with the exception of when they revert my edits, as I consider that them failing to distance themselves from me. However, I note that I don't intend to stop reviewing Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Deb: for addressing this in my absence. @BilledMammal, Lugnuts, and BeanieFan11:, just noting I've seen this and will review to see if anything still needs input when I'm fully back on line. Didn't want you to see a contrib and think I was ignoring the issues you raised. Star Mississippi 15:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, back to a functional computer and keyboard. All the admiration for folks who can edit on mobile, that is not me especially when it's a query that deserves a longer answer. In looking at Three Friends (film), I would say that I agree with the notability tagging. It is unclear whether silentera.com is a RS and a profile there isn't indicative of GNG by a longshot. However my personal, not speaking as an admin belief is that notability tags mean "this needs work" rather than necessarily "this needs deletion". I love working through backlogs to see if they can be cleared. That said, I also think Three Friends is probably notable from this book's coverage and maybe this blurb. I'm not clear how User_talk:Canadian_Paul#Thanks relates back to @BilledMammal: following you there though @Lugnuts:, unless I'm missing an Olympic tie. Is film an area you edit in, BilledMammal? If not, would it be possible for you to check the history before tagging and maybe leave tagging of Lugnuts' stubs to an uninvolved editor to determine whether they need tagging/deletion? I understand with the volume of sports that's not going to happen. Jean Couturier seems a little more tied to Canadian Paul's Olympian list, but I don't know either of your history with him and am taking BilledMammal at their word that they watch CP's page. What I will ask both of you is to not revert one another. You can add/remove tags, but a revert war isn't going to help either of you, or the articles. How does this sound? Lugnuts, if you remove a notability tag, you should either add the source(s) that render it moot or put a note on Talk as to why you don't think it's appropriate. If BilledMammal responds, they won't ping you (per your request and ownership of responsibility of following discussions). I don't think this is an actual solution because you two have disparate opinions on notability, but I have to agree with @Deb: that avoiding one another might be the only option here since agreeing to disagree isn't. You're both absolutely editing in good faith, which makes it more complicated than a situation where there's a bad actor. I realize this probably isn't the answer either of you want, but it's all I can think of. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That's similar to my view; while many of the articles I nominate I consider likely to not be notable I'm happy to be proven wrong and there are some exceptions such as Francisco Villota, which are more likely to be notable but need sources to support this.

I don't normally edit in the area of film; I only came across that article because a poster for it was in the Signpost and I wanted to learn more. In areas like film which I don't normally edit I can try to check the creator before adding a tag, and not do so if the creator is Lugnuts.

In general, your proposal seems reasonable, thank you; would it be appropriate to restore the tag on articles that it has been removed from without discussion or sources being provided, such as Francisco Villota? BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Star Mississippi - I don't know if you're missing the point I raised, or being obtuse (hopefully not), but I'll state it again - " I'll ask you straight out, as you've not answered it here (that I can see) - but is this pattern of behaviour from BM stalking, hounding, or following another editor around?" I've done my best to avoid and ignore the other user in question, but their hounding of me is the issue that has yet to be addressed by you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry @Lugnuts. I thought I answered it when I said it wasn't clear how the film article tied into @BilledMammal following or hounding you. Is there a link I missed? The Olympian is a little more tenuous, but if BilledMammal follows CanadianPaul's talk and saw the post, it's not clear hounding either. I understand though that it feels that way to you if articles you created are regularly tagged. You're welcome to escalate this further. I don't think it would get you a boomerang, but I do not think we're in sanctions territory for BilledMammal. I'll go look at the Villota article and if I have any feedback will drop it on the Talk so it's there for future editors. Thanks for dropping the sources oN Three Friends' Talk. Star Mississippi 14:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this. As I've said, I've been actively avoiding any interaction with this user for some time now, at that's the way I'll continue. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome; I didn't want those references to be lost on your talk page. Thank you for the comments on the Villota article; I will discuss further there. However, would it be generally appropriate to restore the tags, such as at Henry Terry, which is sourced only to databases and is described by Olympedia as "Little is known about Henry Terry"? BilledMammal (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree, @BilledMammal that restoring the tag there would be correct. @Lugnuts I just searched and I cannot find anything even approaching GNG when combined for Terry. Would you object to a redirect to Mixed_team_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics#Alphabetical_list_of_all_medallists_from_mixed_teams where he's mentioned? I won't AfD it if you don't as I do not have the bandwidth for a sports AfD right now, but it is my opinion that if an AfD were opened, it would likely close as a redirect. No issue with creation, Wiki world was very different in 2006 and I do believe your 2020 edit was an improvement, I just don't think there's enough here. Star Mississippi 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deb: posted earlier - "I would hope that BilledMammal is checking extensively for references to these individuals, many of whom could be notable in other walks of life or have other sporting achievements that were initially overlooked when Lugnuts (or whoever) created the stub. Tagging en masse as non-notable without doing such a check is a waste of everyone's time." And yet in the space of 2 hours or so last night, BilledMammal tagged more than 200 articles for notability, tagging five or six a minute. How is this not disruptive? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Leave it for an admin to deal with, please. You promised not to stalk one another. Deb (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deb: Well when I notice them on my watchlist, it's hard not to see this kind of practice. Speaking of stalking, they've also gone out of their way at this AfD to try their best to get it deleted. I look forward to Star Mississippi's reply. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"I look forward to Star Mississippi's reply" - or non reply, as I was expecting. So I'll post it again - "Deb posted earlier - "I would hope that BilledMammal is checking extensively for references to these individuals, many of whom could be notable in other walks of life or have other sporting achievements that were initially overlooked when Lugnuts (or whoever) created the stub. Tagging en masse as non-notable without doing such a check is a waste of everyone's time." And yet in the space of 2 hours or so last night, BilledMammal tagged more than 200 articles for notability, tagging five or six a minute. How is this not disruptive?" " Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"I look forward to Star Mississippi's reply" - or non reply, as I was expecting. That's disingenuous. I did reply. I said "this has moved beyond talk page resolution", please see the section below. I cannot solve this to your *or* @BilledMammal's liking because there's no easy answer other than you two staying away from one another. While I would have liked to help, closing an AfD does not mandate solving world peace. I've shared my opinion, and that this page isn't watched enough by others, so the conversation needs to go elsewhere for a solution. I'm not saying either of you isn't welcome here - you absolutely are -- but I think we've hit an impasse on this particular issue. Star Mississippi 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tagging articles only helps other editors identify issues that need to be resolved, and there is no obligation on the tagger to confirm the issue cannot be fixed before adding the tag. Of course, before I nominate the article for deletion I will do an appropriately comprehensive search for sources unless the article fails WP:NOT.

While here, please see this comment, which I believe you missed. I would also ask that your revert your recent removals of tags elsewhere, as you haven't added the source(s) that render it moot, or put a note on Talk as to why you don't think it's appropriate.

Finally, can you explain why you believe my contributions at that AFD are problematic? BilledMammal (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I note that even after the comment above, Lugnuts continues to remove tags, such as at Edward Richardson (gymnast) (British Gymnast who competed in a team of 45 in the 1908 Olympics, and is sourced solely to Olympedia and Olympics.com) and at Georges Donnet and Édmond Dharancy (two French gymnasts who competed in a team of forty in the 1908 Olympics, and are sourced solely to Olympedia and Sports-Reference) without adding source(s) that render it moot, or putting a note on Talk as to why they don't think it's appropriate. At this point I believe it is clear that they are WP:STONEWALLING. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Break

I think this has moved beyond talk page resolution @Lugnuts, Deb, and BilledMammal: especially as I appear to be in a different time zone than all of you, and my Talk page is not heavily watched, which leaves issues unresolved for longer than needed. I don't have any further solutions off hand that can solve the impasse since you two fundamentally disagree on athletes' notability. I'm not sure what the answer is as an interaction ban would heavily impact both of your editing areas. Happy to chime in on a larger discussion and have this referenced, but I don't think I can solve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but I also don't believe this is a good time for a WP:ANI thread; there are too many tensions with the implementation of the NSPORT RFC. However, I also cannot accept Lugnuts reverting sensible tags without resolving the issue or explaining why they are removing it.

As such, I am unsure about what I should do - if this was brought to ANI, what do you think the result would be? BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the sig. I get spoiled by the reply tool. Courtesy heads up to @Lugnuts @Deb since it wouldn't have worked on my first.

My gut is an ANI will close with an interaction ban, which I don't believe will work. Not because either of you wouldn't honor it - I think you would - but because it would drastically impact both of your editing. While you edit in other areas, it seems a large percentage of both of your edits are in sports so there's no practical way to avoid one another. I think your gut that it isn't a good time is correct since it seems the community is exhausted by the sports debated. Neither of you is objectively right or wrong on the players' notability, which leaves us back at the impasse. Star Mississippi 23:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that an interaction ban would not work - I also don't see the need for it, as I am struggling to see any issue here beyond Lugnuts reverting my edits without discussion. I understand he believes I am hounding him, but I am struggling to understand why - for instance, he gave that recent AFD as an example of it, but I can't understand why he believes that AFD is an example.

I think a better question is whether I am wrong to add the tags, or if Lugnuts is wrong to remove them without discussion or correcting the issue. I am willing to abide by your decision, and hopefully Lugnuts is willing to do the same.

Alternatively, if you don't want to make a ruling on that, I am willing to AFD them now, if you believe the formal process of AFD will cause less drama than tagging them for notability - while I had wanted to give editors a chance to improve them before taking that step, as well as avoid overloading AFD with nominations, it might be the best option at this point? BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I see @Deb was able to find sourcing to solve the Henry Terry issue, so I gather that one is resolved? I haven't explored the sourcing, but making an assumption based on what I know of Deb's edits. I haven't had the chance yet to look at the links that are mentioned above due to time, although I'm happy to as soon as I'm able. I personally, not as an admin think it would be better if someone else made the AfD nominations if they're necessary. Since these are mostly long dead people and the information isn't controversial, there is no reason they need to be deleted now or a decision made. If these articles need improvement, it would be helpful if that need could be tracked. @Lugnuts can you clarify please whether your issue is with them being tagged for notability, or that you feel BilledMammal is hounding with their tagging? I ask because in some AfDs you have been OK with and even voted for a redirect. To be clear, I am not advocating someone proxy for BilledMammal, nor do I think it's what they're asking, and I do not intend to tag/nominate as Olympians are not an area on which I'm focusing. Museums & historic sites on the other hand? Give me them all. Thoughts? Thanks all. Star Mississippi 01:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Henry Terry issue isn't resolved; Deb found a source that discussed Cricket at the early Olympics, but it didn't mention Henry Terry - it's relevant and verifiable, but not significant coverage.

There isn't a rush to get the articles deleted, particularly as some of them can probably be improved, but there are large numbers - probably tens of thousands - of Olympian articles sourced solely to databases, and it is better to start on that issue now rather than waiting another decade. An alternative possibility that I have been considering is a village pump proposal to draftify or merge all Olympian articles sourced solely to databases as WP:NOTDATABASE violations, but now is not the right time for that either.

As for Museums & historic sites, I'm sure I can find some Olympic sites in need of editor attention :D. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wholly agree that how is not the time for that RfC. We're on the verge of needing VP:Sports because these are all valid and important questions, but ones for which there's no clearcut answer, which is why the Sports notability thread ate the Village Pump. People are making very good cases all around. Again, my personal hat and not my admin one: we collectively need to decide if we're a directory or an encylopedia. We don't need articles on every thing if we can't find enough to write an article. I've been running against this in Mongolian fast food chains, Romanian schools, Ugandan clinics and more (all closed, so not a canvas issue) and while I'm aware and conscious of avoiding systemic bias, I think it's OK if another language project has an article we don't if we cannot verify anything because of access to the sources.

Off topic of this thread: Please feel free to flag those Olympic cultural sutes for me if you stumble on them. Working with @FLoridaArmy on some historical associations and sites they've identified in Louisiana and Mississippi and I always love more. Star Mississippi 01:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Or even VP:Notability. But I agree, and also note that different projects have different notability guidelines; even when we can access the sources, we may disagree with what they consider suitable. See discussion below about cultural sites. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny how Mammal only prod'd ONE article that I removed the notability tag for (an article I created, of course), that being of Percy Baker, AFTER I added some extra info. @Deb: - this is a Welsh gymnast BTW. They keep spouting the same rubbish of "Violates WP:NOTDATABASE", but I doubt they've even bothered to read that, which goes on to state - "1. Summary-only descriptions of works." N/A here. "2. Lyrics databases." - No, not even close. "3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" Nothing here is excessive or unexplained. "4. Exhaustive logs of software updates" No, another fail. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts and BilledMammal: My absolute final comment on this page. Time to STOP this bickering now. Lugnuts, you're way too sensitive. BM, you're being disingenuous. I suggest both of you stay away from stubby Olympic athletes unless you are going to do something to improve them. If not, I think there's a case for a temporary block on both of you for edit warring, and I'm prepared to impose it. If you're not happy to do what I suggest, you know where ANI is. Deb (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Deb, I realize you said last comment, but I don't see how I am being disingenuous; for most of his accusations of hounding, I cannot even understand why he believes that - if you can explain why he believes I am hounding him in the AFD he linked previously, I would appreciate you explaining it to me. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fine with me. THanks, Deb. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito AfD

sock wasting our time
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello- I saw someone recently just closed the discussion. You relisted it to gain a stronger consensus and it was getting there towards a Keep. Two experienced editors came in and stated facts and it It was quickly closed after the second Keep vote- and what I’m guessing is out of spite. The closer describes himself as a deletionist and I think he saw that it was leaning towards a Keep consensus. People were stating facts and they ignored it. Plus it was not even close to the week long debate. I’m not a very experienced editor but I see you are. I don’t think it was handled right. WexfordUK (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Hi @WexfordUK. Four days after my relist is probably fine if the admin felt consensus was emerging. I haven't looked at the discussion since your query about length, so no opinion on whether a consensus had emergef. If you feel strongly that they were in the wrong, I would suggest speaking with them at their talk page before going to Deletion Review. I have not explored the merits of any !votes aside from the blatant socks, so I'm not sure how I personally would have closed it. My personal take is that a 24 day AfD was going to be contentious however it closed, because folks have strong opinions and it appears (again, not delved into sourcing) there are established editors who feel for both outcomes. Star Mississippi 03:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Hi @WexfordUK:, I'm about 60% certain I wouldn't have closed that as delete, and there is some merit to your statements, with the exception of one. I'd like to take a moment to defend the admin who closed as "delete". Sandstein is one of our most experienced closers, and works very, very hard at AfD. I think it's rather unfair to state it was closed "out of spite". There was a lot of bad-faith actors in that discussion thanks to all the sock participation, but Sandstein is anything but a bad faith actor. Please re-think that statement. We all get it wrong sometimes. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) @78:26 Hi, Sandstein did not close this discussion. It was Seraphimblade. I listed it under deletion review. WexfordUK (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Oh cruds, my bad, egg on face, mea culpa, etc... Still, I have the same words for Seraphimblade. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC) @78:26 It’s all good- I do take it back. Was just really thrown off by the close. @Star Mississippi Yeah, thanks for the info. Check it out under your relist- 2 Keeps (established editors with stated facts) against 1 Delete and he deleted it early as if consensus was reached. Not the case at all throughout the whole AfD. Really handled poorly from the start on the article. WexfordUK (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately, it's about my bedtime here and I have something in the morning so may not be able to look into this and come back to you until mid afternoon tomorrow, US Eastern time. If you need resolution sooner, I'd try the closing admin. Otherwise I'll try to assist tomorrow. Have a good evening, or err morning if the UK in your screen name is reflective of your location. Star Mississippi 03:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Can you believe we have another blocked sockpuppet here? I am SHOCKED. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC) and they were *so* stealth. LOL. My spidey sense was going off since a new account was so invested in this AfD, but I had nothing of proof since I'm not familiar with the subject beyond relisting the AfD and knew I would be off line. Glad housekeeping serviced the project in my absence. Star Mississippi 15:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Request on 19:16:35, 7 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Obyno2020

• Obyno2020 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Chineme Ike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I read from the reviews feedback that the article seems to be coming from COI (possibly paid). My aim in becoming a contributor here is to document notable change makers from my country, Nigeria, especially those who are unable to recieve global coverage. Obyno2020 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Looping in @Celestina007 so that we can keep the conversation in one place. One thing I will note is that subjects that are "unable to recieve global coverage" may not have the independent, reliable sourcing to meet biographic notability to have an article. Star Mississippi 19:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Obyno2020, Do you expressly say you do not have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article? Shall we start by how this image is your “own work”? how is it that your talk page is a reservoir of (draftifications) of biographical articles almost all of which are on non notable persons? Can you explain why they are quite promotional? Do you say the subject of our discussion is a “game changer”? (Another WP:LARD but okay) Please what sources substantiate this claim of them being a “game changer” or, to make it easy for you, I’m an expert in Nigerian sources so please do show me any WP:THREE sources that substantiate their notability claim and let me do the evaluation. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

By global coverage, I am talking about CNN, BBC and others. When you search on the Internet you would find many young change makers particularly filmmakers who are notable in their regions. I am particularly interested in change makers from South East Nigeria and I give prominence to subjects that are known in that region. Obyno2020 (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Celestina007

  1 Yes, do expressly state that I have no conflict of interest with the subject.

  2. I got the photo from the database of Directors Guild of Nigeria.

  3. I am interested particularly in subjects around South East Nigeria.

  4. For the subject "Michael Chineme Ike" I cited Vanguard Newspaper as a source and for the other subject "Ugoccie" , I cited The Sun Newspapers. These are two national dailies in Nigeria. Obyno2020 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @celestina007 I'm very happy that you are an expert in Nigerian sources, please take a look at these [1] [2] Obyno2020 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • • • The first source has no byline which is indicative of an op-Ed source thus bypasses the editorial thus this is not a reliable piece. The second source clearly has no editorial oversight, lacks a reputation for fact checking and pretty much self published thus very unreliable. So 0 reliability here. Any more sources you want me to dissect? Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh Well, in that case I take my leave. Star please ping me if or whenever they reply. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please check these sources https://igboradio.com/en/meet-michael-chineme-ike-the-23-year-old-game-changer-in-the-movie-industry

https://independent.ng/teenage-author-writes-history-of-own-clan-in-anambra/ Obyno2020 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Obyno2020. Pinging @Celestina007 on your behalf as this is out of my expertise. There's no one I know more familiar with Nigerian sources so please learn from their advice on how to judge a source, for example the lack of byline and identify stronger ones. Star Mississippi 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have taken note of that and will consider it in my next article. Let me exhaust all my avaliable options on this subject first. Obyno2020 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You provided two more sources, I will speak about those soon but first I’d like to point out that your claim to have gotten the image from a website is spurious, I have satisfactory knowledge on files and file moving to know that statement is not true, per WP:BEANS how I know is something I would not reveal. You are however welcome to provide the URL you claim to have gotten the image/file/picture from. Back to the sources, this one has no editorial oversight thus not reliable and this one is okay. Unfortunately one good source doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Star if they continue to persist by providing (sketchy sources?) please ping me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Will flag for you regardless as the RS filter/script doesn't seem to work well for the Nigerian ones and I'm out of my depth in evaluating many of these. Thanks for helping this editor. Star Mississippi 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Heartfulness Education Trust

Hi Star Mississippi Thanks for your suggestion/feedback . It helps!! Shall be adding more references as indicated.. Jasperkal (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Star Mississippi,

I have made the recommended changes(added more secondary sources) and published the article.

Thanking again for your suggestions.

Regards

Jasperkal (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

and as you saw, @HighKing moved it back. Please do not move this to mainspace without going through AfC. I don't think you're familiar enough yet with our notability guidelines to understand when an article is merited. Star Mississippi 15:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Olympic Venues

You may be interested in the start class articles Francis Olympic Field and Francis Gymnasium. I came across them while reviewing the 1904 Olympics, and while I don't know much about them, the were used during the events and may be National Historic Landmarks (some sources and our article are in disagreement, but I believe that shouldn't be too difficult to check?).

Francis Field has some significant events related to the Olympics that should be mentioned; in particular, it was one of the sites of the "Anthropology Days", which can be described as the Olympics combined with a human zoo. We don't have an article on the Anthropology Days, so I'm going to try and do that when I have time; I can share any sources I come across on it that relates to Francis Field?

Deb, since you have been around: you may also be interested in the Fort Shaw Indian School girl's basketball team. While they were not considered part of the Anthropology Days, nor are they considered part of the Olympics in modern Olympic scholarship, they have been discussed in the context of both, and I believe it is likely there is sufficient coverage to write an article.

Star Mississippi, are you primarily interested in US venues, or would you also be interested in venues outside of the states? BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! International are welcome should you stumble on them, you don't need to go on a hunt on my account but I'm happy to improve articles in these areas. I'm fine with Spanish sourcing and can generally navigate topical overviews in Japanese. Would need cross check from someone more proficient on some details but wouldn't stop me from research. Oddly I think I've been to more non US Olympic parks & sites (Montreal, Sydney, Seoul, Nagano) than I have US. Oh the things we do as tourists! Thanks again Star Mississippi 03:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggest salting GlobalPlatform

The article is being repeatedly created in violation of Wikipedia P&G, you may consider WP:SALTING it. ––FormalDude talk 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was just looking into the history and saw that this was at least the 3rd. Going to do so now. Star Mississippi 15:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ––FormalDude talk 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am the creating editor of the article, I think there may have been a misunderstanding here (here). As you can see we were instructed to move the page back to the live space if we objected to its draftification. It seems that a few editors have taken this as an attempt to bypass AfC, which is not the case. I moved it back to the live space in hope that a thorough discussion could take place about the notability of the organisation. Previous to deletions, having checked way back machine, we were poorly written/referenced. As an administrator, I'm not sure what your opinion is, but I think this should be suitable for a third AfD discussion? If not, happy to try via AfC. SaffronSettee (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SaffronSettee. When an article has been deleted through discussion twice, the best solution is AFC acceptance by an uninvolved editor. The last version that you wrote/I deleted was much better written, but did not overcome the content issues that deemed it not (yet) notable. @MarioGom's advice was correct that you are entitled to move it back -- and I'll restore it if you really want, but I can almost guarantee another AfD will result in deletion. I recommend spending some time finding reliable, independent sources that cover GlobalPlatform in depth and then submitting it for approval/feedback. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response last week. I'm pleased to hear that this seems to be a case of mistaken identity and that it was correct to move the page. Since you are now the second editor to warn me of the referencing issues, I think it would be fairly careless to ask to restore it for an AfD discussion. I think this will be parked until I can find suitable references and then resubmit via AfC when sufficient coverage is available. The only final question I have is that the URL has been salted. I believe from the responses above this that it was to stop unauthorised creations of the page. My concern is that if it remains salted so its admins only, could it not stop reviewers in AfC from approving it as easily? The draft has also been removed, I do have it stored offline, would it be better for me to upload it again from scratch (to AfC) or for you to restore it? SaffronSettee (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I think your plan is a good one. My gut is sourcing can probably be found, and without the seven day pressure of an AfD, you or someone else can incubate it in draft and have it reviewed. With respect to the salting, I'm pinging @Robert McClenon & @Timtrent who are the most experienced AfC reviewers that I know, but I believe if they or anther AfC approve it, there's a tag that can be used to flag to admins that it can be unsalted. If neither of them sees this or is on line to weigh in, you can ask at the AfC Help desk to confirm. Either way, if an AfC reviewer approves and I'm online, happy to unsalt it when the time comes as this is simple enough that it doesn't need to go through DRV. Star Mississippi 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I hold paid editors to a very high standard indeed. That starts with their needing to hit the ground running, knowing all our policies and procedures. I do not give them advice. They are paid to know. I am not paid, so they cannot expect me to work towards their receiving a pay check. I am pretty sure @Robert McClenon holds similar views.

I don't care whether @SaffronSettee gets it refunded to their userspace or starts a new draft. It will be judged on its merits if and when submitted for review.

Thank you for the ping, I appreciate your confidence in me. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As User:Star Mississippi notes, there is a long history of spamming. User:SaffronSettee - Do you have any connection with GlobalPlatform? I will be very cautious in reviewing a draft, and will expect full disclosure. In view of the history, I cannot be optimistic without having seen the draft, and I probably will not be optimistic after seeing it and seeing the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I see a reference to mistaken identity. Please explain. In the absence of an explanation, that sounds like a handwave. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think that was in reference to a an alternate account conversation that happened. I think this is paid editing with a declared COI (see Saffron's user page), but haven't seen any evidence of socking and think User:Passman.Lu and others involved in 2019 creation were different people. Star Mississippi 16:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Again this wasn’t an attempt to circumvent any AfC checks or speed up the process. I should have triple checked the advice here and didn’t. As for the connection to GlobalPlatform, I was asked to help them with Wikipedia starting in 2021. To my knowledge, GlobalPlatform previously attempted to make edits themselves internally, so this could be the spamming you are referring to in 2019. I will go back to the drawing board with the draft to ensure the referencing issues are resolved and hopefully the draft is acceptable next time it is submitted.SaffronSettee (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This is healthy

At Talk:LetsRun.com you will see that Hatchens is unsure about the notability of the topic of the article. I am sure you will see that neither their nor my comments about the article in any way invalidate or criticise your acceptance. We are all single opinions. In some cases acceptance is an ideal way of letting the community decide. so I think you made the right call. If it goes to AfD I am unsure which side of the borderline I will come down on. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

History redux

Greetings. I started Draft:John Ray Skates. I am having trouble finding an obituary. Also, Catchings, Mississippi in Sharkey County seems to have been a locality and I see it noted in relation to a school district, health center, and even a Main Steeet but scant evidence of it seems to remain? What was it and what did it become? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging. Will put these on my to do. Skates is a fascinating story for sure. Star Mississippi 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We were both working on Skates. Yay I'm not sure where you are w/r/t being able to submit, but if you do I'll accept this. It's ready for mainspace. If you can't, I'll move it, but don't want you to lose credit. Star Mississippi 15:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
24		BBC News presentation (talk)	Add sources
37		John A. Quitman (talk)	Add sources
34		Bharatvarsh (TV series) (talk)	Add sources
46		Cahill Gordon & Reindel (talk)	Add sources
48		Goldspot (talk)	Add sources
7		Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (fictional farm) (talk)	Add sources
3,295		Reliance Industries (talk)	Cleanup
7		Archbishop Kavukatt Jubilee Memorial School (talk)	Cleanup
29		Cinema of Jharkhand (talk)	Cleanup
16		2007 in India (talk)	Expand
8		Public housing estates in Tai Po (talk)	Expand
1,881		Derek Chauvin (talk)	Expand
57		Nawada (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
55		BBC One 'Oneness' idents (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,848		2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
78		Art colony (talk)	Merge
1,332		Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (talk)	Merge
2,199		Rainbow flag (LGBT) (talk)	Merge
7		Institutional Renewal Party of National Action (talk)	Wikify
111		Mississippi Territory (talk)	Wikify
59		Supreme Court of New Jersey (talk)	Wikify
2		Helping Spot Organisation (talk)	Orphan
10		Bradley J. Bondi (talk)	Orphan
2		François Descostes (talk)	Orphan
27		Shyam Lal College (talk)	Stub
39		BBC Charter (talk)	Stub
11		Komalika Bari (talk)	Stub
2		Andrew Armstrong Kincannon (talk)	Stub
52		Reena Raggi (talk)	Stub
4		Joseph Neely Powers (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Giovanni Bonati (gymnast)

I was about to remove the speedy from Giovanni Bonati (gymnast) and add a message on the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Bonati (gymnast) there is not a prohibition from creating a redirect "This is not a prohibition on anyone else creating such a redirect if they care to - I just don't see a specific consensus for it here." Jeepday (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeepday. I just left a note at Lugnuts' Talk on this broader topic User_talk:Lugnuts#Gösta_Grandin. I don't think he should be the one creating these redirects due to his COI with respect to these stubs as well as his ban on creating short articles, which I'm not sure covers redirects. Happy to undelete for someone else's decision on it. Will do so momentarily. Star Mississippi 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:COI does not apply here, as Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. None of which applies to Lugnuts unless he's being paid by/is a family member of an Olympic medallist from 1908.... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Very true. I believe it's still a conflict of interest in the English language sense since he was the creator and voted against the consensus to create the redirects therefore he is not neutral as far as whether a redirect should exist. In some discussions, there is a consensus for redirect, there was not in this case and one other. Like everything else around NSPORTS, clear as mud. Star Mississippi 16:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Draftify

Hi, please note that if an article that is drafted and then contested by moving it back to mainspace the correct procedure is not to re-draft it but to take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you. I was not aware that was the case when it's only the creator who deems it ready for mainspace. I'll go revert my move if you haven't already. Thanks again. Star Mississippi 17:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI close

Please consider undoing your close at Special:Diff/1078644866. A thread should be allowed to run for more than 14 hours before someone decides that consensus will not develop; at least multiple days should be given for people to read and comment, as not everybody can read, think, and write about everything within 14 hours or even within one day. I was planning on commenting and probably supporting warnings, but not until I have time to look at it again closely later. Also, in any event, I see burgeoning consensus developing for a warning, so aside from the timing issue, I think you're substantive read of consensus is incorrect. Thanks, Levivich 19:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Done and converted to a note. Thanks for your request, always happy to have my decisions queried. Star Mississippi 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Luis Fernando Cifuentes Monje

Hello, Star Mississippi,

An editor tagged this page as a CSD G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Fernando Cifuentes as a "soft delete". Since this article can be restored upon request, I'm not sure how to treat this speedy deletion tagging. As a contested deletion? Should the original article be restored instead of this one? Wondering what your take on this is as the AFD closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz. I think it's fine to restore it as an expired PROD or relist since it just closed last week. I missed this before @JBW deleted it again at @Richard3120's tagging.

My concern is the creation at an alternate title, which I'm not sure but may have been an attempt at evading scrutiny since he requested the AfD tags be deleted. I personally think paid contributions (no outing, Juanma281984 has disclosed) should go through AfC. Thoughts on that? It was very sparsely attended, but I don't see evidence he passes WP:PROF. Star Mississippi 22:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with whatever the admins decide – if it needs to go through AfD again, so be it. I agree that the alternate title does look like evading the result of the last AfD – as you probably know, Hispanic people have both paternal and maternal surnames and that's what's being used here, but there's no evidence the subject commonly uses the second surname (most Hispanics don't bother with it except for formal documentation). Richard3120 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we can restore it to draft space under Luis Fernando Cifuentes per Common Name and lack of evidence as I similarly can't find anything under the full name. Ideally we can convey the AfC process as a route to mainspace. @Liz does that work for you? Thanks both Star Mississippi 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, whatever you decide is fine by me. It was just an unusual decision for an editor to go, recreating a very extensively referenced article after a soft delete instead of just asking for the article to be restored. Maybe they kept a copy in their sandbox? I guess it shows an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's deletion process which, admittedly, is pretty opaque for those who don't live and breathe Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. I'm going to try and walk the editor through it as best I can. I think/hope we can avoid an additional AfD. Thanks all Star Mississippi 01:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Shortcuts

You are using shortcuts without wikilinks. They are not english words. It is confusing. Please add the links. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuhin Sinha (2nd nomination) Venkat TL (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added them. It's ggenerally expected that those participating in AfD have enough familiarity with wiki speak to understand the shortcuts, or type them in and access the information if they're not. I'm bemused that you left plain text when chastizing me for same. Star Mississippi 18:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I noted the same immediately after I hit publish. I posted here out of concern. I had clicked on the canvas template and found that this subject of Afd is actively canvassing for votes. So I guess clueless folks hired by him would be coming to participate. Your link would be helpful. Thanks for agreeing to add the links. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics

Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks so much for the heads up @No Great Shaker. Do you know whether it will automatically appear in the Delsort gadgets or is that a question for the script maintainers? Star Mississippi 16:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it should do, but not entirely sure. Certainly the manual operation works without any problem. I'll keep a watch on it. Glad you think it will be useful, especially as there is an increasing volume of Olympic articles going to AfD now. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

J.J. Portman

Thanks for the block. I'm actually about to file an SPI/just ask a steward to globally lock as they're clearly a sock of this funny farm. CUPIDICAE💕 17:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome @Praxidicae. Thought I smelled something funny with those ridiculous summaries but couldn't recall the master. Assuming block will be taken over by CU/Steward, but feel free to ping if not and I need to upgrade to a regular indef. Star Mississippi 17:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the case is pretty old so it'll be hard to get anything definitive but I think the fact that they're creating the same nonsense hoaxes xwiki is good enough...that and they don't seem to be here for anything productive. CUPIDICAE💕 17:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Giuseepe Fago

I really find Lugnuts accusing me of nominating Giuseppe Fago for deletion as a "revenge" nomination an uncalled for attack on me. I am debating taking this to ANI. It is to me clearly part of a general pattern by some to try to abuse people who start AfDs into stopping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Johnpacklambert I am not going to take action as I could reasonably be considered Involved with respect to both of you. Lugnuts and I have some history (See #Poul_Nielson_AFD, above), as do you and I. I think any admin action I took would rightfully be questioned, and I'd like to avoid that step. I'm not familiar with your history with Lugnuts aside from frequently being on opposing sides of AfDs, so I couldn't begin to guess why he'd call this revenge. I would say that it appears you have a legit case, i.e. it wouldn't be a boomerang as this is definitely afoul of no personal attacks. Hope that's helpful. Star Mississippi 18:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It took me hours to know hoe to write on a talk page.I really want to say I'm sorry about how I responded.

I hope I get forgiven.

Thank you ma/sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebubechukwu1 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitsune in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Thank you for an WP:ATD-respecting closure. They're too rare these days. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome. We really need a better process for these ATDs rather than flooding AfD because merger discussions don't get eyeballs/traction. Not to imply any issue with the nom-it was fully justified when the redirect was contested, but so many of these, like the Olympic athletes, could be solved with an editorial consensus to redirect or merge. But there's no such venue. Star Mississippi 15:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
44		Ancestral Puebloan dwellings (talk)	Add sources
6		Rivalry in Dixie (talk)	Add sources
198		University of Southern Mississippi (talk)	Add sources
348		Eugène Ionesco (talk)	Add sources
3		Beyond the Valley... (talk)	Add sources
9		University of Waterloo Faculty of Environment (talk)	Add sources
360		Sunshower (talk)	Cleanup
12		The Fantastic Baggys (talk)	Cleanup
6		Ku Music Asian Music Awards (talk)	Cleanup
870		Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (talk)	Expand
8		Balgowlah Heights (talk)	Expand
26		Vba32 AntiVirus (talk)	Expand
1,679		Culture of the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
143		Megaforce (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
436		Typing (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2		Shahrud (river) (talk)	Merge
3		Zarjoob (talk)	Merge
26		Yan Jianyuan (talk)	Merge
23		John Jay Hooker (talk)	Wikify
9		Leo F. Rayfiel (talk)	Wikify
93		Neighborhoods of Milwaukee (talk)	Wikify
2		Dunbar-Hunter Expedition of 1804-1805 (talk)	Orphan
5		Cannonball Run Europe (talk)	Orphan
7		Ramani Moonesinghe (talk)	Orphan
5		Jack Reed (Mississippi politician) (talk)	Stub
2		Corrado Michelozzi (talk)	Stub
4		Emily Genauer (talk)	Stub
2		Formula 27 (talk)	Stub
3		Sierra Leone Cricket Association (talk)	Stub
2		Karkabud (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD decision regarding Tomás Matos

Hello, you are the admin who recently closed the deletion discussion for the article on Tomás Matos, stating the consensus was that we don't have "significant coverage" of the subject to warrant an article. I could see the article headed for deletion, but I do not believe the discussion which unfolded there was well-founded in our policies and guidelines, and i am contacting you to ask you to reconsider the deletion. Please consider the following:

• The last person to edit the deletion discussion indicated that two of the reference pages he tried to verify were on the New York Times and were paywalled to him-- this means, I think, that he did not actually read them, but still gave his own conclusions about what they must have contained. This makes it feel like articles from sources such as the New York Times end up taking a "hit" because some editors can't get access to them for free! Marking these as "paywalled"... what difference does that make? If none, why mention it? except to try to discredit the source? Or to admit ignorance but say you are going to judge anyway? I don't see what the purpose of that was and I don't understand how it adds to a deletion discussion. It would be great if you could help me out with that.
• In the NYT article which I have to assume, for paywall reasons, none of other reviewers actually read (did you get a chance to read it??) Mr. Matos is discussed directly and in detail. The guideline under WP:SIGCOV says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That is exactly what we have here. No, he was not the main subject. But he was one of FOUR subjects hand-chosen by the New York Times to be featured in that article, and each of those four people got several paragraphs of text that was just about them. When I saw that, I figured his notability was all but guaranteed. I am still stunned that people thought otherwise, because if they had read the Times article (?) they would surely have agreed that he is notable. If.
• The deletion discussion started off with some disorienting claims about the article being moved to draft space, then out of draft space without any sourcing being added. Yes, it was moved into draft space-- which, according to the guidelines about what kinds of articles should be moved into draft space, should never have been done. WP:DRAFTIFY lays this out pretty clearly. And so I read over that carefully and then decided to move it BACK into the mainspace... but not before adding two additional sources to it! No one cared.
• Another reviewer stated that the subject hadn't had enough of the kinds of roles on Broadway that we expect from performers per WP:CREATIVE. That statement is also true. But I tried to make clear that I wasn't trying to "sneak him in" under the terms of WP:CREATIVE, but was arguing that he already met the WP:GNG and that WP:CREATIVE had no bearing here at all. I made a statement about the role and purpose of the subject-specific notability criteria, and how that criteria aren't supposed to be used to EX-clude any articles at all. No one cared.
• The nominator ended his nomination with, "Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Tomás Matos from having to be the subject of quite a bit more than just one short blurb in a legitimate source." Once again, this is off the mark. I agree that there is nothing "inherently" notable about him: he is not a prince, he isn't a newly discovered species of insect, he doesn't hold a named chair at a university. But "one short blurb", a "blurb" that is ALL ABOUT YOU and which is featured in the NEW YORK TIMES, is maybe a pretty good sign that you are heading towards notability. Combine this with the other sources which discuss him in whatever degree of depth, and add to this the interview (it looks that was written off as well, "because it was an interview"-- I understand that interviews need to be handled carefully because their content is up to the interviewer and his/ her subject, but I don't think this means that the content of an interview is supposed to be discounted entirely just because it was an interview, yes? WP:INTERVIEWS) then a decision to delete based in a lack of significant coverage becomes rather difficult to sustain. The source materials talk about his age, his education, his career, his performances, his ethnicity, and his sexuality-- these are exactly the kinds of things we need for a Wikipedia article on him, and we have them, in multiple reliable published independent sources.

Which is why I am having some difficulty accepting the outcome of the discussion. I feel the facts of the article were presented incorrectly, that the wrong notability guidelines were applied to the subject, that other editors did not actually review the source materials cited, and that some valid sources and evidence of notability were dismissed for the wrong reasons. Each time I brought these things up, no one cared-- maybe they didn't want to respond because there was no defense. And if there was no defense, then it feels like the article maybe shouldn't have been deleted.

Please do not decide immediately how you are going to respond. Please take at least one day, please review all of the sources that were originally in the article, and then, without regard to anything I ever actually wrote about him, ask yourself, "Considering all of this, is it likely that this person is in fact notable? Even if he isn't the star of a Broadway show yet? Is there enough evidence to show that he is notable now? Do we have enough material to write up an article about him on Wikipedia? Is he being talked about?" I am certain that you will eventually agree that the answers to these questions is "yes", even if the community in its clumsy way said, "Nah."

...And when you've been interviewed by the New York Times.... The notability is real, even if it is behind a paywall. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your detailed note. I'm happy to take the time to review my close per your request, or just to re-open the decision and let it run longer. Let me know if you're good with the latter and I'll do so this evening, east coast time. I'm not a big fan of bureaucracy and happy for more input. Star Mississippi 21:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Tasnim Mir

Hi Star Mississippi. Hope you are keeping well. I observe you deleted this article after I got it restored after proving it meets Wikipedia guidelines for eligibility to main space. Request you to help me restore it or if you need to suggest anything. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gardenkur. I deleted this at the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasnim Mir (2nd nomination) (courtesy @Hatchens as nominatior). Because it was a discussion, I can't unilaterally restore it to mainspace. However as I noted in the discussion, I'm happy to draftify it for you or others to work on. You'll find it momentarily at Draft:Tasnim Mir, where you can work on it. Sourcing needs to be a little better for it to survive in mainspace. Happy to answer any further questions tomorrow as I'm about to log off for the evening. Star Mississippi 02:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi. Iam really thankful for your prompt reply and response. Will surely do as you suggested and will update you before moving to main space. Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome

Please let me know if I can help in any other way on this or another article. Star Mississippi 01:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oopsie

Oh no no, this message wasn't meant for you but rather for the user himself. xD This is the first time this person is on the English Wikipedia, but he was on the Turkish Wikipedia in early February with a different account, where he also tried to create a promotional article about the same company: tr:Kullanıcı:Muratislek. When I CSD'ed that there I received a Telegram message (I'm in the TG group of trwiki so it's not difficult to find me), where he claims that I violated the Turkish copyright law (which also illegalizes the "harming of a companys assets") by adding the CSD tag, and told me that he had reported me to the Presidency of Turkey via CİMER with screenshots and all. :D CİMER is where residents of Turkey can directly send their complaints to the presidency, and by law they have to respond within 30 days. Since his complaint has been way past 30 days by now, I really wonder what their response was. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the context. I seem to have acquired a few "fans" lately. Hope this one doesn't stay too active on en wiki, but let me know if I can help at all. Star Mississippi 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI as a way to bludgeon people

ANI is now being used to attack me for editing an article because of the extremely broad nature of the topic ban that has no been in place on me since September of last year, with no really good explanation of why it is so incredibly broad, including a "broadly construed" clause that invites this type of extremely ANI bringing up, and no good explanation as to why it still needs to be in place at all. I wish there was a way to get it at least re-written so it was not so overly restrictive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I was offline but it seems as if the immediate situation was resolved.

If you believe you're capable of editing non LDS religious figures, you're welcome to proactively appeal it since it has been six months. I have not followed your edits nor have we particularly interacted outside of the sports AFDs, so I don't know that I would take a position. I supported you being unblocked and don't have an issue with your conduct otherwise, but I do not know whether you can neutrally edit religious figures. Star Mississippi 01:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How would I go about filing such an appeal?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I believe WP:AN would be the venue. Pinging @Ritchie333 as he closed the topic ban to see if he has a different opinion. Star Mississippi 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I only closed the thread to enact the topic ban because that's what the consensus of editors who expressed views there wanted. I don't have any personal opinion, which is the correct position for administrators. If you want to appeal the ban, then it should be at AN, explaining why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have made it clear. It was the venue opinion I was asking about, not your personal on the topic ban. Nuances of AN/I sometimes escape me and wanted to confirm I was steering JPL in the correct direction. Star Mississippi 15:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Coincidance close

Hello there. No offense intended, but I really don't agree with your recent AFD close. I don't think you weighed the validity of the arguments very well - there was a pretty good breakdown on how the sources presented weren't reliable. Additionally, after the first relist, the only responses were two more valid delete !votes.

Anyways, I believe common courtesy is to ask for another relist before taking it to WP:DRV. So I wanted to throw that out there and see what you'd say before proceeding with that. Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My bad, didn't see that someone had already expressed similar concerns when I sent my message below. But yeah---probably the wrong call made here, and I think we will and are entitled to slip up once or twice every 13 years :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries, the page history shows we were just minutes apart, so it's very possible when you started writing your comment, mine wasn't even here yet. Regardless, I appreciate you saying something too. I don't contest AFDs often, so it's reassuring to see someone else have the same stance on this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Coincidance

I am perplexed as to why you'd close it as a "no consensus", when the only Keep !votes were by the creator and another person who said it was a popular song. I respect your decision but thought I'd get some clarification coz I certainly don't see there being "no consensus", IMO it's a straightforward delete based on the discussion. In any case I will be submitting this for review. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your notes @Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73: and always happy to discuss my closes. The funniest thing is when I saw this on my alerts I assumed it was going to be re: a coincidence, as I'd e/c'ed earlier today in declining an AfC submission. While I don't see a consensus, I definitely don't think my closes are perfect/not attached to then and happy to get more input on this and happy for someone else to close it as a delete, if they also see it that way. I'll relist it to get it back on the logs as I'm not sure how to do so otherwise. Will leave a note that it doesn't need a further seven days. Going to be offline for a few days, so if this needs further attention - take this as my blessing/consent to ping another admin or get eyes on it elsewhere. I'm not one who edits from their phone and will check back in when I'm back. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 02:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC) and reping in the event you're not watching @Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73:

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Likewise I appreciated your note. Just saw your response to @Kingoflettuce above. Happy at any time to discuss a close. So feel free, and I'd hope most others would be open to it. None of us editors is perfect. Lettuce, does my timer reset now before I can oops again? :D Star Mississippi 02:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Just my two cents. I strongly agree with Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73. One "keep" vote who created the article failed to prove that it meets WP:GNG by indicating sources and the other "keep" vote only stated WP:POPULARITY. Therefore, I see a strong consensus to delete the article. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho

Hello Star Mississippi. I created this article about Meesho today not knowing that it was previously deleted. So it now has a speedy deletion notice. But on reading the AfD discussion, it felt less like a discussion and more like a source denial spree. All existing sources were deemed unreliable or "not in-depth" and based on that, I don't know if reliable sources even do exist in any of the small articles in Wikipedia. Can you rather give me an example of an 'Indian' reliable source so that I can compare it with a source from my article for better understanding? Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Excellenc1 and thanks @DMySon for helping on this while I was offline. I'm happy to restore this in draft space on the condition it goes through AfC or DRV for a review, otherwise I think it will just be deleted again since consensus was the sourcing wasn't enough. If that's OK by you, I'm happy to restore it to draft. Let me know your thoughts. Star Mississippi 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to the drafting conditions, as there is a scope of more reliable sources on it coming in the future. Like now Meesho rebranding its grocery app is on the news. Thank you, Star Mississippi. Excellenc1 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
36		Clyde Kennard (talk)	Add sources
12		University of Waterloo School of Optometry and Vision Science (talk)	Add sources
98		Southern Miss Golden Eagles football (talk)	Add sources
69		Play with Fire (Rolling Stones song) (talk)	Add sources
5		University of Waterloo Faculty of Health (talk)	Add sources
59		The Mother's International School, New Delhi (talk)	Add sources
189		Hogan Lovells (talk)	Cleanup
31		Fashion tourism (talk)	Cleanup
38		St. Xavier's Senior Secondary School, Delhi (talk)	Cleanup
13,712		Z (military symbol) (talk)	Expand
3		Japanese Thirteenth Area Army (talk)	Expand
7		University of Waterloo Conrad School of Entrepreneurship and Business (talk)	Expand
8		Sacchetti family (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
158		Ivy League (clothes) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
75		Modern primitive (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,778		MindGeek (talk)	Merge
64		Samma dynasty (talk)	Merge
950		Simulation hypothesis (talk)	Merge
14		Klaus Heymann (talk)	Wikify
90		Reed Smith (talk)	Wikify
41		The Lillingtons (talk)	Wikify
7		Prince Julius Adewale Adelusi-Adeluyi (talk)	Orphan
3		Mackenzie King Village (talk)	Orphan
44		Tunde Folawiyo (talk)	Orphan
3		Mario Balassi (talk)	Stub
6		Gerald Hagey (talk)	Stub
30		Camp Clinton (talk)	Stub
7		University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy (talk)	Stub
28		University of Sudbury (talk)	Stub
3		Luca Bati (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty Commission

This entry seems strange to me. I'm not seeing where the politicians who led and funded the commission are named? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)