User talk:Sdrqaz

My filing cabinets: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7

Speedy Deletion!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello my name is BloxyColaSweet! I have been strolling on both user and talk page. They are interesting but they arent very notable! But they are notable for a deletion, regards. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BloxyColaSweet, I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying. User and talk pages don't need to be notable; only articles need to be notable. I'm also not sure what "notable for a deletion" means. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz Hello again! This is very notable for deletion for user notices, often needs to be 'not here'. If you are very confused about SDN (Speedy Deletion Notices) you can go to my talk page or go see SpeedyDeletionNotice! (SDN). BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm getting increasingly confused. I would like to think my grasp of the speedy deletion policy is reasonable and I still have no idea what "very notable for deletion" means (your subpage did not clear anything up). As an aside, your user page is highly misleading, as you do not have any of the four permissions you claim to have in your top-icons. Please remove them. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello my name is BloxyColaSweet! I have been strolling on both user and talk page. They are interesting but they arent very notable! But they are notable for a deletion, regards. I noticed that you replied an answer of a excuse that both user page and talk page are "Very Notable" I would say its not notable, the fact that there are so many DDCs, DDCs make User pages and Talk pages not notable dude to their policies. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're making very little sense: this conversation is going 'round in circles. I did not "repl[y] an answer of a excuse that both user page and talk page are 'Very Notable'". I advise you to focus on building an encyclopedia instead of making strange statements on policy, and perhaps (if applicable) contribute to another project in your first language because others are having difficulty communicating with you here. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello We still need the SDN, we understand that you are really notable! if you are not notable please enter your username on this Wikipedia page in this link called SDN_code:_VeryNotable! and on the lists on notable users. HOWEVER, If you do not put it you are not very notable and notable for SDN speedy deleton! BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK for The Man Who Died Twice (novel)

On 4 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Man Who Died Twice (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a reviewer said that Richard Osman's The Man Who Died Twice has "more holes than a dodgy knitting pattern" but he "enjoyed every minute"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Man Who Died Twice (novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Man Who Died Twice (novel)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Neal Ludevig

Hi Sdrqaz,

I noticed that the article that I created for Neal Ludevig was deleted, however I'm confused as to why. I understand it was deleted earlier, but its been substantial time since then and he's been in the press and public eye quite a bit since then.

In addition to the material that was relevant (him as a producer and curator, which was covered substantially), since the creation and deletion of the last article, he was in a number of other places. The main argument earlier seemed to be that him being a producer and curator of large events wasn't enough (despite their large coverage), but now it seems he's been interviewed all over the place - Nasdaq, numerous podcasts and news stations...doesn't this justify this article being reviewed again?

Let me know the process here to open this up. It definitely feels like it merits a review, especially considering this text seems pretty different from previous articles.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiztorybuph (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Neal Ludevig. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hiztorybuph (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Hiztorybuph. The G4 speedy deletion criterion is generally used to eliminate the need for another week-long discussion when not much has changed since the last one. If I remember correctly (I can't access the deleted article because I'm not an administrator), there was only one new event/source in the recreated article since the last discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Ludevig) and I couldn't find much online either; I didn't feel that made it "not substantially identical to the deleted version" or that it meant "the reason for the deletion no longer applies". I was going to suggest speaking to the deleting administrator or, failing that, to file a report at deletion review, but I see you've done that already. Good luck. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdrqaz. Thanks for getting back, well I was adding more (didn't finish it before seeing it was deleted), but there were a number of new pieces and interviews this individual has done, a lot of which can be found on his website (www.nealludevig.com/media) - an article in Nasdaq (https://thecenter.nasdaq.org/foe-neal-ludevig-moon31/), plus at least 3 new podcast interviews (https://thamarrahjones.com/3-curating-experiences-that-create-systemic-change-with-neal-ludevig-he-him/ & https://ktvz.com/videos/local-videos/2020/10/18/funeral-held-for-south-sister-glacier/ & https://open.spotify.com/show/6K1uftYctBGR3uW11FcYlA & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obUPnvvYn4M - those are just a few). So I was a bit confused there but... I'm basically trying to do exactly what you mentioned but I'm newer to the platform and was hoping to start with an article, but the process of refuting it, I could use some help. Does this help clarify a bit more on this front and some of the new stuff? Alternatively I could recreate the article with all of this, but thought it should be a combination.

Anyway, and thoughts help quite a bit! Hiztorybuph (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't rate your chances at the deletion review, Hiztorybuph. Wikipedia has a bit of a strange relationship with interviews: there's general agreement that while interviews can be good for uncontroversial statements by the subject, they're not so useful when trying to determine notability. Pretty much all of these sources you've given me involve the subject talking about himself at length, with minimal actual reporting on the individual by someone else (independent sourcing). One of the interviews was 17 seconds long and spoke about his opinions on why a glacier "funeral" was important, but didn't say anything about him apart from the fact he attended. I think more in-depth sourcing ("significant coverage" in Wikipedia parlance) is needed. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Niz-Chavez v. Garland

On 6 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Niz-Chavez v. Garland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a U.S. Supreme Court case had "odd bedfellows"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Niz-Chavez v. Garland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Niz-Chavez v. Garland), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Response Filmone Article

I have made some explanations regarding the page u tagged for deletion and I believe the page has met the criteria for notability. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Uncle Bash007. I have reverted myself on that page, as I believe the Variety source should be enough to prevent speedy deletion. Sorry about that: I should have been more careful checking that page. However, I am not personally convinced that the subject is notable, but it should go through the Articles for Deletion process again before being deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to my comment

There is absolutely no reason to leave such an obvious case to an administrator. Unless you want users indefinitely blocked for copyvio to have advanced privileges? See here if you want precedent that administrator status is not required to decline an obvious case.Polyamorph (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your ping was enough to get my attention, thank you. I never advocated for "users indefinitely blocked for copyvio to have advanced privileges". While Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I would rather that it were administrators making decisions at the permissions noticeboard. Although we as non-administrators have the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn, ultimately the decision on whether to grant a permission comes down to the reviewing administrator. DanCherek had already noted the partial block, and any administrator worth their salt would have looked at their block log before granting a permission. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unnecessary bureaucracy to remove my close of a blocked user's request, resulting in an administrator immediately reclosing. Commonsense should prevail in these cases. In general if an admin action is required then an admin should close such requests. But in this case no admin action was required. Only very recently an admin explicitly suggested I close a very similar clear cut case. Polyamorph (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we've reached the point where we need to agree to disagree. I am wary of a slippery slope, where some non-administrators effectively act as gatekeepers for some permissions that do not require gatekeeping (ie "pure" PERM requests, unlike discussions at the edit filter noticeboard and bureaucrats' noticeboard). There is already one permission on that noticeboard that receives scrutiny from a non-administrator that is out of proportion to its stature. I agree with Giraffer, who said: "If you aren't in a position to grant the request you aren't in a position to decline it." You disagree, and that's fine. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in to note that I didn't have any issue with Polyamorph's original declaration of not done, but also felt that reinstating it, as opposed to just signing off on it myself, would have created unnecessary drama for what is really a routine bureaucratic task. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective; I appreciate it. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What is subvariety used for?

Hello, is subvariety used to classify plants geographically like variety? if so or not, please show me a well-explained example! thank you!

BloxyColaSweet (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't edit in the area of plants and don't really know. However, the editors who edit in this area have made responses here and here that are probably correct. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

CSD G5s

Hello, Sdrqaz,

I saw your comment at پارسا_آملی's SPI case. CSD G5 is for block evasion and, for me and other administrators, we need to see that there is a real connection between an editor suspected of sockpuppetry and the sockmaster and that the alleged sockpuppet's account was created after the sockmaster was blocked. We have some editors who tag an editor's page creations as soon as they are reported at SPI and that is not acceptable. Suspicion is not confirmation. We also have some editors who tag any page that the alleged sockpuppet created, regardless of other editors' contributions to the article. There is a lot of misunderstanding about CSD G5 and some editors, to me, act with unusual eagerness to delete an alleged sockpuppet's page creations as soon as there are suspicions about them. You'll find long discussions about CSD G5 on my talk page as we try to sort out when it is appropriate and when it isn't (and discussion involved a checkuser).

I don't think there is a need to rush and pages should be evaluated to see if the tagging and deletion are appropriate. Page deletion is a serious act to take against an editor and I need to see proof that it is justified before deleting articles an editor created. We used to have admins who would just delete any page with a CSD tag on it without looking it over but they aren't admins any more and I think you'll find other admins who are just as cautious as I am.

But if you disagree with me, you're right, this issue might warrant a discussion at WP:CSD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz, sorry for the late reply. I'm aware of the long-standing debate over G5, with some of our longest-serving administrators being ambivalent or opposing it (User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Feb § About banned users and the banning policy is an interesting read, even if it was over nine years ago, before I began editing). I tagged those pages before they were blocked on the English Wikipedia mainly because, as I noted in my filing, they were already blocked on the Farsi Wikipedia (see Special:CentralAuth/Volleysp470) as a CheckUser action – fa:الگو:قطع دسترسی بازرسی کاربر is their equivalent of our {{CheckUser block}}. Of course, while other projects are not strictly analogous to ours, I thought a CheckUser block would be more than enough evidence that there was a link between the sockmaster and the sockpuppet ({{db-banned}} does have a link to the SPI, so I thought the reviewing administrator would have a look).

I understand, however, from reading the G5-related discussions on your talk page, that you're wary of deleting G5s when the sockpuppet isn't blocked yet, which is fair enough. I agree there's no rush with most CSDs; I recently had a disagreement with another editor over the speed and accuracy of one of their taggings. As a self-appointed CSD regular, I too am wary of unnecessary CSD deletions: I would argue that there are still some administrators that practise an understanding of the policy that is out of sync with the actual text of the criteria, and I have tried to remove CSD tags where I believe that they are inappropriate. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Mount Washington Valley SPIRIT

Hi there! There was a lot of information in your response to my submission for Mount Washington Valley SPIRIT, and I don't understand it all. I was hoping you could simplify everything for me.

I created the page as the team has been around for 13 years and has worked alongside the ghost hunters and ghost hunters international television shows. It has continually gained popularity over the years. We are research field leaders and share our experience and knowledge though our blog and podcast at no cost to anyone. We don't even have a patreon page.

The group has no finances and any expenses are covered by me out of pocket. I don't even accept donations. There isn't a financial conflict of interest involved.

There isn't anyone more qualified to write an article about the group than me.

I have several learning disabilities so going through a bunch of links for information isn't feasible for me so I was hoping that you could simplify things.

I spent a dozen hours putting together that article as my learning disabilities make it difficult for me to read.

Could you please simplify what i need to do to get it published. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricExtreme47 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Eric. I'll be happy to simplify what I've written on your talk page. The purpose of my message was to let you know about our conflict of interest guideline and that the article you had written was moved into draft. While a lot of what you're saying about the group is admirable, it doesn't seem notable from what I can see (organisations need to be notable to be eligible for a Wikipedia article). That's because there doesn't seem to have been any independent sources covering the subject. All of the sources in the page are from the group's website, and I can only find mentions of the group from either its website or podcast episodes online. That's unfortunately not enough, as podcasts aren't considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josef_Yohannes

Submitted the draft for review. Thank You Lynne Thornton (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)